  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

DRAFT MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin
and Metam-sodium in Onion Production (DP # 337490)

FROM:	Tara Chandgoyal, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Jin Kim, Ph.D., Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Tim Kiely, Chief

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		John Leahy, Senior Policy Advisor

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL: March 14, 2007

Summary

Metam sodium is the predominant fumigant used in onion production with
the majority of usage concentrated in the Northwestern States of
Washington and Oregon followed by California.  The use is driven largely
by soil-borne pests (mainly fungi, nematodes and insects) that can not
be commercially controlled using foliar pesticides. The use of metam
sodium for the control of these pests could significantly increase
yields with an incremental benefit to growers as much as $3,361 per
acre.  Fumigation with dichloropropene plus chloropicrin would be as
effective as metam sodium in controlling these pests, but this
alternative control option is slightly more expensive than metam sodium
by $34 per acre for storage onion production in Washington and Oregon.
There are approximately 165 thousand acres of onion grown in the U.S.
annually (Agricultural Statistics 2005) and metam-sodium is applied to
about 11% or 18 thousand acres (EPA proprietary data 2002-2004).  Use of
fumigants on onion production provides benefits to growers as much as
$3,361 per acre or $83 million for 15% of the 165 thousand acres where
soil fumigants are applied.

Statement of Purpose

As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) process, EPA is
assessing the risks and benefits of the use of several soil fumigants:
dazomet, chloropicrin, metam potassium, metam sodium, and methyl
bromide.  This document presents the assessment of the benefits provided
by the soil fumigants in the production of onions.

Background

The two major categories of onions are spring/summer varieties and
storage varieties. Both types can be yellow, white, and red. The
spring/summer varieties with mild flavor are fragile and have shorter
shelf life, while the storage varieties which are harvested during the
late summer and fall comprise 75% of the U.S. onion market. Storage
varieties are suitable for storage and processing for up to 8 months
(USDA/ERS, 2003).

China (31%), India (10%), and the U.S. (6%) are the leading producers of
onions.  From 2002 to 2004, the U.S. produced on an average of 74
million cwt of onions with a farm value of about $870 million
(Agricultural Statistics 2005).  California (28%) is the top U.S.
producer of onions followed by Oregon (15%), Washington (13%), Idaho
(7%), and Colorado (6%).  Average annual acreage, production and value
for major production states for spring/summer onions are shown in Table
1 and Table 2 for storage onions.

From 2001 to 2003, exports were on average 6.6 million cwt and 6.3
million cwt for imports. The majority of onion imports come from Mexico,
Canada, and Peru, while U.S. exports mainly to Canada, Japan, and Mexico
(USDA/ERS, 2003).

Table 1. Spring/summer onion acreage, production and value, 2002-2004
average

States	Harvested

Acres	Production

(1,000 cwt)	Yield per acre

(cwt)	Price Per cwt

California	14,267	7,272	510	$15.33

Texas	15,533	5,045	325	$25.50

Georgia	12,833	2,465	192	$30.00

New Mexico	7,600	4,097	539	$13.07

U.S. Total*	56,367	22,098	392	$19.07

Source: Agricultural Statistics 2005

*U.S. total is the sum of California, Texas, Georgia, New Mexico, and
all other spring/summer onion production states.

Table 2. Storage onion acreage, production and value, 2002-2004 average

States	Harvested

Acres	Production

(1,000 cwt)	Yield

(cwt)	Price Per cwt

California	30,567	12,939	423	$7.57

Washington	18,333	10,453	570	$11.58

Oregon	16,867	11,573	686	$8.59

New York	12,467	3,840	308	$12.73

Colorado	10,533	4,532	430	$13.87

U.S. Total*	108,768	52,634	484	$9.86

Source: Agricultural Statistics 2005

* U.S. total is the sum of California, Washington, Oregon, New York,
Colorado, and all other storage onion production states.

Fumigant Use

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has surveyed
fumigants use on onions in 2002 and 2004. NASS shows that on average 9%,
5%, and 3% of acreage of onion production in the U.S. were treated with
metam sodium, dichloropropene, and chloropicrin, respectively.
Dichloropropene is predominantly used in combination with chloropicrin
(Telone C-17). Table 3 shows fumigants usage on onions during 2002-2004.
It is worth noting that the two sources, NASS and EPA proprietary data,
are divergent to each other on fumigant usage on onions.  In this
assessment, we have reviewed each of the sources carefully and have used
what we concluded to be the most appropriate and accurate information.

Table 3. Fumigant usage on onions, 2002 - 2004

Chemical	Percent Crop Treated@	Number of Application	a.i. per
application (lb/ac)	Total a.i.

(1,000 lb/year)

Metam Sodium	9% (11%)*	1.0 	135(159)	1788 (2830)

Dichloropropene	5% (4%)	1.0 	175 (140)	1098(764)

Chloropicrin	3% (4%)	1.0 	39 (61)	177(353)

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2002 and 2004;
EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004.

@Dichloropropene and chloropricin usage are likely to be on the same
acres because dichloropropene is mostly used in combination with
chloropricin (Telone C-17).

*Numbers in parenthesis are from EPA proprietary data 2002-2004.

EPA proprietary data shows metam sodium, dichloropropene, and
chloropicrin usage on onions by state. More than 50 percent of acres in
Washington was treated with metam sodium, while acres treated with metam
sodium (24%) and chloropicrin (14.1%) together account for about 38% of
the acres of storage onion production in Oregon. The usage of fumigants
in California is relatively low. In California, percent crop treated
with metam sodium is about 7%, and less than 2% with dichloropropene and
chloropicrin, respectively. EPA proprietary data shows lower
dichloropropene and chloropicrin usage in Oregon than those reported by
NASS in 2002 and 2004. Table 4 shows metam sodium usage on onions by
state in 2002 -2004.

