[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46531-46533]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16728]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0329; Product Identifier 2020-NM-028-AD; Amendment
39-19925; AD 2020-12-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -
271N airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that following the
installation of a second cargo fire extinguishing bottle, insufficient
clearance between the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes was
found. This AD requires inspection and modification of the cargo
compartment fire extinguishing pipes, and on-condition actions if
necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 8, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 8,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
exception occurred on : 2020-16728.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-16728.htm
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email ADs[email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0329.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0329; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0279R1, dated February 5, 2020
(``EASA AD 2019-0279R1'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -231, -232, -
233, -251N, and -271N airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A320-214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2020 (85 FR 20209).
The NPRM was prompted by a report that following the installation of a
second cargo fire extinguishing bottle, insufficient clearance between
the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes was found. The NPRM
proposed to require an inspection and modification of the cargo
compartment fire extinguishing pipes, and on-condition actions if
necessary, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient clearance
between the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes, which could
lead to wear and chafing of the pipes and possibly result in reduced
fire extinguishing capability in case of a cargo compartment fire. See
the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0279R1 describes procedures for an inspection and
modification of the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes,
including installing a clamp, checking the distance between the pipes,
and accomplishing on-condition actions including adjusting the screws
and pipes and installing a spacer between the two pipes.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 368 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255            $103  Up to $358................  Up to $131,744.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2020-12-16 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19925; Docket No. FAA-2020-0329;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 8, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A320-214, -216, -231, -232,
-233, -251N, and -271N airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-
0279R1, dated February 5, 2020 (``EASA AD 2019-0279R1'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that following the installation
of a second cargo fire extinguishing bottle, insufficient clearance
between the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes was found.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient clearance between
the cargo compartment fire extinguishing pipes, which could lead to
wear and chafing of the pipes and possibly result in reduced fire
extinguishing capability in case of a cargo compartment fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0279R1.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0279R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0279R1 refers to ``the effective date of
the original issue of [AD 2019-0279]'' or ``the effective date of
this revised AD,'' this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0279R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0279R1 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an

airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or
tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0279R1,
dated February 5, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0279R1, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0329.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 19, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-16728 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48793-48794]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17533]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0282; FRL-9947-95]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application (524-
EUP-RNI) from Monsanto Company requesting an experimental use permit
(EUP) for Bacillus thuringiensis mCry51Aa2 protein and the genetic
material necessary for its production (vector PV-GHIR508523) in MON
88702 cotton (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-887[Oslash]2-4). The Agency
has determined that the permit may be of regional or national
significance. Therefore, because of the potential significance, EPA is
seeking comments on this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0282, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to
field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to
obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides
if they conduct experimental field tests on more than 10 acres of land
or more than one acre of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional or national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO
63137, (524-EUP-RNI).
    Pesticide Chemical: Bacillus thuringiensis mCry51Aa2 protein and
the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-
GHIR508523) in MON 88702 cotton (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-
887[Oslash]2-4).
    Summary of Request: Monsanto Company is proposing to test MON
88702, a new plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) technology in cotton,
alone and in combination with other registered PIPs in cotton to
generate data and information that is intended to support future PIP
registration applications (e.g., PIPs with multiple modes of action
against hemipteran, thysanopteran and/or lepidopteran cotton pests).
Monsanto Company's proposed experimental program would begin on March
1, 2017, and continue until February 28, 2019; would take place on
2,510 acres in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Puerto Rico;
and would use 8,495.3 grams of active ingredient. Trial protocols will
concentrate on seed development and increase for future testing,
nursery observations of traits in various genetic backgrounds,
phenotypic and agronomic observations, efficacy and yield benefits, and
product characterization, performance and regulatory studies.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 1, 2016.
 Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-17533 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35889-35891]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP98-150-006, CP98-150-007, CP98-151-003, CP05-19-000,
CP06-5-000, CP06-6-000, CP06-7-000, CP06-76-000, and CP02-31-002]

Millennium Pipeline L.L.C., Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation, Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc., Algonquin
Gas Transmission System, Iroquois Gas Transmission System; Notice of
Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Northeast-07 Project

