[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22814-22817]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9697]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0882; FRL-9298-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Adoption of the Revised Lead Standards and Related Reference
Conditions and Update of Appendices

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revisions add the
primary and secondary lead standards of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\), related reference conditions, and update the list of
appendices under ``Documents Incorporated by Reference.'' Virginia's
SIP revisions for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for lead are consistent with the Federal lead standards. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on May 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0882. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4579), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR
proposed approval of Virginia's SIP revision pertaining to the NAAQS
for lead and related reference conditions. The CAA specifies that EPA
must re-evaluate the appropriateness of the NAAQS every five years. As
part of the process, EPA reviewed the latest research and determined
that revised standards for lead were necessary to protect public health
and welfare. EPA revised the level of the primary lead standard to a
level of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ to provide increased protection for children
and other ``at risk'' populations. The secondary standard was also
revised to a level of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ to afford increased protection
for the environment. EPA promulgated the more stringent primary and
secondary NAAQS for lead on November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964). One
adverse comment was submitted on EPA's January 26, 2011 NPR (76 FR
4579). A summary of the comment and EPA's response is provided in
section IV of this document.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On September 27, 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of an amendment
which includes the revised primary and secondary NAAQS for lead and
related reference conditions. Virginia's revision incorporates the
Federal lead standards

into the Code of Virginia (9VAC5 Chapter 30). In addition, the list of
appendices to 40 CFR Part 51 was updated under ``Documents Incorporated
by Reference'' (9VAC5-20-21).
    The following are the specific sections that are being modified or
amended:
     9VAC5-20-21: Documents Incorporated by Reference
(modified)
     9VAC5-30-15: Reference Conditions (modified)
     9VAC5-30-80: Lead (amended)

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) That are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.'' Therefore,
EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will
not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent
with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also
determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect
only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. Other specific
requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained
in the NPR and will not be restated here. As noted below, EPA received
one comment on the NPR and it was not germane.

IV. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: A small business owner expressed concern about having
additional costs imposed upon individuals who work on lead paint-
containing homes built before 1978. The commenter stated that the
business climate cannot support another regulation and expressed
concern about being able to remain in business with the adoption of
this rule.
    Response: This comment is not relevant to this rulemaking action.
The commenter discusses lead as it relates to lead-containing paints
and the requirement for its removal in homes built prior to 1978. This
action imposes no requirements with respect to the removal of lead-
containing paint from homes built prior to 1978. This action is
concerned with the adoption of the 2008 lead NAAQS by the Commonwealth
of Virginia into the Commonwealth's SIP.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving Virginia's SIP revision for the lead NAAQS and
related reference conditions, as well as the updated list of appendices
to 40 CFR part 51 under documents incorporated by reference.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 24, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Virginia's adoption of the revised
lead standards of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and related reference conditions may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for Sections 5-30-15 and 5-30-80. The table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``Documents Incorporated by
Reference'' after the ninth existing entry for ``Documents Incorporated
by Reference.'' The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State         EPA approval     Explanation [former SIP
       State citation             Title/subject     effective  date        date                citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          9 VAC 5, Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-30-15.....................  Reference conditions  6/24/09........  4/25/11 [Insert  Revised section.
                                                                      page number
                                                                      where the
                                                                      document
                                                                      begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-30-80.....................  Lead................  6/24/09........  4/25/11 [Insert  Amended paragraphs A. and
                                                                      page number      B.; added paragraph C.
                                                                      where the
                                                                      document
                                                                      begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP         Applicable       submittal    EPA approval date   Additional  explanation
             revision                geographic area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Documents Incorporated by          Statewide.........      9/27/10  4/25/11 [Insert     Revised sections.
 Reference (9 VAC 5-20-21,                                           page number where
 Sections E.1.a.(1)(q) and                                           the document
 E.1.a.(1)(r)).                                                      begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-9697 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44388-44389]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008; FRL-9754-01-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Consolidated Superfund
Information Collection Request'' (EPA ICR No. 1487.14, OMB Control No.
2050-0179) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing
so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2023. An 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2004-0008, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation, Assessment and Remediation
Division, (5204T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public

docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR covers the following: (1) the collection of
information under 40 CFR part 35, subpart O, which establishes the
administrative requirements for cooperative agreements funded under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) for state, federally-recognized Indian tribal governments, and
political subdivision response actions; (2) the application of the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) by states as outlined by CERCLA section 105
that amends the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) to include criteria prioritizing releases
throughout the United States before undertaking remedial action at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites; and (3) the remedial portion of the
Superfund program as specified in CERCLA and the NCP. For cooperative
agreements and Superfund state contracts for Superfund response
actions, the information is collected from applicants and/or recipients
of EPA assistance and is used to make awards, pay recipients, and
collect information on how federal funds are being utilized. EPA
requires this information to meet its federal stewardship
responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to obtain a benefit
(federal funds) under 2 CFR part 200, ``Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards to Non-Federal Entities'' and under 40 CFR part 35, ``State and
Local Assistance.'' For the Superfund site evaluation and the Hazard
Ranking System, the states will apply the HRS by identifying and
classifying those releases or sites that warrant further investigation.
The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to
determine whether a site is eligible to be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial actions. For the NCP information
collection, some community involvement activities covered by this ICR
are not required at every site (e.g., Technical Assistance Grants) and
depend very much on the community and the nature of the site and
cleanup. All community activities seek to involve the public in the
cleanup of the sites, gain the input of community members, and include
the community's perspective on the potential future reuse of Superfund
NPL sites. Community involvement activities can enhance the remedial
process and increase community acceptance and the potential for
productive and beneficial reuse of the sites.
    Form Numbers: 6200-11.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, Local or Tribal Governments;
U.S. Territories; Communities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain benefits (40
CFR part 35; CERCLA section 105, 40 CFR part 300).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13,182 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 196,557 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $463,497 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This
is because there was no current change in program requirements. EPA
expects estimates to likely rise due to an increase in the respondent
universe as a result of increased funding from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-58).

Brigid Lowery,
Division Director, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2022-15952 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7998-8002]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03673]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551; FRL-9973-10]

Indaziflam; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of indaziflam in or on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject
to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This action is in response
to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of
the pesticide in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage
and grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, hay, grown in rangeland,
pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of indaziflam in or on these
commodities. The time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 23, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 24, 2018, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select
``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0551 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 April 24, 2018. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0551, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of the herbicide
indaziflam, N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-(1-
fluoroethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine, including its metabolites and
degradates in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage at
30 parts per million (ppm) and grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group
17, hay at 100 ppm from use on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject
to the CRP. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Indaziflam on Rangeland, Pastures, and
Areas Subject to the CRP

    The Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) requested a specific
emergency exemption for the use of indaziflam in rangeland, pastures,
and areas subject to the conservation reserve program (CRP) to control
medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and ventenata (Ventenata dubia)
in the Wyoming counties of Sheridan, Johnson, Cambell, Crook, and
Weston. Medusahead and ventenata have recently become established in
Wyoming. These pests are potentially two of the greatest risks to
Wyoming cattle production because they degrade rangeland forage and hay
production. Medusahead has reduced forage production by 80%. Visual
assessments of areas invaded by ventenata suggest it offers very little
forage. In addition to reducing the forage production, ventenata and
medusahead also increase forage silica content by 1.5 and 4 times
respectively. This produces poorer quality forage that is less
palatable and harder for cattle to digest. If these pests are not
controlled, potential statewide invasion can happen in less than 25
years. After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an
emergency condition exists for this State, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption are met.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of indaziflam in
or on rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. In doing so,
EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA
decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent, non-routine situation and to ensure that
the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances
without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA
section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on
December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage and
grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, hay on rangeland, pastures,
and areas subject to the CRP after that date will not be unlawful,
provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under
FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by
these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will
take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any
experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on
this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
indaziflam meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on
rangeland, pastures, and areas subject to the CRP or whether permanent
tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance
decision serves as a basis for registration of indaziflam by a State
for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c), nor does this
tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State
other than Wyoming to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under
FIFRA section 18, absent the issuance of an emergency exemption
applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the
emergency exemption for indaziflam, contact the Agency's Registration
Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of indaziflam on grass,
forage, fodder, and hay, group 17, forage at 30 ppm and grass, forage,
fodder, and hay, group 17, hay at 100 ppm from use on rangeland,
pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with establishing time-limited tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for indaziflam used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of January 29, 2014 (79 FR 4624)
(FRL-9903-88).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary

