[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2284-2285]
[FR Doc No: 2012-703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3297-001.
    Applicants: Powerex Corporation.
    Description: Powerex Corporation submits Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 1/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120105-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-233-00.1
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing of Amended and Restated
Wholesale Power Contract to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-367-001.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to Pleading, or, In the Alternative, Motion
to Correct Filing, and Request for Clarification of National Grid USA.
    Filed Date: 1/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120104-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/25/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-458-000.
    Applicants: Quantum Choctaw Power, LLC.
    Description: Quantum Choctaw Power, LLC submits tariff filing per:
SUPPLEMENT TO MBR APPLICATION to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-636-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment to Quality Review Filing in Docket No. ER12-636 to
be effective 2/18/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-766-000.
    Applicants: Black Creek Hydro Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Black Creek Hydro, Inc. for
market base rate and power sale agreements.
    Filed Date: 1/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120105-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-767-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): MBR revision 2012.01.06 to be effective 1/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-768-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Evangeline LLC.
    Description: Cleco Evangeline LLC submits tariff filing per 35: MBR
revision 2012.01.06 to be effective 1/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-769-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PNM Rate Schedule 168 to be effective 3/6/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-770-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): DEI Cert. of Concurrence to
be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-772-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Noble Americas Energy Solutions NITSA Rev 4 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-773-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amendments to Schedule 12-Appendix re RTEP approved
by the PJM Board 12/7/2011 to be effective 4/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-773-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Correction of Transmittal Letter of PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-774-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 01-06-12 Attachment MM-GRE
to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-775-000.
    Applicants: CPV Cimarron Renewable Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: CPV Cimarron Renewable Energy Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.12: Initial MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 3/7/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-776-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.15: Niagara Mohawk Notice of Termination of Nine
Mile EPC Agreement to be effective 9/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-777-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWE (Hampton) 2012 NITSA Filing to be effective 1/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 1/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20120106-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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
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: January 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-703 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11965-11969]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4773]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0021; FRL-8865-3]

Peroxyacetic Acid; Amendment to an Exemption From the Requirement
of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the existing tolerance exemption for
peroxyacetic acid by establishing an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide peroxyacetic acid
(PAA) and its metabolites and degradates, including hydrogen peroxide
(HP) and acetic acid (AA), in or on all food commodities, when PAA is
used as a biochemical pesticide in accordance with good agricultural
practices. BioSafe Systems, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting that EPA amend
the existing PAA tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of PAA under
the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 4, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 3, 2011, 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-2008-0021. 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 Office of Pesticide Programs (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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Greene, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 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:
     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 provides
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 get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2008-0021 in the subject line on

the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a
hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk
on or before May 3, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of
objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0021, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of February 13, 2008 (73 FR 8311) (FRL-
8349-5), 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 tolerance
petition (PP 7F7262) by BioSafe Systems, LLC, 22 Meadow Street, East
Hartford, CT 06108. The petition proposed to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical
pesticide, peroxyacetic acid in or on all agricultural commodities when
used as a biochemical pesticide. This notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by the petitioner, BioSafe Systems, LLC, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption 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 * * *.'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires
that EPA consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of [a particular pesticide's] residues and other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Section 408(a)(3) of FFDCA states that residues of metabolites or
degradates of pesticide chemicals ``shall not be considered to be
unsafe * * * despite the lack of a tolerance or exemption from the need
for a tolerance for such residue in or on such food'' if three
conditions are met. First, the Agency must not have determined that the
degradation product ``is likely to pose any potential health risk from
dietary exposure that is of a different type than, or of a greater
significance than, any risk posed by dietary exposure to the precursor
substance''. Second, for purposes of this action, an exemption exists
for residues of the precursor substance. Third, again for purposes of
this action, the exemption for residues of the precursor substance does
not expressly exclude residues of the metabolites or degradates.
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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.