Table 4. Fumigants usage on onions by state, 2002-2004

States	Active Ingredient	Percent Crop Treated	Number of Application	a.i.
per application (lb/ac)	Total a.i.

(1,000 lb/year)

Washington	Metam sodium	53%

 (64%)*	1.0	153

(127)*	1,508 (1,393)*

	Dichloropropene	7%	1.0	105	97

	Chloropicrin	5%	1.0	22	21

Oregon	Metam sodium	24%

(11%)*	1.0	113

(130)*	589

(258)*

	Dichloropropene	7%

(23%)*	1.0	161

(184)	184

(875)*

	Chloropicrin	14% (23%)*	1.0	34

(39)*	39

(167)*

California	Metam sodium	7%	1.0	220	713

	Dichloropropene	1%	1.0	58	36

	Chloropicrin	1%	1.0	12	8

Source: EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004; NASS, 2002 and 2004

*Numbers in parenthesis are from NASS in 2002 and 2004.

Table 5 provides information characterizing typical fumigant use in
onion production.

Table 5.  Fumigant Application Information Onion Grown In California,
Oregon, and Washington

	Metam Sodium	Chloropicrin

Application Rate

(lb ai/acre)

	113 to 220 pounds per acre	22 to 34 pounds per acre

Acres Treated per Day	33 to 40 acres per tractor	33 to 40 acres per
tractor

Time of Fumigation	March - April	March - April

Application Method	Primarily shank injected in the soil	Primarily shank
injected in the soil

Strip Application	Primarily strip application	Primarily strip
application

Tarps or Water Caps	Roller to compact and seal the soil	Roller to
compact and seal the soil

Source: EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004; Personal communication with Dan
McGrath, Linn County, Oregon agricultural extension officer, 2007

Target Pests

There are many fungal, nematode and other pests affecting onion
production. We will focus on pests controlled by fumigants in major
onion producing areas in Washington and Oregon (Crop Profile for Onions,
1999,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/waonions.html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/waonions.html ).

Fungi

Pink Root (Phoma terrestris)

Pink root is caused by the fungus Phoma terrestris. This soil-borne
fungus is common in most production areas. The disease may appear either
in young seedlings or later in the growing season (Pelter et al., 1992).
Infected onion roots die as the disease progresses. Reduction of the
root system decreases bulb size.

Chemical control: Fungicides are not effective in controlling pink root.
Soil fumigation effectively reduces pink root disease and fall
fumigation is more effective than spring. The most commonly used soil
fumigant is metam sodium (Vapam at rates of 100 gallons product/A;
Sectagon at rates of 75 gallons product/A) has provided some control.
1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin (Telone C-17) may be used in some
instances at a rate of 17.1 gallons product/broadcast acre.

Cultural Control: A crop rotation of three or more years between onion
crops generally suppresses this organism. Since the fungus has a fairly
broad host range, pink root may be present in fields never planted to
onions. Corn is also a good host. Many commercially available cultivars
have some pink root resistance.

Yield loss: Up to 50% in severely affected fields (Crop Profile for
Onions, 1999,   HYPERLINK
"http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html"
http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html ).

Fusarium Basal Rot (Fusarium oxysporum)

Fusarium basal rot causes occasional losses in Washington onions.
Fusarium oxysporum, the organism that causes the disease, invades roots
and as it progresses toward the bulb causes leaves to wilt and die.
Typically, the disease becomes noticeable at mid-season or later as
soils warm. Roots on infected plants eventually die and the bulb base
shows a brown discoloration. In severe cases the entire bulb base may be
rotted along with the bulb interior leaving only a hollow shell of outer
scales.

Bulb tissue infection may not be evident when the crop is placed into
storage, but later appears as a semi-watery decay developing from the
bulb base. Infection is often associated with pink root, maggots, or
insect injury (Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Control Handbook. 2002.
Oregon State University.).

Chemical Control: Fungicides do not suppress Fusarium basal rot in
onions. Results with soil fumigants for control have been erratic.

Cultural Control: Resistance is available in some cultivars. A crop
rotation of 3 to 4 years or more is practiced to help manage this
disease.

Yield loss: Up to 50% in severely affected fields (Crop Profile for
Onions, 1999,   HYPERLINK
"http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html"
http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html ).

White Rot (Sclerotium cepivorum)

White rot, caused by Sclerotium cepivorum, is a devastating disease of
onions that causes infected plants to wilt and die (Pelter et al.,
1992). Outer leaves decline first. Typical symptoms include bulb rot
covered with a white cottony growth in which tiny black sclerotia are
embedded. The disease may persist in the soil for as long as 25 years.
Chemical and cultural control practices have little effect once the
disease is introduced. White rot is spread by contaminated bulbs or
transplants of any member of the onion family or on contaminated bins,
vehicles, or tillage equipment. It is not spread by seed.

A Washington State Department of Agriculture quarantine to limit
movement of white rot into Adams, Franklin and Grant counties from
contaminated areas has been adopted. This quarantine prohibits importing
bulbs, transplants, or other vegetative material for propagation unless
the materials are certified free of white rot by the state department of
agriculture in which the material originated. Agricultural equipment,
vehicles, or bins used in other onion areas must be sterilized before
being brought into the quarantine area.

Chemical Control: Growers do not generally use chemicals to control
white rot. Soil fumigation using metam sodium (Vapam at rates of 100
gallons product/A; Sectagon at rates of 75 gallons product/A) has
provided some control. Under most conditions, even the best chemicals
control only a portion of the disease and soils become useless for
production of onions and other Allium spp.

Cultural Control: In Washington, growers use sanitation to avoid
introducing white rot via contaminated soil carried on equipment or
other means. Growers plant only disease-free transplants. Exclusion is
the best way to control white rot. Once this disease is established in a
field, it is very difficult to grow any Allium spp. successfully.

