[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22384-22386]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition To Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved
Antitheft Device; Porsche

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an exemption of a previously
approved antitheft device.

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

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full, Porsche Cars North America,
Inc.'s (Porsche) petition for an exemption in accordance with Sec.
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard for the Porsche Boxster vehicle line, beginning with model
year (MY) 1997. On February 1, 2012, Porsche submitted a petition to
modify its previously approved exemption for the Porsche Boxster
vehicle line and notified the agency that all new successor models
within the Boxster line will be installed with the proposed antitheft
device beginning with MY 2013. NHTSA is granting Porsche's petition to
modify the exemption in full, because it has determined that the
modified device is also likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 MY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, W43-443, Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 22, 1995, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in full, a petition from Porsche for
an

exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541) for a vehicle line whose nameplate and model
year were confidential, but subsequently provided as the Porsche
Boxster vehicle line. The Boxster vehicle line has been exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard beginning with its MY 1997 vehicles (See
60 FR 66575). On February 1, 2012, Porsche submitted a petition to
modify the previously approved exemption for the Boxster vehicle line.
This notice grants in full Porsche's petition to modify the exemption
for the Boxster vehicle line. Porsche's submission is a complete
petition, as required by 49 CFR 543.9(d), in that it meets the general
requirements contained in 49 CFR 543.5 and the specific content
requirements of 49 CFR 543.6. Porsche's petition provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity, design and location of the
components of the antitheft device proposed for installation beginning
with the 2013 model year.
    The current antitheft device (MYs 1997-2012) installed on the
Porsche Boxster vehicle line is a passive, microprocessor-based device
which includes a starter interrupt function, transponder key and a
central-locking system. Porsche also offers a remote-controlled audible
and visible alarm system as optional equipment to its current device.
    Porsche stated that its current antitheft device is activated by
removing the key from the vehicle's ignition switch/steering lock. By
removing the key, the ignition switch returns the system to its normal
``OFF'' state where starting the engine and operation of the vehicle is
prohibited. Porsche stated that the key contains a radio signal
transponder which signals the control unit to allow the engine to start
when the correct key is inserted into the ignition switch.
    Porsche further stated that the optional alarm system on the
vehicle line monitors the doors, hood, rear decklid, glove compartment
or radio contact switch and if any of the areas are breached, the horn
will sound and the lights will flash.
    In Porsche's petition to modify its exemption for MY 2013, it
stated that the Boxster vehicle line will be modified to include the
antitheft device and strategies used for the Panamera vehicle line. The
Panamera vehicle line has been granted a parts-marking exemption since
MY 2010 (See 74 FR 18037, April 20, 2009). However, Porsche was granted
a modification to its previously approved exemption for the Panamera
vehicle line beginning with its MY 2012 vehicles (See 75 FR 22174,
April 27, 2010). Specifically, in its MY 2012 modification, Porsche
proposed to remove the steering column lock on the Panamera line,
because it considered the feature to be a redundant function that is
also offered by the electronic parking brake which is installed as
standard equipment on the line. The electronically activated parking
brake will also be included as standard equipment on the MY 2013
Boxster line. Porsche also made special mention that the agency
recently granted its MY 2012 request to modify the previously approved
exemption for the 911 vehicle line for also having adopted the Panamera
antitheft device and strategies (See 76 FR 69321, November 8, 2011).
    For MY 2013, Porsche will install its passive, transponder-based
electronic, engine-immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment
on its Porsche Boxster vehicle line. Porsche stated that the antitheft
system consists of two major subsystems: a microprocessor-based
immobilizer device that prevents the engine management system from
functioning when the system is engaged, and a central locking and alarm
system. Key components of the modified antitheft device will include an
electronic ignition switch, transponder key, remote control unit,
transponder, alarm/central locking control unit, key or keyless entry
system, an engine control unit, electronic parking brake and an off-
board antitheft strategy.
    Porsche stated that the immobilizer device is automatically
activated when the driver removes the key from the ignition switch
assembly or the optional special keyless entry keycard exits the
vehicle with the driver. The key contains a radio signal transponder
which signals the control unit to allow the engine to be started.
Porsche stated that as an option, a keyless entry device can be
provided for the Boxster vehicle line. Porsche stated that the
antitheft device will remain the same, but the ignition key is
substituted with a special key that contains a radio signal transmitter
similar to that in the standard ignition key. The immobilizer system is
automatically activated after the engine is turned off with the
optional keyless entry device. Porsche stated that only by inserting
the correct key into the ignition switch or by having the special
keyless entry device within the compartment of the car, will the
correct signal be sent to the control unit allowing start and operation
of the engine. When the key is removed from the ignition or the keyless
entry key is removed from the vehicle, the device will return to its
normal ``OFF'' state disallowing engine start and operation.
    The central locking system works in conjunction with the audible
and visible alarm system. Porsche will continue to offer a central
locking system as standard equipment on the Boxster vehicle line. The
previously approved device offered the alarm system as optional
equipment. Porsche stated that the 2013 modification for the Boxster
vehicle line will include the audible and visible alarm system as
standard equipment. Porsche stated that the alarm system will continue
to monitor the opening of the doors, rear luggage compartment and front
deck lid.
    Porsche stated that the proposed central locking and alarm systems
can be armed by using the ignition key, the remote control, or a door
switch (with the keyless entry option). Porsche stated that when the
key or remote control is used to lock the doors, the alarm is armed.
With the keyless entry system, either the door switch or the remote
control is used instead of a manual key. The proposed alarm system will
also monitor interior movement within the vehicle through an ultrasonic
sensor. If any violation of these areas is detected, the horn will
sound and the lights will flash.
    In Porsche's petition to modify its exemption, it stated that for
2013, the Boxster will be modified to accommodate the introduction of
the electronically activated parking brake. Porsche stated that if the
control unit does not receive the correct signal from the key or
keyless entry system, the parking brake will remain activated and the
vehicle cannot be towed away.
    Porsche stated that another additional theft prevention feature to
the Boxster vehicle line will be the implementation of a new off-board
antitheft strategy, making it impossible to use stolen electronic
control units to repair other Porsche vehicles. Porsche stated that the
goal of the off-board theft protection strategy is to reduce the
marketability of stolen electronic components. Porsche believes its
off-board antitheft strategy is similar in concept to parts marking,
and will further reduce the demand for stolen Porsche vehicle
components. Specifically, Porsche explained that during the production
process of the vehicle, initialization and registration of various
antitheft related electronic components are recorded in a central
database. Changes to these components are only possible with authorized
on-line access to the central database. Porsche stated that if the
components have to be repaired or replaced while authorized access to
the central database is unavailable or the central database