June 15, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (DSEIS) on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed for
the Northeast (NE)-07 Project in Genesee, Ontario, Yates, Schuyler,
Steuben, Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Delaware, Orange, Rockland, Putnam,
and Dutchess Counties, New York; Morris County, New Jersey; and
Fairfield and New Haven Counties, Connecticut, proposed by Millennium
Pipeline L.L.C. (Millennium), Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
(Columbia), Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc.
(collectively referred to as Empire), Algonquin Gas Transmission System
(Algonquin), and Iroquois Gas Transmission System (Iroquois) in the
above-referenced dockets.
    The DSEIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of
the proposed project with appropriate mitigating measures as
recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The DSEIS
also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system
alternatives, alternative sites for compressor stations, and pipeline
alternatives.
    The DSEIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following natural gas pipeline
facilities:

Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase I

     Construction of about 181.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter
pipeline from Corning, New York, to Ramapo, New York, (from milepost
[MP] 190.6 to MP 376.6), with four proposed route modifications within
this area;
     Acquisition from Columbia and continued use of about 7.1
miles of 24-inch-diameter Line A-5 pipeline from MP 340.5 to MP 347.7;
     Construction of the new Corning Compressor Station and
measuring and regulating (M&R) facilities at MP 190.6;
     Installation of upgrades to the Ramapo M&R station in
Ramapo, Rockland County, New York; and
     Construction of the Wagoner M&R station in Deer Park,
Orange County, New York, at MP 337.9.
    Columbia would abandon certain facilities related to the Millennium
Pipeline Project--Phase I. Columbia proposes the following:
     Abandonment in place of about 4.5 miles of 10-inch-, 82.2
miles of 12-inch-, 0.2 mile of 16-inch-, and 2.5 miles of 20-inch-
diameter pipeline in Steuben, Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Orange, and
Delaware Counties, New York, designated as Line A-5;
     Abandonment by removal (Millennium would remove Columbia's
pipeline when it installs its pipeline via same ditch replacement) of
about 55.5 miles of 12-inch-, 16.6 miles of 10-inch-, and 8.8 miles of
8-inch-diameter pipeline in Delaware, Sullivan, Orange, and Rockland
Counties, New York, designated as Line A-5, and of the Walton Deposit
M&R station at MP 276.1 in Delaware County (Millennium would relocate
this facility at the landowner's request and to move it closer to Line
A-5);
     Abandonment by conveyance to Millennium of:
    [cir] About 3.1 miles of 10- and 12-inch-diameter pipeline in
Steuben County, New York, designated as Line 10325;
    [cir] About 0.4 mile of 10-inch-diameter pipeline in Broome County,
New York, designated as Line 10356;
    [cir] About 52.5 miles of 10-, 12-, and 24-inch-diameter pipeline
in Steuben, Chemung, Broome, and Orange Counties, New York, designated
as Line A-5;
    [cir] About 2.6 miles of 6-inch-diameter pipeline in Tioga County,
New York, designated as Line AD-31;
    [cir] About 0.1 mile of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Broome County,
New, York, designated as Line N;
    [cir] About 6.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Rockland
County, New York, designated as Line 10338;
    [cir] The following M&R stations in New York:

--Corning Natural Gas, MP 180.4, Steuben County;
--Cooper Planes, MP 182.1, Steuben County;
--M Account, MP 187.5, Steuben County;
--Corning Glass, MP 188.4, Steuben County;
--Spencer, MP 217.3, Tioga County;
--Catatonk, MP 228.2, Tioga County;
--Owego, MP 231.5, Tioga County;
--Union Center, MP 240.2, Broome County;
--Endicott, MP 241.7, Broome County;
--Westover, MP 245.7, Broome County;
--Willis Road, MP 248.1, Broome County;
--Port Dickinson, MP 250.8, Broome County;
--Kirkwood, MP 253.8, Broome County;
--Hancock, MP 285.6, Delaware County;
--Hartwood Club, MP 332.1, Sullivan County;
--Middletown, MP 347.7, Orange County;
--Huguenot, MP 3440.5, Orange County;
--Warwick, MP 359.3, Orange County;
--Greenwood Lake, MP 364.2, Orange County;
--Central Hudson/Tuxedo, MP367.9, Orange County;
--Sloatsburg, MP 373.3, Rockland County;
--Ramapo, MP 376.4, Rockland County; and
--Buena Vista, MP 383.3, Rockland County.