Nematodes

Nematodes are recognized as a problem more by large-scale growers than
by small scale-growers. Onion crops in Washington are occasionally
attacked by stubby-root and, in some small areas, by stem and bulb
nematodes. Root knot nematodes can cause stand and yield reductions but
are generally managed by crop rotation and/or soil fumigation for
disease control.

Stubby-Root Nematode (Paratrichodorus allius and P. minor)

The most important nematode pest of onions in Washington is the
stubby-root nematode, Paratrichodorus allius and P. minor. Stubby-root
nematodes affect a wide range of plant species and are particular
problems in very sandy soils with grasses or cereals in the crop
rotation. Roots of onions attacked by the stubby-root nematode are
extremely short with a yellow to brownish cast and plants become
stunted.

Chemical Control: Metam sodium fumigation of soil reduces nematode
populations in the soil. 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone II at a rate of 18
gallons product/broadcast acre) and oxamyl (Vydate L at 2 gallons
product/banded acre) are the most common treatments for stubby-root
nematodes. In Oregon, stubby-root nematodes are controlled by fumigating
soils with 1,3-dichlorpropene (Telone) (Pacific Northwest Plant Disease
Control Handbook, 1999).

Cultural Control: Crop rotation is the primary cultural control method
used by onion growers. In particular, growers try to avoid following
mint, which is a host for the stubby-root nematode.

Yield loss: Up to 50% in severely affected fields (Crop Profile for
Onions, 1999,   HYPERLINK
"http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html"
http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html ).

Insect Pests

Thrips and maggots are the most serious insect pests of onions in
Washington State. Thrips, both onion thrips and western flower thrips
are an increasing problem for many growers in the Columbia Basin. Onion
maggots are particularly troublesome in western Washington and seed corn
maggots damage crops in the Columbia Basin. Aphids, armyworms, and
cutworms, leafhoppers, leafminers, and wireworms are occasional pests.

Wireworms (Limonius spp.)

Wireworms, Limonius spp., are the elongated, glossy yellow to red-brown
larvae of click beetles. They range in length from 3/8 to 1 inch (6).
They complete their juvenile stages in the soil, where they feed on
plant tissue for 2 to 5 years. Affected plants may have a wilted
appearance and damage commonly occurs in patches of the field. These
insects, if present in high numbers, can eliminate portions of onion
stands.

Chemical Control: Soil fumigation is effective against wireworms,
especially when populations are high. Several insecticides, including
diazinon, are registered for control, but must be applied prior to
planting and are generally not used.

Cultural Control: Crop rotation is a useful management tool used by
growers. Alfalfa, if kept free of weeds, can be particularly helpful in
reducing wireworm populations.

Weed Pests

Metam sodium, a fumigant used for suppression of some diseases, also
controls some weeds and can reduce the need for herbicides.

Chemical Control Alternatives

Biofumigation: This term is used to describe the effects of Brassica
rotation crops or green manures on soilborne pests (McGuire, 2001).
Brassica crops such as rapeseed and mustard contain biologically active
chemicals, called glucosinolates. In the soil, certain glucosinolates in
the roots of rotation crops, or in the roots, stems and leaves of green
manures, break down in to isothiocynates (ITCs) and other chemicals.
ITCs are known to kill or suppress some soilborne disease pathogens,
nematodes, and weed seeds. There are many types of glucosinolates, some
of which produce different types of ITCs, which vary in their toxicity
to different pests. Methyl ITC is the active chemical produced when
metam sodium, a common synthetic fumigant, is applied to the soil; hence
the name biofumigation when ITCs are produced by plants. We did not find
much literature on the control of onion soil-borne diseases using
biofumigation. The results of a study documents that metam sodium
significantly reduced mycorrhizae colonization of onion roots and had no
affect on onion yield (Beck et al., 2004). In contrast, biofumigants did
not significantly affect mycorrhizae colonization or pink root
infection, but tended to reduce onion yields. This yield reduction was
probably due to poorer onion stands that were seen each year of the
study. Plant residue from biofumigant incorporation may have caused
trash to build up on the planter shoes or reduce soil-seed contact,
thereby reducing germination (Beck et al., 2004). Biofumigation has
warranted further investigation into the use of mustard green manures
for control of soilborne pests in potato and other cropping systems
(McGuire, 2003).

Benefits of Soil Fumigation

Our assessment focuses on onion production in California and Washington.
California is the most important production state for both spring/summer
and storage onions. Washington is included in this assessment because it
is the second leading producer of storage onions and metam sodium is
widely used on over 50% of onion production acreage.  Oregon is another
important production state for storage onions with more than 38% of
acres treated with metam sodium or chloropicrin.  However, crop budget
information which is necessary for the economic impact assessment is not
available for Oregon.  We anticipate that our findings will be generally
relevant to all U.S. onion production where fumigants are widely used.

It is documented that several onion pest are each capable of causing up
to 50 percent yield losses if the pest pressure was severe (Crop Profile
for Onions in New York, 1999) and no fumigant was used.  No information
is available on the actual percent yield loss (caused by individual pest
or collectively) without the use of metam sodium (mainly used against
fungi and nematodes), dichloropropene (effective against nematodes),
chloropicrin (effective agsinst fungi) or a combination of
dichloropropene and chloropicrin in onion growing areas (New York,
Washington, Oregon and California). For the purpose of this analysis we
assumed that it is highly unlikely that in a given growing season the
pest pressure of every pest will be severe. Therefore, we made an
assumption that the likely maximum yield losses without the use of above
cited fumigant may be up to 50% in a given growing season. We also
believe that if metam sodium is not available to the growers, they will
use dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for the control of soil borne
pests (fungi and nematodes) and the yield losses using this mixture will
be negligible.

