[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 49973]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1098-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DCGT--July 20, 2016,
Administrative Changes to be effective 8/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160720-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1099-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Update
Filing--Colorado Springs Utilities to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160720-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1100-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-07-20, CP,
Encana to be effective 7/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160720-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated July 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17994 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


              OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                               January 31, 2011

                                                                PC Code: 122804
MEMORANDUM	DP Barcode: 380524

SUBJECT:	Abamectin: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Chives, Dried Beans, and the Bulb Onion Subgroup 3-07A.

FROM:	Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist
      Environmental Risk Branch II
      Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Brian Anderson, Chief
      Environmental Risk Branch II
      Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO:		Paula Deschamp, Chief
		Risk Assessment Branch II
		Health Effects Division (7509P)

      Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer
      Barbara Madden, Minor Use Team Leader, RM Team 5
      Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch
      Registration Division (7505P)

      Thomas Harris, Risk Manager Reviewer
      John Hebert, Team Leader, RM Team 7
      Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch
      Registration Division (7505P)

      This Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) memorandum includes a drinking water assessment in support of human health risk assessment for proposed Section 3 new use registrations of abamectin on bulb onions (crop subgroup 3-07A), dried beans, and chives (both fresh and dried).  These uses were proposed by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).  This assessment quantifies potential surface water and ground water exposure due to the maximum use patterns of proposed and currently labeled uses of abamectin.  Water monitoring data on abamectin have not been located.

      The previous drinking water exposure assessment identified the use patterns of maximum exposure as tomatoes and cucurbits, based on aquatic exposure modeling (DP 335118; USEPA, 2007).  However, the proposed use on dried beans results in higher exposure even with the addition of seed treatments on tomatoes and cucurbits (regardless of the environmental fate assumptions used for modeling).  If the screening exposure estimates listed in this memorandum result in dietary risk exceedances, contact Greg Orrick<PHONE_NUMBER>) of Environmental Risk Branch II (7507P) to explore further refinements to this drinking water exposure assessment.

      Exposure estimates are conservative because the available environmental fate data for abamectin are poor.  Submitted aqueous photolysis, soil photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, and anaerobic soil metabolism are not acceptable.  Also, aerobic aquatic metabolism and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies of abamectin have not been submitted.  The field studies were identified as not acceptable in the previous ecological risk assessment for abamectin (USEPA, 2010; DP barcode 372885); however, MRID 41191501 appears to have been upgraded with the submission of MRID 42627601 (DP 187271; USEPA, 1993) and MRID 42900002 is in review.  Therefore, additional field dissipation data are not needed at this time.  Abamectin is assumed stable to photolysis and biodegradation in the absence of acceptable data (it is known to be stable to abiotic hydrolysis).  Therefore, exposure estimates reflect persistence of the compound mixture's residues.  Submission of acceptable data (especially aqueous photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism, and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies) showing ready degradation to much less toxic degradates would reduce the conservatism of exposure estimates and should be the first step in any efforts to refine the drinking water exposure assessment, if necessary.

      In the submitted aqueous and soil photolysis studies (MRID 159163), the photoperiods under sunlight and the sunlamps used for degradate characterization were not adequately described.  Mass balances were not provided and degradates were not characterized in the definitive studies.  In degradate characterization studies under sunlamps, three chromatographic fractions representing degradates were described, including a major non-polar fraction consistent with the delta-8,9-isomers of abamectin, a major "moderately polar" fraction that was not identified, and a major polar fraction that consisted of multiple unidentified components.  Acceptable studies would, among other criteria, adequately describe the lighting conditions, identify and quantify all major degradates, quantify all minor degradates structurally similar to the parent compound mixture, and provide mass balances accounting for >90% and <110% of the applied radiolabeled test material.

      In the submitted aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism studies (MRID 159163), major amounts of radiolabeled material (up to 52% of the applied) were lost from each study (i.e., each combination of soil and treatment concentration).  Major abamectin degradates included a mixture of 8-α-hydroxy and ring-opened aldehyde derivatives of the parent compound mixture ("Compound 7"; maximum of 20% of the applied 56 days after treatment) and two other unidentified compounds or mixtures ("Compound 4", maximum of 12% of the applied at 84 days, and "Compound 12", maximum of 12% of the applied at 28, 56, 112 days).  These major degradates appear to have been more persistent in soil than the parent compound mixture.  Acceptable studies would, among other criteria, identify and quantify all major degradates, quantify all minor degradates structurally similar to the parent compound mixture, and provide mass balances accounting for >90% and <110% of the applied radiolabeled test material.