    Millennium would replace the facilities Columbia would abandon in
place or by removal with its proposed project facilities, or it would
continue to use those it would acquire by conveyance.
    Millennium proposes to construct Columbia's Line A-5 Replacement
Project as part of the Phase I Project.

Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project

     Replacement of 8.8 miles of 8- and 16-inch-diameter
segments of Columbia's existing Line A-5 pipeline with larger 30-inch-
diameter pipeline in Orange and Rockland Counties, New York;
     Modification of three existing M&R stations (the Tuxedo,
Sloatsburg, and Ramapo M&R stations) on this segment of Line A-5 to
accommodate the larger diameter pipeline; and
     Abandonment in place of about 1.0 mile of the existing
Line A-5 pipeline.

Empire Connector Project

     Construction of about 78 miles of new 24-inch-diameter
pipeline and associated facilities in Ontario, Yates, Schuyler,
Chemung, and Steuben Counties, New York; and
     Construction of a new compressor station in Genesee
County, New York.

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project

     Replacement about 4.9 miles of existing 26-inch-diameter
pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Rockland County, New York;

     Construction of miscellaneous pipeline modifications and
meter station modifications at several locations in Rockland County,
New York, and Fairfield County, Connecticut;
     Modifications to three existing compressor stations in
Rockland and Putnam Counties, New York, and Morris County, New Jersey;
and
     Construction of one new natural gas compressor station in
New Haven County, Connecticut.

Iroquois MarketAccess Project

     Reduction of the proposed size of the compressor to be
constructed in the Town of Brookfield, Connecticut, from 10,000 hp to
7,700 hp;
     Installation of natural gas cooling and related facilities
at the Brookfield Compressor Station; and
     Installation of gas cooling and related facilities at
Iroquois' existing compressor station in Town of Dover, Dutchess
County, New York.

FERC Comment Procedures

    Any person wishing to comment on the DSEIS may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your
comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
    Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Reference.
    [cir] Docket Nos. CP98-150-006 et al. and CP98-151-003 et al. for
the Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase I;
    [cir] Docket No. CP05-19-000 for the Columbia Line A-5 Replacement
Project;
    [cir] Docket Nos. CP06-5-000, CP06-6-000, and CP06-7-000 for the
Empire Connector Project;
    [cir] Docket No. CP06-76-000 for the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion
Project; and
    [cir] Docket No. CP02-31-002 for the Iroquois MarketAccess Project.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2, PJ11.2; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before July 31, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of the project. However, the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions to this
proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing''

link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you
will need to create a free account which can be created online.
    After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are
investigated, and modifications are made to the DSEIS, a final SEIS
will be published and distributed by the staff. The final SEIS will
contain the staff's responses to timely comments received on the DSEIS.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commenter a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this DSEIS. You
must file your request to intervene as specified above.\1\ You do not
need intervener status to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Review Comment Procedures