In the following section we evaluate the economic benefits of soil
fumigation to onion producers in California and Washington.  BEAD uses a
partial budget analysis to estimate the impacts of changes in
production.  That is, we evaluate the consequences on a typical acre of
the crop grown, rather than attempt to assess the impacts in the context
of a whole enterprise, which could include multiple crops under
cultivation.  This approach allows the Agency to compare losses to net
operating revenue, which is defined as the difference between gross
revenue and variable operating costs, on a per-acre basis.  The analysis
ignores fixed costs, which are highly dependent on land ownership and
the size and diversity of the grower’s operation, and therefore
difficult to define on a per-acre basis.  Estimated impacts if soil
fumigants could not be used in California and Washington onion
production are summarized in Tables 6, and 7.

California

Table 6.  Estimated Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net
Operating Revenue Impacts for California Spring/summer Onion Production

	Baseline

Metam-sodium	Alternative

Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin	% Change	No Fumigants available*	% Change

Yield (cwt/acre)	510	510	0%	255	-50%

Price  ($/cwt)	$16	$16	0%	$16	0%

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	$7,946	$7,946	0%	$3,973	-50%

Metam-sodium ($/acre)

Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin ($/acre)	$170

$102

-40%

Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	$1,692	$1,692	0%	$1,692	0%

Harvest Costs  ($/acre)	$1,846	$1,846	0%	$1,846	0%

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	$3,813	$3,745	-1.8%	$3,538	-5.5%

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	$4,133	$4,201	1.7%	$435	-90%

Source: University of California Cooperative extension (2006);
Agricultural Statistics, 2005; EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004

*1, 3 Dichloropropene alone can control nematodes, but fungi still may
cause up to 50% yield loss in a given growing season. Therefore,
economic losses when 1,3 Dichloropropene is used alone are estimated the
same as the case when no fumigants are available.

In the absence of metam-sodium, the best alternative control for
California onion producers would be dichloropropene plus chloropicrin.
Alternative control would result in a slight increase in net operating
revenue from $4,133 to $4,201 per acre or an increase of 1.7% of net
operating revenue. This is because the cost of dichloropropene plus
chloropicrin ($102 per acre) is cheaper than that of metam sodium
($170). Without the use of any fumigants, yield losses of up to 50% may
occur in some situations with losses in net revenues over 90%, which
represents unsustainable losses to onion producers in California.

Washington

Table 7.  Estimated Per Acre Gross Revenue, Operating Costs, and Net
Operating Revenue Impacts for Washington Storage Onion Production under
Rill Irrigation

	Baseline

Metam-sodium	Alternative

1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin	% Change	No Fumigants available*	%
Change

Yield (cwt/acre)	570	570	0%	285	-50%

Price  ($/cwt)	$12	$12	0%	$12	0%

Gross Revenue  ($/acre)	$6,572	$6,572	0%	$3,286	-50%

Metam-sodium ($/acre)

Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin ($/acre)	$123

$157

27.6%

Other Operating Costs  ($/acre)	$1,847	$1,847	0%	$1,848	0%

Total Operating Costs  ($/acre)	$1,970	$2,004	1.7%	$1,848	-7.8%

Net Operating Revenue  ($/acre)	$4,602	$4,568	-0.7%	$1,438	-68.5%

Source: Cooperative Extension Washington State University (1999);
Agricultural Statistics, 2005; EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004

*1, 3 Dichloropropene alone can control nematodes, but fungi still may
cause up to 50% yield loss in a given growing season. Therefore,
economic losses when 1,3 Dichloropropene is used alone are estimated the
same as the case when no fumigants are available.

Without the use of metam-sodium, the best alternative control for
Washington storage onion producers would be dichloropropene plus
chloropicrin.  The alternative control would result in a decrease in net
operating revenue from $4,602 to $4,568 per acre or a decrease of 0.7%
of net operating revenue. Unlike the case in California, the cost of
dichloropropene plus chloropicrin ($157 per acre) is higher than that of
metam sodium ($123). If no fumigant is available, yield losses of up to
50% may occur in some situations with losses in net revenues over 68%,
which represents unsustainable losses to onion producers in Washington.

Conclusion

Based on the average onion production and soil fumigant usage
information during 2002-2004, there are approximately 165 thousand acres
of onion grown in the U.S. annually (Agricultural Statistics 2005) and
metam-sodium is applied to about 11% or 18 thousand acres (EPA
proprietary data 2002-2004).  Fumigation with dichloropropene plus
chloropicrin is as effective as metam sodium in controlling soil-borne
pests, but this alternative control option is slightly more expensive
than metam sodium by $34 per acre for storage onion production in
Washington and Oregon.  Use of fumigants on onion production in U.S.
benefits growers as much as $3,361 per acre or $83 million for 15% of
the 165 thousand acres where soil fumigants are applied.

References

Beck, D., Geary, B., Ransom, C., Mcgonigle, T., Brown, B., Thornton, M.
2004. Biofumigation with mustard, canols and oilseed radish as an
alternative to metam sodium for control of pink root and weeds in
onions. Poster presented at the National Allium Research Conference –
Pest Management (2004).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/TRA/Allium/Abstracts/Biofumigati
on.htm"
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/TRA/Allium/Abstracts/Biofumigatio
n.htm

Crop Profile for Onions in New York (1999) General Production
Information   HYPERLINK
"http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html"
http://cipm.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/nyonions.html

EPA proprietary data, 2002-2004.

McGuire, A. 2001. Using green manures in potato cropping systems.
Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.

(  HYPERLINK
"http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1951e/EB1951E.pdf"
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1951e/EB1951E.pdf )

Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Control Handbook; Extension Services of
Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University
of Idaho: Corvallis, OR, 1999.

Pelter, G.Q., E.J. Sorensen, R.E. Thornton, and R. Stevens. 1992. Dry
Bulb Onion Production, Washington State University, EB 1693.