indicates the components are unauthorized, further operation and use of
the vehicle is restricted or even impossible.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device,
Porsche conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Porsche
provided a detailed list of tests conducted and believes that its
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test. The test conducted included
extreme temperature tests, voltage spike tests, reverse polarity tests,
electromagnetic interference tests, vibration tests and endurance
tests. Porsche stated that its antitheft device also features a built-
in self-diagnostic that constantly checks for system failures. If a
failure is detected, the operator receives a signal via an alarm
indicator.
    In its MY 2013 modification, Porsche stated that it believes its
new Boxster antitheft device will prove to be even more effective in
reducing and deterring theft than its antitheft devices have proven in
the past. Porsche also compared its device with other devices without
alarms that NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft. Porsche stated that similar systems
without alarms, i.e., GM PASS-Key, Mercedes Benz 202 vehicle line,
Porsche Boxster (Cayman) as well as earlier 911 vehicle line devices,
were determined to be as effective as parts-marking. Porsche also
referenced the agency's theft rate data for the Boxster vehicle line
which indicates that its theft rates (MY/CY 2002-2009) are still below
the median theft rate of 3.5826. The average theft rates for the
Boxster vehicle line (Boxster convertible and Cayman coupe) using the
most current 3 MY's theft rate data are 0.3789 and 0.7217,
respectively.
    The agency has evaluated Porsche's MY 2013 petition to modify the
exemption for the Boxster vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, and has decided to grant it. The
agency believes that the proposed device will continue to provide the
five types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): (1) Promoting
activation, (2) attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized
persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key, (3)
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons, (4) preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized
entrants and (5) ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    If Porsche decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it
should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to
modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: April 10, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-8892 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54909-54910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22020]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9724-6]