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) will use the notice of
availability (NOA) issued by the Commission for the DSEIS as a Public
Notice for the COE for the applications for permits under authority of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for the NE-07
Project. The COE is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,
state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other
interested parties, in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of
this proposed activity.
    If you wish to provide written comments on the proposed activity
pertaining to the jurisdiction of the COE, as described in this DSEIS,
please provide them to FERC in accordance with its procedures, as well
as to the COE within 30 days of the date of this notice, to: Margaret
Crawford, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Buffalo District, Auburn Field
Office, 7413 County House Road, Auburn, New York 13021 (or by e-mail
to: Margaret.A.Crawford@usace.army.mil).
    A lack of response will be interpreted by the COE as meaning that
there is no objection to the proposed project. Any comments received by
the COE will be considered by it to determine whether to issue, modify,
condition or deny a permit under its Section 10 and Section 404
authority for this proposal. To make this decision, comments will be
used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties,
water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors. Comments also will be used in the preparation of the
final SEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The COE
will use comments filed with it to determine the need for the COE to
hold a public hearing, and to determine the overall public interest of
the proposed activity.
    Please note that questions pertaining to the work within the
jurisdiction of the COE as described in the DSEIS may be directed to
one of the following respective points of contact:
     For the Empire Connector Project (DA Proc. No. LRB-2005-
00146) and Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase 1 (DA Proc. No. LRB-2005-
02043): Margaret Crawford, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Buffalo
District, Auburn Field Office, 7413 County House Road, Auburn, New York
13021,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     For the Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase 1 (DA Proc. No.
NAN-2005-00138); Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project, Algonquin
Ramapo Expansion Project (DA Proc. No. NAN-2006-00056); or Iroquois
Market Access Project, Dover Compressor Station (DA Proc. No. NAN-2006-
00232): Heidi Firstencel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--New York
District, Albany Field Office, 1 Bond Street, Troy, New York 12180,
(518) 273-8593.
     For the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project, Oxford
Compressor Station and Brookfield, Connecticut facilities (DA Proc. No.
NAE-2006-1516) and Iroquois Market Access, Brookfield Compressor
Station (DA Proc. No. NAE-2006-850): Cori Rose, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers--New England District, 696 Virginia Road, Concord,
Massachusetts<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may request, in writing, within the 30-day comment
period, that the COE hold a public hearing to consider the application.
Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the
reasons for holding a public hearing.
    The COE's decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation

of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed
activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the
national concern for both protection and utilization of important
resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from
the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality,
energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people.

Additional Information

    The DSEIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference
Room identified above. In addition, copies of the DSEIS have been
mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies; public interest groups;
individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the DSEIS;
libraries; newspapers; and parties to this proceeding.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary helpline can be reached toll
free at 1-866-208-3676, for TTY at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web

site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web
site.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9804 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16200-16206]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07888]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573; FRL-9975-07]

Tetraconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
tetraconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a Isagro USA, Inc.)
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 16, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 15, 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-2016-0573, 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 Goodis, 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 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.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 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-2016-0573 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
June 15, 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-2016-0573, 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758) (FRL-
9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F8507) by Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a Isagro USA, Inc.), 430 Davis Drive,
Suite 240, Morrisville, NC 27560. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.557 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide tetraconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-3-(1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethoxy)propyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on barley at 0.3
parts per million (ppm); crop group 16, forage, fodder, and straw of
cereal grains group (except corn) at 8.0 ppm; dried shelled pea and
bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, hay at 8.0 ppm; dried shelled pea
and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, seed at 0.15 ppm; dried shelled
pea and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C, vine at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed
crop subgroup 20A at 0.9 ppm; and wheat at 0.1 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Isagro S.p.A (d/b/a
Isagro USA, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances that vary slightly from what the petitioner
requested. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and 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 for tetraconazole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tetraconazole
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The liver and kidney are the primary target organs of tetraconazole
in all species in oral toxicity studies of subchronic and chronic
durations. Following long-term oral exposure, tetraconazole caused
liver tumors in mice in both sexes. In the acute neurotoxicity study,
loss of motor activity in both sexes, and clinical signs including
hunched posture, decreased defecation, and/or red or yellow material on
various body surfaces were observed in females. There was no evidence
of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following subchronic exposure. There
were no systemic effects observed in the 21-day dermal toxicity study
up to the highest dose tested. Tetraconazole did not show evidence of
mutagenicity in in vitro or in vivo studies.
    Oral rat and rabbit prenatal developmental studies showed no
evidence for increased quantitative susceptibility in utero.
Developmental effects (increased incidences of supernumerary ribs, and
hydroureter and hydronephrosis) were seen in the presence of maternal
effects in rats (decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and
increased water intake, and increased liver and kidney weights), while
no developmental effects were seen in rabbits. A 2-generation rat
reproduction study also revealed no evidence for increased quantitative
susceptibility in offspring. Decreased litter and mean pup weights and
increased liver weights were noted in offspring at a dose higher than
that which caused mortality in adult females. Effects in parental
animals that survived the duration of the study were consistent with
other studies in the database. In contrast to the oral studies where
the most sensitive effects were in the liver and kidney, inhalation
exposure of tetraconazole to rats resulted in portal-of-entry effects,
including squamous cell metaplasia of the laryngeal mucous, mono-
nuclear cell infiltration, goblet cell hyperplasia, hypertrophy of the
nasal cavity and nasopharyngeal duct, and follicular hypertrophy of the
thyroid in males. At the highest concentration tested, there were
treatment-related increases in absolute lung weights in both sexes.
    Although liver tumors were observed in mice in both sexes in a
mouse carcinogenicity study, the agency has classified tetraconazole as
``Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause
increased cell proliferation in the liver.'' This classification is
supported by an in vivo cancer mode-of-action study in mice,
demonstrating that cancer risk is linked to increased cell
proliferation in the liver. Because the current reference dose (RfD) of
0.0073 mg/kg/day is below the level at which increased cell
proliferation occurs in the liver, it would be protective of any liver
effects caused by tetraconazole in the mouse carcinogenicity or MoA
studies at higher doses. Quantification of carcinogenic potential is
not required.