	The environmental hazards statements on the proposed labels (EPA Reg. No. 100-898, 100-1154, 100-1351) do not include the following surface water advisory that is recommended in Chapter 8 of the current Label Review Manual (November, 2008):

      "This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rain water.  This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water.  This product is classified as having a medium potential for reaching both surface water and aquatic sediment via runoff for several weeks to months after application.  A level, well-maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential loading of abamectin from runoff water and sediment. Runoff of this product will be reduced by avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours."

      Because of its low mobility in soil, a ground water advisory for abamectin is not recommended.

References

USEPA, 1993.  Mastradone, P.  EFGWB Review Transmittal Memorandum.  DP Barcode 187271.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  Memorandum to the Registration Division.  May 10, 1993.

USEPA.  2010.  Abdel-Saheb, I.  Ecological Risk Assessment Evaluating Abamectin for the Registration of a New End-use Product (Athena Miticide/Insecticide) for Use on Field Crops, Vegetables and Small Fruits, Tree, Bush, and Vine Crops.  DP Barcode 372885.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  Memorandum to the Registration Division.  Jun. 22, 2010.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39955-39957]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0716]
RIN 165-AA00

Safety Zone; Marine Event Held in the Captain of the Port Long
Island Sound Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a
fireworks display within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Long Island
Sound (LIS) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into,
transit through, mooring or anchoring within the limited access area is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP LIS.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on August 31,
2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0716 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Petty Officer Amber Arnold, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Long Island Sound, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LIS Long Island Sound
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NAD 83 North American Datum 1983

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    This rulemaking establishes a safety zone for the Pvro Engineering
Inc. fireworks display. The Pyro Engineering Inc. fireworks display is
a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A safety zone was
established for this event in 2016 via a temporary final rule

entitled, ``Safety Zones; Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island
Sound Captain of the Port Zone.'' This rulemaking was published on
August 8, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 52335).
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule
because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the scheduling
details of the event. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard
enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final
rule before the event takes place. It is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we must establish the safety zone by August 31, 2017.
Thus, waiting for a comment period to run is also contrary to the
public interest as it would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep
the ports and waterways safe.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the
preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in
33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP LIS has determined that the safety zone
established by this temporary final rule is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waterways before, during and after the
scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone for a fireworks display that
will take place on August 31, 2017, with a rain date of September 1,
2017 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The location of the safety zone
includes all waters of Great Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY in
approximate position 40[deg]55'00'' N., 072[deg]27'31'' W. (NAD 83).
    This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or
anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone and
restricts vessel movement around the location of the fireworks display
to reduce the safety risks associated with it during the period of
enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.
    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of the
safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not
limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to
Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance
it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The
enforcement of the safety zone will be relatively short in duration;
(2) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with
permission from the COTP LIS or a designated representative; (3) the
safety zone is designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic,
permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterway not
designated as a safety zone; and (4) the Coast Guard will notify the
public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as
via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
increase public awareness of this safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this
rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
temporary rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)
of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of
Environmental Consideration (REC) for Categorically Excluded Actions
will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0716 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0716  Safety Zone; Marine Event held in the Captain of
the Port Long Island Sound Zone.

    (a) Location. The regulated area for the fireworks display is that
area within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform or launch site
within the navigable waters of Great Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY in
approximate position 40[deg]55'00'' N., 072[deg]27'31'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 7:30 p.m.
to 9:30 p.m. on August 31, 2017, with a rain date of September 1, 2017.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A
``designated representative'' is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the
COTP, Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The
designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be
on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer. ``Official patrol vessels'' may consist of any Coast Guard,
Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned
or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound. In addition, members
of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators
of this regulation.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into or movement within the zone is prohibited unless authorized
by the COTP, Long Island Sound.
    (3) Any vessel given permission to deviate from these regulations
must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long
Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
    (4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector
Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
    (5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed
as directed.

    Dated: August 3, 3017.
A.E. Tucci,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island
Sound.
[FR Doc. 2017-17867 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P