Personal communication with Dan McGrath, Linn County Agricultural
Extension Officer. Albany, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2003). “Commodity
Highlight: Dry-bulb Onions.”    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/vegpdf/OnionHigh.pdf"
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/vegpdf/OnionHigh.pdf
Economic Research Service (ERS).

USDA (2005).  “Agricultural Statistics, 2005.”    HYPERLINK
"http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm"
http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm  National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS).

USDA (2003). “Vegetables and Melons Outlook.” Economic Research
Service (ERS).

USDA (2002, 2004).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm"
http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/app_usage.cfm

Agricultural Chemical Use Database. NASS.

 However, there might be some reasons that make more acres treated with
metam sodium (7%) than dichloropropene plus chloropicrin (1%). For
example, growers might be more familiar with using metam sodium or there
might be the cases when dichloropropene plus chloropicrin is in fact
more efficacious than metam sodium.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 44180]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Friday, July 19,
2013 at 9:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution of an administrative proceeding.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 18, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17715 Filed 7-19-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


RFS2 Renewable Fuel Producers Reporting Fuels for 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(T)  -  Finished Fuel Blending (RFS1500): Instructions for Completing

Who must report
   * RFS2 Producers of renewable fuel required to submit additional information under 80.1451(b)(ii)(T). Specifically, any producer generating RINs for renewable fuel that is NOT one of the following types:
         o Ethanol
         o Biodiesel
         o Renewable Gasoline
         o Renewable diesel that meets ASTM D 975-13a Grade No. 1-D or No. 2-D specifications
         o Renewable CNG or LNG
         o Renewable Electricity
Reporting requirements
   * Enter a separate report line for each distinct fuel type.
   * Required fields and NA values  -  Certain report fields or parameters may be specific to select product types. If a report field does not apply to the reported batch, enter the value "NA". Do not leave the field blank.
Reporting deadlines
   * Producers shall report on a quarterly basis:
                          Production Calendar Quarter
                              Time Period Covered
                           Quarterly Report Deadline
Quarter 1
January 1  -  March 31
June 1
Quarter 2
April 1  -  June 30
September 1
Quarter 3
July 1  -  September 30
December 1
Quarter 4
October 1  -  December 31
March 31

How to submit reports
   * EPA maintains report templates, electronic submission procedures and additional support options at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/cdx.htm.

Field Instructions
Field No.
Field Name
Units
Field Formats, Codes & Special Instructions
1
Report Form ID

AAAAAA; Character.
Enter RFS1500
2
Report Type

A; Character. Specify if the data submitted in this report is original or if it is being resubmitted. Submit only one original report; any corrections or updates should be marked as a resubmission.
O = Original
R = Resubmission
3
CBI

A; Character. Specify if the data contained within the report is claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B:
Y = Confidential Business Information
N = Non-Confidential Business Information
4
Report Date

MM/DD/YYYY; Character. Enter the date the original or resubmitted report is created.
5
Compliance Period Year

YYYY; Character. Enter the averaging/compliance year the report covers.
6
Compliance Period Quarter

AA; Character. Enter the quarter under the compliance year this report covers
7
RIN Originator Company ID

AAAA; Character. Enter the EPA assigned four-character ID of the renewable fuel producer.
8
RIN Originator Facility ID

AAAAA; Character. Enter EPA-assigned five-character ID for the renewable fuel production facility. If the foreign fuel was produced by a foreign producer and imported into the United States, this is the import facility ID.
9
Foreign Renewable Fuel Producer Company ID

AAAA; Character. If the renewable fuel was produced by a foreign renewable fuel producer and imported into the United States where RINs were subsequently generated by a separate RIN Originator, enter the EPA assigned four-character ID of the foreign renewable fuel producer. Otherwise enter "NA".
10
Foreign Renewable Fuel Producer Facility ID

AAAAA; Character. If the renewable fuel was produced by a foreign renewable fuel producer and imported into the United States where RINs were subsequently generated by a separate RIN Originator, enter the EPA assigned five-character ID of the foreign renewable fuel producer facility. Otherwise enter "NA".
11
D-Code

A; Character. Enter the single digit identifier of the D-code representing the type of renewable fuel. The D-codes are:

3: D3 fuel categorized as cellulosic biofuel
4: D4 fuel categorized as biomass-based diesel
5: D5 fuel categorized as advanced biofuel
6: D6 fuel categorized as renewable fuel
7: D7 fuel categorized as cellulosic diesel

12
Fuel Type

AAA; Character. Enter the two or three character code representing the renewable fuel. The renewable fuel codes are:

30:	Cellulosic Diesel (EV application required)
40:	Non-ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.7)
41:	Non-ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.6)
42:	Non-ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.5)
60:	Cellulosic Ethanol (EV 1.0)
70:	Butanol (EV 1.3)
90:	Cellulosic Jet Fuel (EV application required)
100:	Cellulosic Heating Oil (EV application required)
110:	Cellulosic Naphtha (EV application required)
130:	Naphtha (EV 1.5)
140:	Renewable Jet Fuel (EV application required)
150:	Renewable Heating Oil (EV 1.6)
151:	Renewable Heating Oil (EV 1.1)
152:	Renewable Heating Oil (EV 1.2)
153:	Renewable Heating Oil (EV 1.7)
160:	LPG (EV application required)
180:	Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester

13
Type of Fuel Blended With

AAA; Character. Enter the three digit character code representing the type of finished fuel blended with the producer's renewable fuel identified in field 12.