    Tetraconazole was categorized as having low acute toxicity via the
oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (Toxicity Categories III-IV). It is
not a dermal irritant or a dermal sensitizer. It is considered a slight
eye irritant.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tetraconazole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Section 3 Registration for Application to add Crop Group 6C, Dried
Shelled Pea and Bean (except Soybean) Subgroup, Barley, Canola, Wheat,
and Crop Group 16, Forage Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains Group
(except corn)'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0573.

B. 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 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tetraconazole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of January 10, 2017 (82 FR 2900)
(FRL-9955-74).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tetraconazole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing tetraconazole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.557. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
tetraconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for tetraconazole. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-
2008 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 used tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT) estimates.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA (2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized residue
data from field trials and feeding studies to obtain average residues
and assumed the PCT estimates provided in Unit III.C.1.iv. Empirically
derived processing factors were used in these assessments when
available.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that tetraconazole has been classified as ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause increased cell
proliferation in the liver.'' Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment
for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    For the chronic dietary exposure assessment, the Agency used the
following PCT estimates for existing uses as follows: Corn, 1%; grapes,
5%; peanuts, 1%; strawberries, 2.5%; sugar beet, 25%; and soybean,
2.5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5% or 1%. In
those cases, the Agency uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%,
unless the maximum PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5%, in which
case the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT value in the analysis.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain

that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which tetraconazole may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for tetraconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of tetraconazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
tetraconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 11 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 120 ppb for ground water. The
estimated EDWCs of tetraconazole for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 5.5 ppb for surface water and 118 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 120 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 118 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).
    Tetraconazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Tetraconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
    Tetraconazole, as a triazole-derived pesticide, is one of a class
of compounds that can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including tetraconazole, EPA conducted
a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole,
triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of
all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The
risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation of
hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum
combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-
dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and
nondietary exposures). In addition to the 10X interspecies factor and
the 10X intraspecies factor, the Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to
NOAEL safety factor when the reproduction study was used. In addition,
the Agency retained a 10X for the lack of studies including a
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. The assessment includes
evaluations of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised
of infants and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment is found
in the propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov/, Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0497.
    An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common
triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA),
triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was
completed on July 18, 2017, in association with registration requests
for tetraconazole and difenoconazole fungicides. The requested new uses
of tetraconazole did not significantly change the dietary exposure
estimates for free triazole or conjugated triazoles. Therefore, an
updated dietary exposure analysis was not conducted. The July 18, 2017
update for triazoles may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-
0573.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no residual
uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity. There was no evidence
of increased quantitative susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses
following in utero exposures to tetraconazole. However, there was

evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility of fetuses in the rat
prenatal developmental toxicity study where there were increased
incidences of supernumerary ribs, and hydroureter and hydronephrosis
were seen in fetuses at the same dose that caused maternal toxicity
(decreased body weight gain, and food consumption and increased water
intake, and increased liver and kidney weights). In addition, there was
also no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility to offspring in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for tetraconazole is complete.
    ii. Although there were effects indicative of neurotoxicity in the
acute neurotoxicity study in rats, there were no such effects noted in
the subchronic neurotoxicity study or any other studies in the
database. The fact that a clear NOAEL was established for the
neurotoxicity effects observed and the selected endpoints are
protective of those effects, which were observed at doses 2- to 100-
fold higher than the most sensitive effects in the database (liver and
kidney). Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity
study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that
tetraconazole results in increased quantitative susceptibility in in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young
rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. There is evidence of
increased qualitative susceptibility to fetuses in the rat prenatal
developmental toxicity study (increased incidences of supernumerary
ribs, and hydroureter and hydronephrosis). The level of concern (LOC)
is low because: (1) The fetal effects were seen at the same dose as the
maternal effects; (2) a clear NOAEL was established; (3) the
developmental NOAEL from a study in rats is being used as the POD for
the acute dietary endpoint (females 13-49 years of age) and are
protected for; and (4) there were no developmental effects in the
rabbit study. There is also no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility to offspring in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, and modeled water
estimates. Therefore, the acute analysis is highly conservative. The
chronic dietary exposure analysis utilized modeled drinking water
estimates, empirical processing factors, average field trial residues,
average residues from the feeding studies, PCT, and modeled drinking
water estimates. Therefore, the chronic risk estimates provided in this
document are unlikely to underestimate the risks posed by
tetraconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
tetraconazole in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tetraconazole.

E. 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
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to tetraconazole will occupy 4.8% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year
old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
tetraconazole from food and water will utilize 91% of the cPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for tetraconazole.
    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). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, tetraconazole is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-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 short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
tetraconazole.
    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,
tetraconazole 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
tetraconazole.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that tetraconazole is ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans at levels that do not cause increased cell
proliferation in the liver.'' Because the chronic endpoint is
protective of cell proliferation in the liver, there is not likely to
be a cancer risk from exposure to tetraconazole.
    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 tetraconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods are available to enforce the
established/recommended tetraconazole plant and livestock tolerances
(D280006, W. Donovan, 10-Jan-2002, D267481, 12-Oct-2000; D278236, W.
Donovan, 22-Oct-2001). Isagro has also submitted adequate method
validation and independent laboratory validation (ILV) data that
indicates that the QuEChERS multi-residue method L00.00-115
(48135104.der) is capable of quantifying tetraconazole residues in/on a
variety of fruit, cereal grain, root, oilseed, and livestock
commodities.
    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 tetraconazole.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Some of the terminology the petitioner used to describe requested
tolerances is not the standard terminology the Agency uses for
establishing tolerances. Tolerances requested for ``dried shelled pea
and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C'' and ``crop group 16, forage,
fodder, and straw of cereal grains group'' are being issued for ``pea
and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C'' and ``grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16'', respectively. The
subgroup 6C includes all edible pods and the dried and succulent seed
forms of the commodities in the subgroup; the Agency does not
specifically used the term ``seed'' in the naming of this subgroup,
consistent with its food and feed commodity vocabulary. The petitioner
also requested tolerances for hay and vine commodities in subgroup 6C.
Hay and vine are plant parts of legume vegetables, which are covered
under crop subgroup 7A. Therefore, the Agency is establishing this
requested tolerance as ``vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean,
subgroup 7A''.
    Additionally, the Agency has determined that some of the field
trials were replicates, which lead to the agency recommending for
different tolerance levels than that proposed. EPA added significant
figures for the tolerance values to be consistent with its practice.
    Although the petitioner requested tolerances for residues of
tetraconazole in or on commodities in group 16 except corn, the
tolerances for corn, field, forage and corn, field, stover as well as
corn, pop, stover are superseded by the new group 16 tolerances. Based
on cereal grain processing data, which indicate that tetraconazole
residues concentrate in the processed commodities of barley and wheat,
the Agency is establishing tolerances for residues in or on the flour
and bran commodities of barley and the flour, bran, and germ
commodities of wheat. In addition, because residue data indicate that
there will be increased residues in aspirated grain fractions as a
result of the use of tetraconazole on cereal grains, the Agency is
modifying the existing tolerance for aspirated grain fractions, in
accordance with the provisions at 40 CFR 180.40(f)(1)(i)(B).
    Finally, because the established tolerances will increase the
ruminant dietary burdens, the Agency is increasing existing milk and
meat tolerance levels as well, pursuant to 40 CFR 180.6(b).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
tetraconazole, 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-3-(1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethoxy)propyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on pea and bean,
dried shelled (except soybean) subgroup 6C at 0.09 ppm; vegetable,
foliage of legume (except soybeans) subgroup 7A at 8.0 ppm; barley,
grain at 0.30 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.90 ppm; wheat, grain at
0.05 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.50 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and
straw, group 16 at 7.0 ppm; barley, bran at 1.0 ppm; barley, flour at
0.50 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.15 ppm; wheat, flour at 0.08 ppm. In
addition, EPA is revising existing tolerances for grain, aspirated
fractions to 4.0 ppm; milk to 0.06 ppm; cattle, meat to 0.02 ppm; goat,
meat to 0.02 ppm; horse, meat to 0.02 ppm; and sheep, meat to 0.02 ppm.
Additionally, the existing tolerances for corn, field, forage; corn,
field, stover; and corn, pop, stover are being removed since they are
superseded by this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 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).