A. Overview

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend the existing tolerance
exemption for PAA to allow for residues of PAA and its metabolites and
degradates, including HP and AA in or on all food commodities, when
such residues result from its use as a biochemical pesticide in
accordance with good agricultural practices. At high concentrations,
PAA is a highly corrosive, colorless, organic compound that is formed,
and only exists in equilibrium, with hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid.
The current exemptions for residues of PAA allow application of PAA,
after dilution to specific concentrations in parts per million (ppm),
as an antimicrobial treatment to fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, cereal
grains, herbs, spices, and as a sanitizing solution to tableware,
utensils, dishes, pipelines, tanks, vats, fillers, evaporators,
pasteurizers, aseptic equipment, milking equipment, and food processing
equipment in food handling establishments. (40 CFR 180.1196).

B. Toxicity of PAA

    1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity data and information submitted to
support the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
peroxyacetic acid were conducted on the technical blend of peroxyacetic
acid, acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. PAA is always sold in solution
with AA and HP to maintain stability of the chemical. Further, all
three active ingredients have an identical mode of action as strong
oxidizing agents that disrupt cell membranes because of the low ph.
This information confirms the toxicity profile of peroxyacetic acid,
acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. The results of the toxicology
studies as conducted on the technical blend are reported in the table
of Unit III.B.1.

                    Table--Toxicology Studies Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Study type                          Study results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute oral toxicity...............  The acute oral median LD50 = 3,622
                                     milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) for
                                     male and female rats given a
                                     solution containing 5.6% PAA, 26.9%
                                     H2O2, and 7.6% HOAc. This technical
                                     blend is Toxicity category III for
                                     acute oral toxicity. (Master Record
                                     Identification Number [MRID No.]
                                     47237802, Ref. 1). (ECETOC, Ref.
                                     2).
Acute dermal toxicity.............  The acute dermal LD50 = 1,040 mg/kg
                                     (Tox category II) for female
                                     rabbits after a 24-hr semi-
                                     occlusive exposure to a solution
                                     containing 4.89% PAA, 19.72% H2O2,
                                     and 10% HOAc. (Ref. 1 and 2).
Acute inhalation toxicity.........  The acute inhalation median LC50 >
                                     5.35 mg/L for male and female rats
                                     exposed for 4 hr to aerosol of
                                     solution containing 4.5% PAA, 27%
                                     H2O2, and 16.7% HOAc. (Ref. 1 and
                                     2).
Primary eye irritation............  Due to pH of 0.82 for 2.0% solution
                                     and pH 0.82 for 5.0% solution, PAA
                                     is assumed to be a severe irritant;
                                     >= 0.2% PAA was severely irritating
                                     or corrosive to the eye, 0.15% was
                                     mildly irritating to the rabbit
                                     eye, and 0.034% caused very slight
                                     irritation. (Ref. 1 and 2).
Primary dermal irritation.........  Due to pH of 0.82 for 2.0% solution
                                     and pH 0.82 for 5.0% solution, PAA
                                     is assumed to be a severe irritant.
                                     (Ref. 1 and 2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Subchronic toxicity. Based on its acute toxicity profile, use
pattern and biodegradation properties, rapid degradation half lives for
degradates, residues of PAA and its degradates, including AA and HP,
are not expected to result in significant dietary exposure beyond the
levels expected in background dietary exposures. Nonetheless,
information from the open scientific literature to address the
subchronic oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity guidelines testing,
satisfied the data requirements for subchronic toxicity and indicated
that PAA and its degradates have no subchronic toxicological effect.