exposure to indaziflam, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited
tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
indaziflam tolerances in 40 CFR 180.653. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from indaziflam in food as follows:
    i. Acute and chronic exposures. Acute effects were identified for
indaziflam. In estimating acute and chronic dietary exposures, EPA used
food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA notes that previous indaziflam assessments used screening-level
assessments which assumed tolerance-level residues and 100% crop
treated for all included commodities. There are no uses on human foods
associated with this section 18 emergency use and there is no
expectation of quantifiable residues in livestock commodities. This
emergency exemption does not result in any changes to the previous
dietary exposure and risk estimates.
    ii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit IV.A., EPA has
concluded that indaziflam does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iii. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for indaziflam. Tolerance level residues and
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for indaziflam in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of indaziflam. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) and the Tier 1
Rice model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
indaziflam for acute exposures are estimated to be 84 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground water. For chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 26 ppb for
surface water and 3.7 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 84 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 26 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Indaziflam is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf, gardens, and trees. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-
term dermal and inhalation handler exposure is expected for adults as a
result of applying products containing indaziflam to lawns/turf and
gardens/trees using a variety of application equipment. Short-term
post-application dermal exposure is expected for adults, children 11 to
16, and children 6 to 11 years old as a result of playing, mowing and/
or golfing on treated turf. Short-term dermal and incidental oral
exposures (hand to mouth, object to mouth, incidental soil ingestion)
are expected for children 1 to 2 years old as a result from playing on
treated turf/lawns. Lastly, short-term post-application dermal exposure
is expected for adults and children 6 to 11 years old as result of
application to gardens and trees. The Agency selected only the most
conservative residential adult and child scenarios to be included in
the aggregate estimates, based on the lowest overall MOE (i.e., highest
risk estimates). The most conservative residential exposure scenario
for both adults and children resulted from short-term dermal and
incidental oral (for children only) post-application exposure to
treated turf.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found indaziflam to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and indaziflam does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
indaziflam does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, a developmental toxicity study in
rats, or in a reproduction study in rats. In the rat developmental
toxicity study, decreased fetal weight was observed in the presence of
maternal effects that included decreased body weight gain and food
consumption. No developmental effects were observed in rabbits up to
maternally toxic dose levels. Decreased pup weight and delays in sexual
maturation (preputial separation in males and vaginal patency in
females) were observed in the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity
study, along with clinical signs of toxicity, at a dose causing
parental toxicity that included coarse tremors, renal toxicity and
decreased weight gain. In the developmental neurotoxicity study,
transiently decreased motor activity on post-natal day (PND) 21 only in
male offspring was observed and was considered a potential neurotoxic
effect. It was observed at a dose that also caused clinical signs of
neurotoxicity