VII. 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: April 4, 2018.
Donna Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Program.

    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.  180.557; in the table to paragraph (a):
0
a. Remove the entry for ``Aspirated grain fractions'';
0
b. Add alphabetically entries for ``Barley, bran''; ``Barley, flour'';
and ``Barley, grain'';
0
c. Revise the entry for ``Cattle, meat'';
0
d. Remove the entries for ``Corn, field, forage''; ``Corn, field,
stover''; and ``Corn, pop, stover'';
0
e. Add alphabetically entries for ``Grain, aspirated fractions'';
``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16'';
0
f. Revise the entries for ``Goat, meat''; ``Horse, meat''; ``Milk'';
0
g. Add alphabetically entries for ``Pea and bean, dried shelled (except
soybean) subgroup 6C''; ``Rapeseed subgroup 20A'';
0
h. Revise the entry for ``Sheep, meat''; and
0
i. Add alphabetically entries for ``Vegetable, foliage of legume
(except soybeans) subgroup 7A''; ``Wheat, bran''; ``Wheat, flour'';
``Wheat, germ''; and ``Wheat, grain''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.557   Tetraconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, bran...............................................          1.0
Barley, flour..............................................         0.50
Barley, grain..............................................         0.30

                                * * * * *
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.02

                                * * * * *
Goat, meat.................................................         0.02
Grain, aspirated fractions.................................          4.0
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16.........          7.0

                                * * * * *
Horse, meat................................................         0.02

                                * * * * *
Milk.......................................................         0.06

                                * * * * *
Pea and bean, dried shelled (except soybean) subgroup 6C...         0.09

                                * * * * *
Rapeseed subgroup 20A......................................         0.90

                                * * * * *
Sheep, meat................................................         0.02

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, foliage of legume (except soybeans) subgroup 7A.          8.0

                                * * * * *
Wheat, bran................................................         0.15
Wheat, flour...............................................         0.08
Wheat, germ................................................         0.50
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-07888 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9225-9227]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1103]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the drawbridge
operation regulations of the Pennington Avenue Bridge, across Curtis
Creek, mile 0.9, at Baltimore, MD. This temporary change allows the
bridge to operate on a restricted schedule to complete structural
repairs and replacement of the grid deck, floor beams and stringers.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6 a.m. on February
17, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-1103 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1103 in the
``Keyword'' box, and clicking ``Search.'' This material is 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 rule,
call Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because after the current repair project
began extensive additional repairs and replacements were identified.
This additional work will require additional time to complete. The
corresponding request to revise the operating schedule for this
temporary final rule also required extensive coordination with the
known affected marine facilities (i.e., the Coast Guard Yard and the U
S. Army Reserve Unit), the City of Baltimore, MD, and the contractor so
that necessary repairs can continue to the Pennington Avenue Bridge.
The timing of the discovery of the additional repairs and replacements
combined with the length of time to coordinate with the affected
parties makes it impractical to publish an NPRM and still continue the
work as scheduled. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons stated
in the preceding paragraph.