C. Degradates of PAA

    PAA degrades rapidly to AA and HP, and HP further degrades to water
and oxygen; therefore, the final degradation products of PAA are AA,
water, and oxygen. As stated in Unit II., section 408(a)(3) allows
degradates of precursor substances to be covered by the exemption for
the precursor substance as long as, inter alia, the Administrator has
not determined that the degradation product ``is likely to pose any
potential health risk from dietary exposure that is of a different type
than, or of a greater significance than, any risk posed by dietary
exposure to the precursor substance''. For PAA and its degradates AA
and HP, EPA has made no such determination. The following discussion
summarizes the Agency's previous assessments of AA and HP.
    1. Acetic acid. AA is a substance found in most plants and animals,
including primates and humans, and is naturally produced during the
fermentation process in a wide range of foods. Furthermore, AA has a
long history of use as a food additive, is the main acid in vinegar,
and is found in wine, beer, and similarly brewed beverages and
fermented food items (e.g., sauerkraut). The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) classifies AA as Generally Recognized as Safe
(GRAS) as a direct food substance (21 CFR 184.1005) and as a general
purpose food additive (21 CFR 582.1005). Furthermore, information from
the open literature indicates that AA has little or no toxicity from an
acute oral perspective (toxicity category III; median lethal dose
(LD50) = 3,310 mg/kg). Data also indicate that AA has no
subchronic, developmental, or mutagenic toxicological effects. (Ref.
3).
    2. Hydrogen peroxide. Previously, EPA assessed HP for potential
risks to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and
concluded that, since HP itself degrades rapidly into oxygen and water,
residues of a solution that contains 1% HP are not expected to remain
in or on food. Hydrogen peroxide is listed by the FDA as GRAS.
Additionally, hydrogen peroxide is used to treat food at a maximum
level of 0.05% in milk used in cheesemaking, 0.04% in whey, 0.15% in
starch and corn syrup, and 1.25% in emulsifiers containing fatty acid
esters as bleaching agents (21 CFR 184.1366). As a GRAS substance,
hydrogen peroxide may be used in washing or to assist in the lye
peeling of fruits and vegetables (21 CFR 173.315). The information from
open literature demonstrated that solutions containing 6% hydrogen
peroxide have an acute oral LD50 >/= 5,000 mg/kg in rats
(toxicity category III), an acute dermal LD50 >/= 10,000 mg/
kg in rabbits (toxicity category IV), and an inhalation LC50
of 4 milligram/liter (mg/L) (toxicity category IV). The 6% hydrogen
peroxide solutions are mild irritants to rabbit skin and cause severe
irreversible corneal injury in half of the exposed rabbits (toxicity
category I). Toxicology information from open literature demonstrated
that solutions which contained 50% hydrogen peroxide have an acute oral
LD50 < 500 mg/kg in rats (toxicity category II), and an
acute dermal LD50 < 1,000 mg/kg in rabbits (toxicity
category II). No deaths resulted after an 8-hour exposure of rats to
saturated vapors of 90% hydrogen peroxide, LC50 = 4 mg/L
(2,000 ppm). Solutions which contain 50% hydrogen peroxide also are
extremely irritating (corrosive) to rabbit eyes (toxicity category I).
EPA has concluded that for food use at an application rate of 1%,
hydrogen peroxide has no apparent acute toxicity and subchronic
toxicity end points exist to suggest a significant toxicity. An RfD
(chronic toxicity) for hydrogen peroxide has not been estimated because
of its short half-life in the environment and lack of any residues of
toxicological concern. (Ref. 4).

IV. Aggregate Exposure

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    Dietary exposure to residues of PAA and its degradate components,
AA and HP, are expected to be virtually nonexistent at the time of
consumption. Even in the event of unlikely exposure, the information
supporting this tolerance exemption demonstrates that any dietary risks
would be negligible.
    1. Food. When used as a soil treatment, the Agency does not expect
there to be any residues of PAA or its degradates because PAA breaks
down rapidly on contact with soil, which precludes uptake of PAA by
plants. The rate of degradation can be affected by the concentration of
PAA in a solution and environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and
pH of the environment