GAS:    Gasoline
DSL:     Diesel
14
Blend date

MM/DD/YYYY; Character. Enter the date that the renewable fuel identified in field 12 was blended with the fuel identified in field 13.
15
Total volume of renewable fuel blended
gallons
999999999999; Number. Enter the total volume of the renewable fuel identified in field 12 that is blended with the fuel identified in field 13.
16
Percentage of renewable fuel in finished fuel
%
999.9; Number. Enter the percentage of renewable fuel identified in field 12 as a percentage of the overall volume of the finished fuel after blending.

                       Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is disclosed in the estimates of the individual report form instructions. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24317-24320]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 30958; Amdt. No. 513]

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for

certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 25, 2014.
John Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014.

0
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

PART 95--[AMENDED]

0
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:

                                 Revisions to IFR Altitudes and Changeover Point
                                  [Amendment 513 effective date, May 29, 2014]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     FROM                                         TO                        MEA          MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Sec.   95.3000 Low Altitude RNAV Routes
                               Sec.   95.3200 RNAV Route T200 Is Amended To Delete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTHILLS, GA VORTAC..........................  RICHE, SC FIX.........................         4800         8000
    EASTBOUND EXPECT 5000
    WESTBOUND EXPECT 6000
RICHE, SC FIX.................................  FLORENCE, SC VORTAC...................         2500         8000
    EASTBOUND EXPECT 5000
    WESTBOUND EXPECT 6000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Sec.   95.3201 RNAV Route T201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Amended by Adding:
    MEVAE, SC WP..............................  TRUEX, SC WP..........................         2200         7000
    TRUEX, SC WP..............................  FEGNO, NC WP..........................         2400         7000
    FEGNO, NC WP..............................  NUROE, NC WP..........................         2700         7000
    NUROE, NC WP..............................  BORTZ, NC WP..........................         3900         7000
Is Amended To Delete:
    COLUMBIA, SC VORTAC.......................  LOCAS, NC FIX.........................         2500         7000
    NORTHBOUND EXPECT 5000
    SOUTHBOUND EXPECT 6000
    LOCAS, NC FIX.............................  JOTTA, NC FIX.........................         4400         7000
    NORTHBOUND EXPECT 5000
    SOUTHBOUND EXPECT 6000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Sec.   95.3202 RNAV Route T202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Amended by Adding:

    GURSH, SC WP..............................  AWRYT, SC WP..........................         2400         8000
    AWRYT, SC WP..............................  RICHE, SC FIX.........................         2400         8000
    GANTS, NC FIX.............................  ZADEL, NC WP..........................         2700         8000
Is Amended To Read in Part:
    HUSTN, NC FIX.............................  FEGNO, NC WP..........................         2500         8000
    FEGNO, NC WP..............................  GANTS, NC FIX.........................         2600         8000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Sec.   95.3203 RNAV Route T203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Amended by Adding:
    ANDYS, SC FIX.............................  AWRYT, SC WP..........................         2400        17500
    AWRYT, SC WP..............................  ROUTH, NC WP..........................         2800        17500
    ROUTH, NC WP..............................  FADOS, NC WP..........................         3400        17500
    FADOS, NC WP..............................  OREAD, NC WP..........................         3500        17500
Is Amended To Delete:
    COLUMBIA, SC VORTAC.......................  LOCKS, SC FIX.........................         2500         7000
    NORTHBOUND EXPECT 6000
    SOUTHBOUND EXPECT 7000
    LOCKS, SC FIX.............................  BARRETTS MOUNTAIN, NC VOR/DME.........         4900         7000
    NORTHBOUND EXPECT 6000
    SOUTHBOUND EXPECT 7000
    BARRETTS MOUNTAIN, NC VOR/DME.............  PULASKI, VA VORTAC....................         6000         7000
    NORTHBOUND EXPECT 6000
    SOUTHBOUND EXPECT 7000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sec.   95.3206 RNAV Route T206 Is Added To Read
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENADE, NC WP..................................  FADOS, NC WP..........................         3000        17500
FADOS, NC WP..................................  GOTHS, NC WP..........................         3400        17500
GOTHS, NC WP..................................  NUROE, NC WP..........................         3400        17500
NUROE, NC WP..................................  ZADEL, NC WP..........................         3000        17500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sec.   95.3214 RNAV Route T214 Is Added To Read
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OREAD, NC WP..................................  BORTZ, NC WP..........................         3500        17500
BORTZ, NC WP..................................  THMSN, NC WP..........................         3400        17500
THMSN, NC WP..................................  ZADEL, NC WP..........................         2400        17500
ZADEL, NC WP..................................  ORPEE, NC WP..........................         2700        17500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               FROM                           TO                 MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sec.   95.6001 VICTOR Routes-U.S.
    Sec.   95.6044 VOR FEDERAL AIRWAY V44 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAWLING, NY VOR/DME..............  *ATHOS, NY FIX..........         3100
    *8000--MCA ATHOS, NY FIX, N
     BND
GROUP, NY FIX....................  *ALBANY, NY VORTAC......       **6000
    *6000--MCA ALBANY, NY VORTAC,
     S BND
    **2800--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6123 VOR FEDERAL AIRWAY V123 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEL, NY VOR/DME...............  CASSH, NY FIX...........         3000
CASSH, NY FIX....................  *WIGAN, NY FIX..........         3100
    *8000--MCA WIGAN, NY FIX, N
     BND
GROUP, NY FIX....................  *ALBANY, NY VORTAC......       **6000
    *6000--MCA ALBANY, NY VORTAC,
     S BND
    **2800--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6157 VOR FEDERAL AIRWAY V157 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KINGSTON, NY VOR/DME.............  *WIGAN, NY FIX..........         3100
    *8000--MCA WIGAN, NY FIX, N
     BND
GROUP, NY FIX....................  *ALBANY, NY VORTAC......       **6000
    *6000--MCA ALBANY, NY VORTAC,
     S BND
    **2800--GNSS MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec.   95.6405 VOR FEDERAL AIRWAY V405 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEL, NY VOR/DME...............  CASSH, NY FIX...........         3000
CASSH, NY FIX....................  PAWLING, NY VOR/DME.....         3100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.   95.6468 VOR FEDERAL AIRWAY V468 Is Amended To Read in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*BATTLE GROUND, WA VORTAC........  TROTS, WA FIX...........      **10000
    *5300--MCA BATTLE GROUND, WA
     VORTAC, NE BND
    **7200--MOCA
    **8000--GNSS MEA
*SWANY, WA FIX...................  HITCH, WA FIX...........       **8500
    *11500--MCA SWANY, WA FIX, SW
     BND
    **6800--MOCA
    **7000--GNSS MEA
HITCH, WA FIX....................  YAKIMA, WA VORTAC
                                   SW BND..................        *8500
                                   NE BND..................        *5000
    *4400--MOCA
    *5000--GNSS MEA
GLEED, WA FIX....................  ELLENSBURG, WA VORTAC...         6000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-09904 Filed 4-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60185-60186]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0380; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-067-AD;
Amendment 39-17588; AD 2013-19-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Robinson Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters
with certain fuel shut-off valves installed. This AD requires replacing
the fuel shut-off valve with a newer design fuel shut-off valve. This
AD is prompted by three accidents that occurred because the fuel shut-
off valve was inadvertently moved to the ``off'' position. These
actions are intended to prevent inadvertent closing of the fuel valve,
which could result in engine power loss from which a safe landing may
not be possible.