Clean Water Act: Availability of List Decisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's decision to identify certain water
quality limited waters and the associated pollutant to be listed
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)(2) on New York's list of
impaired waters, and requests public comment. Section 303(d)(2)
requires that States submit, and EPA approve or disapprove, lists of
waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not
stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards
and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be prepared.
    On August 16, 2012, EPA disapproved New York's decision to exclude
the Lower Esopus Creek from its 2012 303(d) list. EPA evaluated
existing and readily available data and information and concluded that
the applicable narrative water quality standard for turbidity is being
exceeded in the Lower Esopus Creek. Based on this evaluation, EPA has
determined that the Lower Esopus Creek is not fully attaining the water
quality standards established by New York State and should be included
on the State's 303(d) list of impaired waters.
    EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its decision
to add this water to New York's 303(d) list, as required by 40 CFR
130.7(d)(2). EPA will consider public comments before transmitting its
final listing decision to the State.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to EPA on or before October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed decision should be sent to Sheri
Jewhurst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone (212) 637-
3035, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>. Oral comments will not be considered.
Copies of EPA's letter explaining the rationale for EPA's decision
concerning New York's list can be obtained by calling or emailing Ms.
Jewhurst at the address above. Underlying documents from the
administrative record for these decisions are available for public
inspection at the above address. Please contact Ms. Jewhurst to
schedule an inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Jewhurst at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that each state identify those waters for which existing
technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain
or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are
required to establish TMDLs according to a priority ranking.
    EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include

requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA
(40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water
quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The lists
of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings,
identify the pollutants causing the impairment, and identify the waters
targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7).
    Consistent with EPA's regulations, New York submitted its listing
decisions under Section 303(d)(2) to EPA in correspondence dated March
30, 2012 and July 25, 2012. On August 16, 2012, EPA partially approved
New York's submittal of the 303(d) list, and disapproved New York's
decision to exclude Lower Esopus Creek from the 2012 list. EPA is
soliciting public comment on the addition of this water to the State's
list, as required by 40 CFR 130.7(d)(2).

    Authority:  Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: August 28, 2012.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2012-22020 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26367-26369]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0242]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Blazing Paddles 2018 SUP Race; Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland, OH&

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Cuyahoga River during the Blazing Paddles Stand
Up Paddleboard Race. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels
from a portion of the Cuyahoga River during the Blazing Paddles Stand
Up Paddleboard Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
mariners and racers from the navigational hazards associated with the
Stand Up Paddleboard Race.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on June
23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being

available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0242 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,
call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 20, 2018 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Blazing Paddles 2018 SUP Race; Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland, OH Sec.  165.T09-0242. In that we discussed why we issued
the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related
to this Standup Paddleboard race. The comment period ended May 30,
2018; we received one comment relating to the event. The comment makes
note of a Memorandum of Understanding that had been agreed upon by the
Lake Carriers' Association and Share the River. The Lake Carriers
Association have no objection to the proposed rule. There was nothing
further that needed to be addressed regarding the Temporary Final Rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
large-scale paddle craft event on a navigable waterway will pose a
significant risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the Blazing Paddles Race
is happening.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April
30, 2018, and there was no objection to the proposed rule. There are no
changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in
the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 a.m. through 11:30
a.m. on June 23, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
at the start point at position 41[deg]29'36'' N and 081[deg]42'13'' W
to the turnaround point at position 41[deg]28'52'' N and
081[deg]40'33'' W on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH. The duration
of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9 to 11 a.m.
Paddleboard Race.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative. The COTP or his designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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, 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.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this
rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to
allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone will
designate times when races are not occurring; allowing vessels to
travel through the safety zone. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement
within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain
conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone
when permitted by the COTP.