in which the PAA is applied), but the Agency expects that PAA, when
used as a biochemical pesticide for applications to soil or foliage or
greenhouse structures, will likely degrade within 24 hours following
application. This is because good agricultural practices generally
require a soil pH of 5 to 7, at which level PAA degrades in less than
24 hours. Regardless of the time required for PAA to break down, the
use of this biochemical pesticide as a pre-plant soil treatment would
occur before any food crops would be present, and degradation would
prevent uptake by plants; thus, no residues are expected from use as a
soil treatment to sterilize the soil and kill pathogens in soils.
    When used to treat plants directly, the Agency anticipates that PAA
will be applied to the plant at concentrations that will not cause
damage to the plant. At such concentrations, the Agency expects PAA to
degrade within 24 hours into AA, oxygen, and water because PAA begins
to degrade immediately upon contact with organic matter. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that there will be little to no exposure to PAA
from direct treatment of plants.
    2. Drinking water exposure. The Agency expects there to be little
to no exposure of humans to PAA and its degradates in drinking water
since PAA degrades quickly in water, i.e., within 24 hours, especially
water bodies with neutral or alkaline pH levels, into AA, oxygen, and
water. In the event that residues of the degradates are present, the
levels of the degradates do not present a risk concern based on the
foreseeable rates at which PAA is likely to be applied.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Non-occupational exposure is not expected since PAA rapidly
degrades and is non-persistent in the environment.

V. 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, EPA 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 peroxyacetic acid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and peroxyacetic acid does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite as its mode of action against the
target pests. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that peroxyacetic acid 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 Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    1. U.S. population. Based on the lack of exposure to much, if any,
PAA and its metabolites and degradates, including HP and AA, the Agency
has concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to PAA and its metabolites and degradates,
including HP and AA. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that
EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (MOE) for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base
on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE
will be safe for children. MOEs, which are often referred to as
uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated into EPA risk
assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE analysis or by
using uncertainty factors in calculating a dose level that poses no
appreciable risk. Because there are no threshold effects of concern to
infants, children, and adults from PAA and its metabolites or
degradates, including HP and AA, the Agency concludes that the
additional MOE is not necessary to protect infants and children and
that removing the FQPA safety factor will be safe for infants and
children.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for peroxyacetic acid.

VIII. Conclusions

    EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to residues of peroxyacetic acid and its
metabolites and degradates, including AA and HP. Therefore, the
existing tolerance exemption for PAA is amended to establish a
tolerance exemption for residues of the biochemical pesticide,
peroxyacetic acid, in or on all food commodities, when used in
accordance with good agricultural practices.

IX. References

1. Mileson, B.E. 2007. Biochemical Pesticide Data Required for
Zerotol 2.0. Submitted by BioSafeSystems LLC. MRID 472378002.
2. ECETOC, 2001. Peroxyacetic Acid (CAS No. 79-21-0) and its
Equilibrium Solutions. Joint Assessment of Commodity Chemicals, JACC
No 40. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of
Chemicals. Brussels, pp. 27-32. January 2001.
3. Environmental Protection Agency. [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0561; FRL-8833-
8]. Acetic Acid: Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance.
Final Rule; 75 FR 40736, July 14, 2010.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. [OPP-2002-0042; FRL-6835-3].
Hydrogen Peroxide; An amendment to an Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance; Technical Correction. Final Rule; Technical
Correction; 67 FR 41844, June 20, 2002; Corrected 67 FR 9214,
February 28, 2002, FRL-6822-7.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to EPA. 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
exemption 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. As a result, this
action does not 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, EPA 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, EPA 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) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA 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).