Basis and Purpose

    The City of Baltimore, MD, who owns and operates this double-leaf
bascule drawbridge, has requested a temporary change from the current
general operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.5 that requires the
bridge to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a
request to open is given, to complete structural repairs.
    The Pennington Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed
position to vessels of 38 feet, above mean high water. Regular users of
the waterway consist of Coast Guard vessels bound for the Coast Guard
Yard at Curtis Bay, as well as a significant amount of commercial
vessels that pass through the bridge.
    On August 17, 2010, we published a notice of temporary deviation
from regulation entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Curtis
Creek, Baltimore, MD'' in the Federal Register (74 FR 50707). The
temporary deviation allowed the bridge to operate on a restricted
schedule to facilitate structural repairs from August 5, 2010 to
December 1, 2010.
    During completion of structural repairs, the drawbridge with four
lift spans will provide full and partial openings of the spans for
vessels on several dates and times from February 17, 2011 to November
30, 2011. During the replacement of the grid deck, floor beams and
stringers, the drawbridge will be maintained in closed position to
vessels to include immobilizing half of the draw spans to single-leaf
operation.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is temporarily amending 33 CFR 117.557 by inserting
new paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Paragraph (a) will contain the temporary rule for the Pennington
Avenue Bridge at mile 0.9 in Baltimore, MD. The rule will allow the
draw of the bridge to operate as follows: (1) Need not open from 6 a.m.
on February 17, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on January 20, 2011; except, vessel
openings shall be provided on signal if at least two hours advance
notice is given; (2) Single-leaf operation on the southeast side span
from 11:59 p.m. on January 20, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on February 12, 2011.
The opposite connecting spans on the north side while not under repair
shall continue to open on signal for vessels; (3) Need not open from
11:59 p.m. on February 12, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on March 6, 2011; except,
vessel openings shall be provided on signal if at least two hours
advance notice is given; (4) Single-leaf operation on the southwest
side span from 11:59 p.m. on March 6, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on March 28,
2011. The opposite connecting spans on the north side while not under
repair shall continue to open on signal for vessels; (5) Need not open
from 11:59 p.m. on March 28, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2011;
except, vessel openings shall be provided on signal if at least two
hours advance notice is given.
    Paragraph (b) will contain the existing regulations for the I695
Bridge, mile 1.0, at Baltimore, MD.
    The temporary regulation will not significantly disrupt vessel
traffic since

mariners may still transit the bridge with full and partial openings of
the draw spans for vessels on several dates and times.

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, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order.
    The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that the temporary changes have only
a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners
can still plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge
openings, and to minimize delays, vessels that can pass under the
bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.

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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: Commercial users and unexpected users of the waterway
intending to transit the drawbridge on signal. This action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. Mariners can plan their trips in
accordance with the scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays and
vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do
so at all times.

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,
eliminates 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 would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

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 M16475.1D, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction. Under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. From February 17, 2011 to November 30, 2011, suspend Sec.  117.557,
and add Sec.  117.558, to read as follows:

Sec.  117.558  Curtis Creek.

    (a) The draw of the Pennington Avenue Bridge, mile 0.9 at Baltimore
shall operate as follows:
    (1) Need not open from 6 a.m. on February 17, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on
January 20, 2011; except, vessel openings shall be provided on signal
if at least two hours advance notice is given;
    (2) Single leaf operation on the southeast side span from 11:59
p.m. on January 20, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on February 12, 2011. The
opposite connecting spans on the north side while not under repair
shall continue to open on signal for vessels;
    (3) Need not open from 11:59 p.m. on February 12, 2011 to 11:59
p.m. on March 6, 2011; except, vessel openings shall be provided on
signal if at least two hours advance notice is given;
    (4) Single leaf operation on the southwest side span starting from
11:59 p.m. on March 6, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. on March 28, 2011. The
opposite connecting spans on the north side while not under repair
shall continue to open on signal for vessels;
    (5) Need not open from 11:59 p.m. on March 29, 2011 to 11:59 p.m.
on November 30, 2011; except, vessel openings will be provided on
signal if at least two hours advance notice is given.
    (b) The draw of the I695 Bridge, mile 1.0 at Baltimore, shall open
on signal if at least a one-hour notice is given to the Maryland
Transportation Authority in Baltimore.

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
William D. Lee
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-3572 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P