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review a copy of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562)
627-5247; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 25, 2013, at 78 FR 24371, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Robinson Model R22, R22
Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22 Mariner helicopters, serial number 0002
through 4271, with a fuel shut-off valve part-number (P/N) A670-1
revision A through H installed. The NPRM proposed to require, within 3
years, removing the fuel shut-off valve, P/N A670-1 revision A through
H, and replacing the valve with a newly designed fuel shut-off valve.
Three accidents have occurred with R22 helicopters because the lever-
handle fuel valve was inadvertently moved to the ``off'' position
before takeoff. Closing this valve will result in loss of power from
the engine and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Robinson
subsequently redesigned the fuel valve with a smaller actuating handle
and with the valve spring loaded to the ``on'' position, to prevent
inadvertent fuel shut-off. The proposed requirements were intended to
prevent inadvertent closing of the fuel valve, which could result in
engine power loss.

Comments

    After our NPRM (78 FR 24371, April 25, 2013) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Robinson noted that the Summary and Discussion sections of the NPRM
contained language stating that closing of the fuel valve could result
in engine power loss and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Robinson commented that loss of engine power does not result in loss of
control of the helicopter.
    We agree, and have redefined the unsafe condition in the SUMMARY
and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Discussion sections of the preamble of
this final rule to state that inadvertent closing of the fuel valve
could result in engine power loss from which a safe landing may not be
possible.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment
received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and
that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD
requirements as proposed with the change described previously. This
change is consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and
will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the
scope of this AD.

Related Service Information

    Robinson has issued R22 Service Bulletin SB-105, dated September 7,
2011 (SB-105), which specifies procedures to replace the lever handle
fuel shut-off valve part number (P/N) A670-1 revision A through H with
a fuel shut-off valve P/N A670-1 revision I or later.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    SB-105 specifies compliance within 500 flight-hours or by August
31, 2012. This AD requires compliance within 3 years.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1,282 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD. Replacing the fuel shut-off valve
requires about 2 work-hours at an average labor rate of $85 per hour,
and required parts will cost about $260, for a cost per helicopter of
$430, and a total cost to U.S. operators of $551,260.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-19-06 Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson): Amendment 39-
17588; Docket No. FAA-2013-0380; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-067-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and R22
Mariner helicopters, serial number 0002 through 4271, with a fuel
shut-off valve part-number (P/N) A670-1 revision A through H
installed, certificated in any category.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as inadvertent closing of
the fuel shut-off valve, which could result in loss of fuel to the
engine and loss of engine power from which a safe landing may not be
possible.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 5, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 3 years, remove the fuel shut-off valve and replace
with an airworthy fuel shut-off valve that has a P/N other than a P/
N listed in paragraph (a) this AD.
    (2) Do not install a fuel shut-off valve, P/N A670-1 revision A
through H, on any helicopter.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Danny Nguyen,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Robinson R22 Service Bulletin SB-105, dated September 7, 2011,
which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901
Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(310) 539-5198; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You
may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2823: Fuel
Selector/Shut-Off Valve.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 13, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23094 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29898-29899]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0380]

Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port
Detroit Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual
fireworks events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 9:45 p.m.
on May 25, 2012 through 11:15 p.m. on September 2, 2012. This action is
necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events.
During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce
restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area
immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events.
During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety
zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced at various
times between 9:45 p.m. on May 25, 2012 through 11:15 p.m. on September
2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Ensign Benjamin Nessia, Waterways Branch Chief, Marine
Safety Unit Toledo, 420 Madison Ave., Suite 700, Toledo, OH 43604;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events
in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following times for the
following events:
    (1) Put-In-Bay Fourth of July Fireworks, Put-In-Bay, OH. The safety
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(6) will be enforced between from 9:30
p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2012. In case of inclement weather on
July 4, 2012, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until
11:00 p.m. on July 5, 2012.
    (2) Toledo Country Club Memorial Celebration and Fireworks, Toledo,
OH. The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(16) will be enforced
from 9:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on May 25, 2012.
    (3) Luna Pier Fireworks Show, Luna Pier, MI. The safety zone listed
in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(17) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
on July 7, 2012.
    (4) Toledo Country Club 4th of July Fireworks, Toledo, OH. The
safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(18) will be enforced from 9:45
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 29, 2012.
    (5) Perrysburg/Maumee 4th of July Fireworks, Perrysburg, OH. The
safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(20) will be enforced from 10:00
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2012.
    (6) Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lakeside, OH. The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(21) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to
11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
    (7) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(22) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to
9:45 p.m. on July 3, 2012.
    (8) Red, White and Blues Bang Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(23) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. on July 7, 2012.
    (9) Huron Riverfest Fireworks, Huron, OH. The safety zone listed in
33 CFR 165.941(a)(24) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on
July 13, 2012.
    (10) Lakeside Labor Day Fireworks, Lakeside OH. The safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(28) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to
11:15 p.m. on September 2, 2012.
    (11) Catawba Island Club Fireworks, Catawba Island, OH. The safety
zone

listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(29) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 9:45
p.m. on September 2, 2012.
    (12) Red, White, Kaboom Lights Up The Night Fireworks, Toledo, OH.
The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.941(a)(55) will be enforced from
10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2012.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the
safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port
Detroit. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain
of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted
on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard
will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the
regulation is in effect.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.23 and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that the enforcement of
these safety zones need not occur as stated in this notice, he or she
might suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension
via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2012-12256 Filed 5-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36797-36798]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14535]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69754; File No. SR-FICC-2013-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Include Options on Interest Rate Futures
Contracts With Maturities Not Longer Than Two Years in the One-Pot
Cross-Margining Program Between the Government Securities Division and
New York Portfolio Clearing, LLC

June 13, 2013.
    On April 15, 2013, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to include
options on interest rate futures contracts with maturities not longer
than two years in the one-pot cross-margining program between the
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') and New York Portfolio
Clearing, LLC (``NYPC'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
public comment in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013.\4\ The
Commission has received no comment letters regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ NYPC is jointly owned by NYSE Euronext and The Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69470 (April 29,
2013), 78 FR 26093-01 (May 3, 2013) (SR-FICC-2013-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the date of publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change in the Federal Register, or within such longer period up to 90
days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The forty-fifth day after publication of notice
of this proposed rule change is Monday, June 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the proposed rule change would allow FICC to include
options on interest rate futures contracts with maturities not longer
than two years in the one-pot cross-margining program between the GSD
and NYPC. In the proposed rule change, FICC acknowledged that it will
have to alter its risk management framework to account for the non-
linear risks presented by options on interest rate futures.\6\ The
Commission deems it appropriate to designate a longer time period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to evaluate the risk management implications of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69470 (April 29,
2013), 78 FR 26093-01, 26094 (May 3, 2013) (SR-FICC-2013-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act,\7\
the Commission designates Thursday, August 1, 2013 as the date by which
the Commission should either approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change
(SR-FICC-2013-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14535 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 49695]
[DOCID:fr22au08-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0778]

Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee
will meet in New Orleans to discuss various issues relating to
navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related
waterways. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 from 9
a.m. to 12 p.m. This meeting may close early if all business is
finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations
should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 12, 2008. Requests
to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before September 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at the New Orleans Yacht Club, 403
North Roadway West End, New Orleans, LA 70124. Send written material
and requests to make oral presentations to Sector Commander, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO) of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee, USCG Sector New Orleans ATTN: Waterways Management,
1615 Poydras St., New Orleans, LA 70112.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO3 David Chapman, Assistant to DFO
of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the September 25, 2008 Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Introduction of committee members.
    (2) Opening Remarks.
    (3) Approval of the June 26, 2008 minutes.
    (4) Old Business.
    (a) Captain of the Port status report.
    (b) VTS update report.
    (c) Subcommittee/Working Groups update reports.
    (5) Adjournment.

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please
notify the DFO no later than September 12, 2008. Written material for
distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than
September 12, 2008. If you would like a copy of your material
distributed to each member of the committee in advance of a meeting,
please submit 25 copies to the DFO no later than September 12, 2008.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the DFO as soon as possible.

    Dated: July 28, 2008.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-19527 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43950]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-15707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; CFR
Correction

Correction

    In rule document 2016-15707 beginning on page 42542 in the issue of
Thursday, June 30th, 2016, make the following correction:
    On page 42542, in the third column, below the 44th line, remove the
photographed text and insert, ``3. Reinstate the symbol E, in the
following places:''.

[FR Doc. C1-2016-15707 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50771-50773]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0276]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone
during the Swim Around Charleston, a swimming race occurring on waters
of the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley
River, in Charleston, South Carolina. The Swim Around Charleston is
scheduled to take place on September 26, 2015. The temporary safety
zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from noon until 6 p.m. on September 26,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0276. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or

email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 26, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC in
the Federal Register (80 FR 30005). We received no comments on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Swim
Around Charleston.

C. Discussion of Comments and This Temporary Final Rule

    The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule,
and no changes were made to the regulatory text.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of
this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety
zone will only be enforced for a total of six hours; (2) the safety
zone will move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers
clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone will no longer be
enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the
surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels
may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston
Harbor, or the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina from noon
until 6 p.m. on September 26, 2015. Due to the limited duration and
geographical scope of this rule, it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

    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.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. 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 determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination was completed for
2015. The environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0276 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0276  Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston,
SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a moving safety
zone: all waters within a 75-yard radius around Swim Around Charleston
participant vessels that are officially associated with the swim. The
Swim Around Charleston swimming race consists of a 10-mile course that
starts at Remley's Point on the Wando River in approximate position
32[deg]48'49'' N., 79[deg]54'27'' W., crosses the main shipping channel
of Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the General William B.
Westmoreland Bridge on the Ashley River in approximate position
32[deg]50'14'' N., 80[deg]01'23'' W. All coordinates are North American
Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective on September 26, 2015
and will be enforced from noon until 6 p.m.

    Dated: August 3, 2015.
G. L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2015-20737 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P