XI. 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: February 17, 2011.
Keith A. Matthews,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    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. In Sec.  180.1196, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1196  Peroxyacetic acid; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *
    (c) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established
for residues of the biochemical pesticide peroxyacetic acid and its
metabolites and degradates, including hydrogen peroxide and acetic
acid, in or on all food commodities, when used in accordance with good
agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2011-4773 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28770-28772]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0223]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Zimovia Strait, Wrangell, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special
local regulation to enable vessel movement restrictions for certain
waters of the Zimovia Strait. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on these navigable waters near Wrangell Harbor
during power boat races on July 4, 2017. This regulation would prohibit
persons and vessels from transiting through, mooring, or anchoring
within the specified race area unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Southeast Alaska or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 3 p.m. on July 4, 2017 through 7
p.m. on July 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0223 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LT Kristi Sloane, Sector Juneau, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. The
Wrangell Chamber of Commerce will be conducting power boat races from 3
p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017 for the Wrangell 4th of July
Celebration. The boat races will be taking place approximately 100
yards off of the city dock in Wrangell, AK. The event organizers did
not finalize the location of the power boat races in sufficient time
for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be impracticable for the reasons described
above.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1233. The Commander, Seventeenth District has determined that potential
risks of collision, allision, and wake damage associated with power
boat racing will be a safety concern for any vessels (other than the
participants) entering the race course. Boat races typically result in
vessel and spectator congestion in the proximity of the race course.
Vessel movement restrictions are necessary to ensure spectators remain
an adequate distance from the specified race area thereby providing
unencumbered access for emergency response craft in the event of a
race-related emergency. This rule establishes a specified race area and
ensurse the safety of this marine event by prohibiting persons and
vessel operators from entering, transiting or remaining within the
designated race zone during times of enforcement.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation to restrict vessel
movement within the race area from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017 to
include Wrangell Harbor entrance and an area extending north along the
shoreline approximately 600 yards. No vessel or person would be
permitted to enter the special local regulation without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') 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 including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
E.O.13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''), directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the proposed race
area which would impact a small designated area in Wrangell Harbor for
4 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the race area, and the rule
would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the race area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
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
race area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule 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 rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this 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 rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves implementation of a special local
regulation lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry within 100 yards
of the event area. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting
this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 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.

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 amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T17-0223 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T17-0223   Special Local Regulation; Wrangell 4th of July
Celebration Boat Races, Wrangell, AK.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is specified as a race area:
All waters of Zimovia Straits, Wrangell, AK North of Wrangell Harbor
entrance connecting the following points: 56[deg]28.055 N.,
132[deg]23.154 W., and 56[deg]28.077 N., 132[deg]23.074 W., until
reaching the northwestern most end of Wrangell City pier at a line
connecting the following points: 56[deg]28.299 N., 132[deg]23.454 W.,
and 56[deg]28.276 N., 132[deg]23.495 W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 100, the regulated area shall be closed immediately prior to,
during and immediately after the event to all persons and vessels not
participating in the event and authorized by the event sponsor.
    (c) Authorization. All persons or vessels who desire to enter the
designated race area created in this section while it is enforced must
obtain permission from the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 9.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 3 p.m.
to 7 p.m. on July 4, 2017.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
M.F. McAllister,
 Commander, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-13208 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OW/ OST 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2040 NEW __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Survey of Airport Deicing Operations 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): 2171.01 9. Keywords: Deicing, anti icing, airport, aircraft, storm water, water pollution control 10. Abstract: EPA is developing wastewater discharge standards, called `` effluent guidelines,'' for airports pursuant to the Agency's 2004 Effluent Guidelines Plan ( 69 FR 53719, September 2, 2004). The focus of the rulemaking is on wastewater discharges from aircraft and airport pavement deicing operations. EPA will send survey questionnaires to a sample of airports and airlines to help the Agency compile a national assessment of deicing operations. Three questionnaires will be used: a detailed airport questionnaire, a short " screener" airline questionnaire, and a detailed airline questionnaire. The detailed questionnaires will include questions on the deicing technologies employed, amount of deicing chemicals used, pollution prevention techniques, and economic and financial information. The airline screener will ask airlines whether they deice their own aircraft at specified locations, or if another party conducts the deicing operation. EPA will use the screener results to select airline locations for responding to the detailed airline questionnaire. Completion of this one time survey will be mandatory pursuant to section 308 of the Clean Water Act.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 290 b. Total annual responses 763 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 20,851 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 20,851 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 20,851 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 8 c. Total annualized cost requested 8 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 8 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 8 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biennially 8. X Other ( describe) One time reporting 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Eric Strassler Phone: 202 566 1026 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:14:58 PM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
first complete draft of ICR for coke 08-20-15 - for industry review