along with decreased body weight in maternal animals.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for indaziflam is complete.
    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in dogs and rats
throughout the database, which included the dog subchronic toxicity
study, the rat subchronic toxicity, the rat acute, subchronic, and
developmental neurotoxicity screening batteries, the rat 2-generation
reproduction study, the rat chronic toxicity study, and the rat
combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study. Evidence of
neurotoxicity was manifested as neuropathology in dogs and as decreased
motor activity and clinical signs (e.g., tremors) in rats. Evidence of
neurotoxicity was the most consistent effect (seen in dogs and rats),
the most sensitive toxicological finding (based on neuropathology in
dogs), and was therefore used as the adverse effect of concern in the
risk assessment. The endpoints selected for risk assessment are based
on and protective of the neurotoxic effects seen in the guideline
studies.
    iii. No developmental effects were observed in rabbits up to
maternally toxic dose levels. Offspring effects in the developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats and multi-generation toxicity studies only
occurred at exposure levels that also produced maternal toxicity and
these offspring effects were not considered more severe than the
parental effects. In addition, clear NOAELs/LOAELs were identified for
these studies. Therefore, EPA concluded that there is no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit
fetuses exposed in utero and/or postnatally to indaziflam.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to indaziflam in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
indaziflam.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
document for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and
water to indaziflam will occupy 19% of the aPAD for all infants, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
document for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure
to indaziflam from food and water will utilize 8% of the cPAD for all
infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on
the explanation in the unit regarding residential use patterns, chronic
residential exposure to residues of indaziflam is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Indaziflam is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to indaziflam.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this document for
short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food,
water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,400 for
adults and 580 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for
indaziflam is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
indaziflam is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
indaziflam.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, indaziflam is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to indaziflam residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS) method (DH-003-P07-02)
for indaziflam and FDAT) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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 United Nations
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 MRLs for indaziflam.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
the herbicide indaziflam, N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-
1-yl]-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine, including its
metabolites and degradates in or on grass, forage, fodder, and hay,
group 17, forage at 30 parts per million (ppm) and grass, forage,
fodder, and hay, group 17, hay at 100 ppm from use on rangeland,
pastures, and areas subject to the CRP. These tolerances expire on
December 31, 2020.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). 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 action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action 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
action 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 in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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 6, 2018.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration 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.  180.653, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.653  Indaziflam; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
herbicide indaziflam, N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-
yl]-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine, including its
metabolites and degradates in or on the specified agricultural
commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA
section 18 emergency exemptions. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the table in this paragraph (b) is to be determined by
measuring only indaziflam and FDAT, 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diamine (converted to parent equivalents), in or on the
commodity. The tolerances expire on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Commodity              Parts per million   Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grass, forage, fodder, and hay,                    30         12/31/2020
 Group 17, forage.................
Grass, forage, fodder, and hay,                   100         12/31/2020
 Group 17, hay....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-03673 Filed 2-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57186-57187]
[DOCID:fr20se10-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0203-201035; FRL-9202-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama:
Birmingham; Determination of Attaining Data for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2010, the State of Alabama, through the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a
request to EPA to make a determination that the Birmingham, Alabama,
nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) based
on quality assured, quality controlled monitoring data from 2007-2009.
The Birmingham, Alabama, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ``the Birmingham Area'') is comprised of
Jefferson and Shelby Counties in their entireties, and a portion of
Walker County in Alabama. In this action, EPA is taking final action to
determine that the Birmingham Area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This clean data determination is based upon
complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data for the years 2007-2009 showing that the Birmingham
Area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 20,
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0203. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Waterson may be reached
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. What is EPA's final action?
IV. What are the statutory and Executive order reviews?

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the Birmingham Area
(comprised of Jefferson and Shelby Counties in their entireties and a
portion of Walker County) has attaining data for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This clean data determination is based upon
quality assured, quality controlled and certified ambient air
monitoring data that shows the Area has monitored attainment of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2007-2009 data. While
still preliminary, the available 2010 24-hour PM2.5 data
also monitored attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.
    Other specific requirements of the clean data determination and the
rationale for EPA's action are explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) published on June 14, 2010 (75 FR 33562) and will not
be restated here. The comment period closed on July 14, 2010. No
comments, adverse or otherwise, were received in response to the NPR.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends
the requirements for this Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as long as this
Area continues to meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Finalizing this action does not constitute a redesignation of the
Birmingham Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further,
finalizing this action does not involve approving maintenance plans for
the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it involve
a determination that the Area has met all requirements for a
redesignation. Additionally, this action is not in regards to the
Birmingham Area's status for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the Birmingham Area
has attaining data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This
clean data determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this
Area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS during the period 2007-2009. This final action, in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for this Area to
submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS as long as the Area continues to meet the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is taking this final action
because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA policy and guidance.

IV. What are statutory and Executive order reviews?

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission or State request that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions or State request, EPA's
role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this action does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the impacted area is not in Indian country located in the
State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action, pertaining to the determination of attaining data
for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter standard for the
Birmingham Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: September 3, 2010 .
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.62 is amended by adding (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.62  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (a) Determination of Attaining Data. EPA has determined, as of
September 20, 2010, the Birmingham, Alabama, nonattainment area has
attaining data for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This clean
data determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2010-23318 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 63172]
[DOCID:fr08no07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1232-000; ER07-1232-001]

UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 1, 2007.
    UniSource Energy Development Company (UniSource) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying
tariff. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates.
UniSource also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, UniSource requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by UniSource.
    On October 31, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by UniSource, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
November 30, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, UniSource is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of UniSource, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Unisource's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21917 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63837-63839]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0934]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation for Marine Events; Chesapeake Bay
Workboat Race; Back River, Messick Point, Poquoson, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will establish special local regulation during
the Chesapeake Bay Workboat Race, a series of boat races to be held on
the waters of Back River, Poquoson, Virginia. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the events. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic during the power boat races on the Back River in the
vicinity of Messick Point, in Poquoson, Virginia.