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 received 00 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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
safety zone 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
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves establishment of a safety zone. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 record
keeping 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.T09-0242 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0242  Safety Zone; Blazing Paddles 2018 SUP Race;
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Cuyahoga River in Cleveland OH, beginning at position 41[deg]29'36'' N
and 081[deg]42'13'' W to the turnaround point at position
41[deg]28'52'' N and 081[deg]40'33'' (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 a.m.
through 11:30 a.m. on June 23, 2018.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
(COTP) or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the
COTP to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP Buffalo or his on-scene representative to
obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his on-scene representative may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: June 4, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018-12301 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78162-78164]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32171]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0867-201157(a); FRL-9507-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Kentucky;
Visibility Impairment Prevention for Federal Class I Areas; Removal of
Federally Promulgated Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to rescind the federally
promulgated provisions regarding visibility in the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA approved Kentucky's visibility rules
addressing new source review (NSR) for sources in nonattainment areas
on July 11, 2006. EPA's approval of these rules neglected to remove the
previous federally promulgated provisions from the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP). EPA is correcting this omission in this
rulemaking. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 14, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by January 17,
2012. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0867, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0867,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0867.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section,

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background for This Action
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for This Action

    On February 20, 1986, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted
provisions constituting its plan to address visibility impairment in
Federal Class I areas as a revision to Kentucky's SIP. EPA approved
Kentucky's February 20, 1986, SIP revision on September 1, 1989, except
for the provisions related to the review of new sources in
nonattainment areas. In that action, EPA revised 40 CFR 52.936 to
expressly reject Kentucky's proposed nonattainment NSR provisions and
substitute 40 CFR 52.28 by reference.
    On September 2, 2004, and August 23, 2005, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky submitted SIP revisions to address visibility in its
nonattainment NSR program. EPA fully approved these SIP revisions on
July 11, 2006. See 71 FR 38990.
    The aforementioned SIP revisions provide the necessary changes to
Kentucky's plan for visibility impairment prevention for Class I areas
from sources in nonattainment areas and satisfy EPA's requirements as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.307(b) and (c). These visibility provisions also
satisfy the settlement agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund,
et al., Environmental Defense Fund v. Gorsuch, No. C-82-6850 RPA (N.D.
Cal.) (Settlement Agreement), described at 49 FR 20647 on May 16, 1984.
    The first part of the Settlement Agreement required Kentucky to
develop visibility NSR and visibility monitoring provisions to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.305 and 51.307 and submit those provisions to
EPA by May 6, 1985. This part of the Settlement Agreement further
required EPA to approve the state submittal or to promulgate a FIP by
January 6, 1986. Since Kentucky had not yet submitted a final
visibility SIP, EPA promulgated a Federal program for Kentucky to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.305 and 51.307 on February 13, 1986 (51
FR 5504). The Federal program, which is covered by the Federal
visibility monitoring strategy (40 CFR 52.26) and visibility NSR
program (40 CFR 52.27 and 52.28), was promulgated as part of the
Kentucky SIP. The provisions submitted by Kentucky on February 20,
1986, and approved by EPA on September 1, 1989, partially removed the
Federal promulgation. See 54 FR 36307.
    The second part of the Settlement Agreement required EPA to propose
and promulgate visibility FIPs addressing the general visibility plan
provisions including implementation control strategies (40 CFR 51.302),
integral vista protection (40 CFR 51.302 through 51.307), and long-term
strategies (40 CFR 51.306) for those states whose SIPs EPA had
determined to be inadequate with respect to the above provisions (see
January 23, 1986, notice of deficiency (51 FR 3046) and March 12, 1987,
notice proposing FIPs for deficient state's implementation plans (52 FR
7803)). However, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, a state could
avoid the promulgation of said provisions by EPA in a FIP if it
submitted a visibility SIP by August 31, 1987. The Commonwealth of
Kentucky submitted a plan to satisfy the second part of the Settlement
Agreement on August 31, 1987, and EPA approved the visibility SIP
submittal for these elements on July 12, 1988. See 53 FR 26253.
    As mentioned above, the Commonwealth of Kentucky provided a SIP
revision on February 20, 1986, constituting its plan to address
visibility impairment in Federal Class I areas as a revision to
Kentucky's SIP. On September 1, 1989, EPA approved Kentucky's SIP
revision (submitted on February 20, 1986) except for those provisions
related to the review of new sources in nonattainment areas. As a
result of EPA's aforementioned 1988 and 1989 actions, these
nonattainment NSR provisions were the only remaining non-approved
provisions in Kentucky's plan to address visibility impairment. On
September 2, 2004, and August 23, 2005, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
submitted rules for addressing visibility in its NSR program in
nonattainment areas. EPA fully approved Kentucky's September 2, 2004,
and August 23, 2005, SIP revisions on July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38990), but
inadvertently did not remove the federally-promulgated provisions in 40
CFR 52.936. Today's action corrects that oversight.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to correct an omission related to
the visibility requirements for Kentucky. Specifically, EPA is removing
the previous federally promulgated provisions in 40 CFR 52.936 for
visibility from sources in nonattainment areas for Kentucky because the
Commonwealth later submitted, and EPA approved, revisions covering
visibility requirements for Kentucky. EPA is approving the
aforementioned changes to the Kentucky SIP because they are consistent
with the CAA and Agency requirements. EPA is publishing this rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be
filed. This rule will be effective February 14, 2012 without further
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by January 17, 2012.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on February 14, 2012 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond

those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: December 8, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

Sec.  52.936  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Section 52.936 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2011-32171 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 10509-10511]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0533; FRL-7763-2]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for the Establishment of
a Regulation for the Residues of Bentazon and Its Metabolites in or on
Peaches and Nectarines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of a regulation for residues of
the herbicide bentazon (3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one-
2,2-dioxide) and its 6- and 8-hydroxy metabolites in or on peaches and
nectarines.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0533 and pesticide petition number (PP)
2E6501, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB)

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0533. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0533. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; (703)
305-6463; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the document by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/.

To locate this information on the home page of EPA's Electronic Docket,
select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP docket ID number. Once the
search has located the docket, clicking on the ``Docket ID'' will bring
up a list of all documents in the docket for the pesticide including
the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 2E6501. Interregional Research Project No. 4, Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway No. 1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the herbicide bentazon (3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-
benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one-2,2-dioxide) and its 6- and 8-hydroxy
metabolites in or on peach and nectarine at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm). Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination
of residues of bentazon and its 6- and 8-hydroxy metabolites in/on
plant commodities. The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume 11
lists Method II, a gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) method with flame
photometric detection for the determination of bentazon and its
hydroxyl metabolites in/on corn, rice, and soybeans; the limit of
detection for each compound is 0.05 ppm. Method III, modified from
Method II, is available for the determination of bentazon and its
hydroxyl metabolites in/on peanuts and, seed and pod vegetables with a
limit of detection of 0.05 ppm for each compound.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 15, 2006.
Rachel C. Holloman,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-2896 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: September 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 55594]
[DOCID:fr13se10-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3314-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3314-EM), dated September 1, 2010,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
September 1, 2010.

    Brunswick, Carteret, Duplin, Edgecombe, Greene, Halifax,
Hertford, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Northampton, and Pender Counties
for Public Assistance (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-22766 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P