David - Attached is the first complete DRAFT of the ICR for your and the industry's review. This will be undergoing internal division review at the same time. I can let you take as much time in your review as it takes for EPA to do our review. But in order to not get caught short, it would be a good idea to send me comments as they come in. I'm looking for both editorial as well as technical comments, but you can assume that EPA will catch most of the editorial corrections. I am looking corrections for clarity as well, so these corrections may be editorial in nature.

I am sorry that I missed the spring version we had discussed. I had planned on sending you the test tables only in the spring, as I recall. Unfortunately, we were still discussing these test tables until just recently therefore I was prevented from sending it to you any earlier. As I mentioned in my previous email (below), I am looking for industry-wide issues with any of the requests, for testing or for information. If any one facility has a particular situation that doesn't fit under this ICR, I can work with them after the ICR goes out.

You can make your edits in the text, in redline/strikeout or in a separate document. If you use a separate document, please make sure you identify which enclosure and which question. Also , referring to the page, e.g., page x of y, is helpful as well.

Let me know if you have any questions, at any point in this process. As an fyi - this ICR for coke is similar in scope to the ICR  I sent and received from the Integrated Steel industry. However, due to a petition issue, I needed to send the steel ICR, both questionnaire and testing, to all facilities.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Coke ICR Intro&Enclosure I-DRAFT-08-20-15.docx >>
<< Coke ICR-Enclosure 2-DRAFT-8-20-15.doc >>

________________________________________
From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:33 PM
To: David Ailor
Subject: RE: Parent Company representatives and mailing addresses

Thanks for your offer to help. We don't have much flexibility in the timing. If I had sent this to you in the spring it just would have gone out sooner. We don't usually leave a big period of time for industry review. What we are looking for in any industry review is not to reach consensus with industry but for industry to correct any technical errors and any industry-wide testing difficulties that would need to be accommodated for everyone. We can work with any one facility on their special situation after we send the ICR out. One example of a technical correction is my recent question as to whether to ask for tons of coke pushed or coal charged. So I am looking for more of a technical proofread which one could do on one read through. Hope this simplifies the task somewhat.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:13 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee
Subject: RE: Parent Company representatives and mailing addresses

Thanks, Donna Lee.  I'll connect with my member companies and get back to you as soon as possible.

I hope EPA can be flexible in terms of the timing on distribution of the ICR.  Once I receive the draft ICR, I'm going to need some time  -  perhaps, quite a bit  -  to vet it within my membership.  We were expecting the draft ICR in the spring and, needless to say, we're months beyond that now.

DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
dailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org<http://www.accci.org/>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:02 PM
To: David Ailor (dailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><dailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Parent Company representatives and mailing addresses

Hello David  - I wanted to let you know will be sending you a DRAFT complete ICR by end of week. Shooting for Thursday afternoon, but hopefully by Friday. Worst case Monday. Everyone should keep in mind that this is a DRAFT and not make any business decisions based on this version of the ICR. In the meantime, I've compiled the company list based on my records, which was updated a couple years ago by Bruce. See attached file. What I need is the complete mailing address of the PARENT companies and the name (and title, if available) of the "official" company representative who needs to receive any letter we send. The place for this information is highlighted YELLOW in the spreadsheet I've also tried to guess which companies are owned by the same owner ("Separate Companies" column). This is important information for EPA purposes. In some cases, as I have seen in other industries, what appears to be the same (parent) company is actually a subsidiary of the parent company and, therefore, is really another company for our purposes. So I need to know which facilities are under the parent company or under a subsidiary company, if applicable. Also, anything else on this spreadsheet that is not accurate should be corrected. Please have companies put their corrections in RED so I can see easily what has been changed.