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0934 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0934 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LCDR Christopher A. O'Neal, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone
757-668-5580, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)(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 Coast Guard published a temporary
final rule in the Federal Register on September 8, 2011, for the
original date of this event, which was September 18, 2011. Inclement
weather forced the cancellation of the event, the sponsor did not
include a make-up date in the original application for approval of
marine event, and the Coast Guard did not receive the new application
for the make-up date in sufficient time to allow for publication of an
NPRM. Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date by
publishing an NPRM would require either the cancellation of the event,
or require that the event be held without a special local regulation.
Either course of action would be contrary to public interest since
immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life and
property on navigable waters. Additionally, this special local
regulation will be enforced for approximately three hours on October
30, 2011 while the boat races are in progress. This regulated area
should have a minimal impact on transiting vessels because mariners are
not precluded from using any portion of the waterway except the area
within the regulated area.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard published a
temporary final rule in the Federal Register on September 8, 2011, for
the original date of this event, which was September 18, 2011.
Inclement weather forced the cancellation of the event, the sponsor did
not include a make-up date in the original application for approval of
marine event, and the Coast Guard did not receive the new application
for the make-up date in sufficient time to allow for publication more
than 30 days prior to the date scheduled for the event, and delaying
the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since
immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event
participants, patrol vessels, and other vessels transiting the event
area.

Background and Purpose

    On October 30, 2011 the Chesapeake Bay Watermen will sponsor a
workboat race on the navigable waters of the Back River in Poquoson,
Virginia.
    A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event
site to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during
the event, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in
the event area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators,
and other transiting vessels. The regulated area shall be enforced from
1 p.m. to 4 p.m. October 30, 2011.
    During this enforcement period, vessels may not enter the regulated
area unless they receive permission from the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander.

Discussion of Rule

    This special local regulation will restrict general navigation in
the regulated area during the marine event, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on
October 30, 2011. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
regulated area during the effective period. The regulated area is
needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety
of participants in and spectators to the Chesapeake Bay Workboat Race.

    The enforcement period for this safety zone shall be from 1 p.m. to
4 p.m. on October 30, 2011. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when
practical will allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking
place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of
the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the regulated area.
    In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime
community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local
Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in this section of the Back River during the event
from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on October 30, 2011.
    Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion
of the Back River during the event, this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a
limited period. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated
area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is
safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard will
issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves implementation of
regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine
events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have
potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of
waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The
category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat
regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew
racing, and sail board racing. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

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 temporary Sec.  100.35T05-0934 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T05-0934  Special Local Regulations; Chesapeake Bay
Workboat Race, Poquoson, Virginia.

    (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all waters of the
Back River, Poquoson, Virginia, bounded to the north by a line drawn
along latitude 37[deg]06'0'' N, bounded to the south by a line drawn
along latitude 37[deg]06'15'' N, bounded to the east by a line drawn
along longitude 076[deg]18'52'' W and bounded on the west by a line
drawn along longitude 076[deg]19'30'' W. All coordinates reference
Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned,
warrant or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by an
Official Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced from 1
p.m. to 4 p.m. on October 30, 2011.

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
Mark S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2011-26644 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 56078]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9042-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 10/29/2018 Through 11/02/2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180257, Draft, BIA, BLM, OK, OKT Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and
BIA Integrated RMP, Comment Period Ends: 02/07/2019, Contact: Patrick
Rich<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180264, Final Supplement, USN, WA, Land-Water Interface and
Service Pier Extension at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington, Review
Period Ends: 12/10/2018, Contact: Kimberly Kler<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20180265, Final, DOE, LA, ADOPTION--Calcasieu Pass Project,
Contact: Brian Lavoie<PHONE_NUMBER>

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's Final EIS No. 20180258, filed 10/22/2018 with
the EPA. DOE was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore,
recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c)
of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20180266, Draft, BIA, WI, Ho-Chunk Nation, Fee-to-Trust and
Casino Project, Comment Period Ends: 12/24/2018, Contact: Timothy J.
Guyah<PHONE_NUMBER>

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20180205, Revised Draft, USFWS, WA, Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for a Long-term Conservation Strategy for the Marbled
Murrelet, Comment Period Ends: 12/06/2018, Contact: Mark Ostwald 360-
753-9564

    Revision to FR Notice Published 09/07/2018; Extending the Comment
Period from 11/06/2018 to 12/06/2018.

    Dated: November 5, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-24456 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P