The ICR will have two parts. One part (Enclosure 1) will be a Questionnaire that asks questions about the company and all of the operations at their coke facility(ies). The second part (Enclosure 2), will be a testing request and will include all of the details of where and how to test. We will be mailing the ICR along with spreadsheets that facilities must use to report their information and test data. The only exception will be for certain test data that can be sent directly via the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) Version 3, which is available online (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.). The ICR explains which data needs to be reported using the ERT and which is not.

We will be asking that the companies send us their completed questionnaires in three months from when they receive it. I am hoping to be able to sen it out in September/October time frame. We understand that sometimes nothing goes on business-wise the last 2 weeks in December, which is same case here at EPA, so I take this lull period into account when I set the date. Most likely the Questionnaire will be due in early January 2016. The complete testing results will likely not be due until June 2016, but there are much earlier deadlines (January) for reporting test dates and submitting test plans. The test plans will be short (could be 2 pages) and only for one or two of the tests.

As far as who will receive the letters, we would like to send Questionnaires to all of the facilities because this lets us know about the industry to inform us in our rulemaking. If by chance we cannot send an "official" letter to all companies, I would appreciate your help in requesting the companies not on the "official" list to submit a questionnaire voluntarily. This can only help the company since if there are differences in their operations in any way, we will be able to take this into account in any rule decisions, but only if we have information to do so. Lack of information on our part never leads to a good end point for the industry. But we will cross this bridge when or if we come to it.

For the testing request, in order to minimize the financial burden on the industry we will be sending out only as many requests as we absolutely need. However, we need to have enough data so that statistically we have enough data if calculations are made, especially if we are looking at subsets of facilities within the data set. We have learned the hard way on other rules. In some cases, we have had to require more testing. Or worse, have had to make estimates that people were not happy with.

For by-product plants, we are thinking about picking six facilities to tests. We will try to distribute the requests to different companies so that no one company gets the majority of the test requests. We will not be sending a testing request to Tonawanda because of the recent EPA activity there. We WILL most definitely be sending a test request to USS's Clairton plant since it is the largest facility in the U.S. and also has at least one novel feature (the new battery).

For the heat recovery plants, we have no choice except to send the requests to Suncoke since they own all of them. However, we likely will be picking only three of the hat recovery type. We likely will not request testing at Vansant because it is not heat recovery and no plants are likely to be built like this one in the future.

If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email. I will set up a call to discuss your question(s) after that, if needed.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61066-61068]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0596]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ogeechee River, Richmond Hill,
GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the Ogeechee River. The District Bridge Manager has
determined that the waterway at mile 30.7, is an Advance Approved
Waterway per the regulation. The railroad bridge at mile, 30.7 is being
converted to a fixed bridge and the highway bridge at mile, 37.8 was
removed from the waterway. The drawbridge operating regulation for the
Ogeechee River is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective November 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0596. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' In the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Jennifer Zercher, Bridge Management Specialist,
Seventh Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
GA Georgia
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the waterway at mile 30.7 was
designated as an Advance Approved Waterway in June 2021. The Seaboard
System Railroad Bridge, mile 30.7, has not had a request to open in the
past 40 years, is being rehabilitated and converted to a fixed bridge.
The Highway Bridge, mile 37.8, was removed from the waterway.
Therefore, regulation 33 CFR 117.367 is no longer applicable and shall
be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM
because this regulatory action does not purport to place any
restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no
further use or value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(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. The waterway is designated as
Advance Approved, the Highway Bridge was removed from the waterway and
the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge is

being rehabilitated and converted to a fixed bridge. This rule merely
requires an administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to
omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or
necessary. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    The Ogeechee River at mile 30.7, was designated as an Advance
Approved Waterway per 33 CFR 115.70 in June 2021. The Seaboard System
Railroad Bridge, mile 30.7, is being coverted to a fixed bridge and the
Highway Bridge, mile 37.8, was removed from the waterway. The Advance
Approved determination and the elimination of the removable span
necessitates the removal of drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR
117.367, which pertains to the waterway and the former drawbridges.
    The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.367 which refers
to the Ogeechee River, from the Code of Federal Regulations since the
waterway is designated as an Advance Approved Waterway at mile 30.7,
the railroad bridge it governs is no longer able to be opened and the
highway bridge was removed from the waterway.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is removing regulation 33 CFR 117.367 and the
regulatory burden related to the draw operations for a bridge that is
no longer in existence and a bridge that is no longer a drawbridge.
This Final Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by
removing language that governs the Ogeechee River. This change does not
affect waterway or land traffic.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the
waterway is designated as Advanced Approved, the railroad bridge is
being converted to a fixed bridge and the highway bridge was removed
from the waterway. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR
117 Subpart B will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land
traffic.

B. 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    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
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded
from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1, of
the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this 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.

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.

Sec.  117.367  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  117.367.

    Dated: October 29, 2021.
Brendan C. McPherson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard Seventh
District.
[FR Doc. 2021-24087 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28308]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0016; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-1]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Poplar, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Poplar Municipal
Airport, Poplar, MT. The airport was moved 1.5 Nautical Miles (NM) to
the northeast. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedures at Poplar Municipal Airport,
Poplar, MT. This improves the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This also corrects the
airport name from Poplar Airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, August 25, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 16, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish additional controlled
airspace at Poplar, MT (76 FR 8921). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. The FAA received one comment suggesting
omitting language in the legal description relating to Federal airways
and the Wolf Point, MT, Class E airspace area. The FAA found merit in
this comment, and will make the change to the legal description. With
the exception of editorial changes and the changes described above,
this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Poplar Municipal Airport,
Poplar, MT. The airport was moved 1.5 nautical miles to the northeast,
and controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Poplar Municipal
Airport. This enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. This action also notes the change in the airport name from
Poplar Airport to Poplar Municipal Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Poplar Municipal Airport, Poplar, MT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Poplar, MT [Modified]

Poplar Municipal Airport, MT
    (Lat. 48[deg]08[min]04[sec] N., long. 105[deg]09[min]44[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of the Poplar Municipal Airport, and within
4 miles each side of the 105[deg] bearing extending from the airport
to 10.3 miles southeast of the airport; and that airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line from lat.
47[deg]53[min]25[sec] N., long. 105[deg]52[min]50[sec] W.; to lat.
48[deg]18[min]00[sec] N., long. 105[deg]52[min]50[sec] W.; to lat.
48[deg]18[min]00[sec] N., long. 104[deg]30[min]00[sec] W.; to lat.
47[deg]53[min]25[sec] N., long. 104[deg]30[min]00[sec] W.; thence to
point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 10, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-12001 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39956]
[DOCID:fr13jy10-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0551]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel CALLAIS SEARCHER

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel CALLAIS SEARCHER
as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on June 8,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0551 in the ``Keyword'' box, pressing Enter, and
then clicking ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call LTJG Christine Dimitroff, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under Title
33, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for
the offshore supply vessel CALLAIS SEARCHER, O.N. 1226876. The
horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead lights may be
20'-8\5/8\''. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance
from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a)
of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules
Act, would result in an aft masthead light location directly over the
cargo deck where it would interfere with loading and unloading
operations. The offset from centerline of the RAM/NUC lights may be 3'.
Offsetting the RAM/NUC lights 2 meters from the centerline as required
by Annex I paragraph 3(c) the 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(c)
of the Inland rules Act would place them in an exposed position beyond
the width of the aft end of the pilothouse.
    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed for under Title
33, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for
the offshore supply vessel CALLAIS SEARCHER, O.N. 1226876. The
Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I,
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act as well as the offset of the
RAM/NUC lights to deviate from the requirements of Annex I, paragraph
3(c) of 72 COLREGS and Annex I, Section 84.05(c) of the Inland Rules
Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: June 22, 2010.
J.W. Johnson
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections & Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-16957 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P