[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63488]
[DOCID:fr09no07-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-07-109]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Raccoon Creek, at Bridgeport,
NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) Bridge, at mile 2.0, across
Raccoon Creek at Bridgeport, NJ. This deviation allows the drawbridge
to remain closed-to-navigation beginning at 7 a.m. on December 3, 2007,
until and including 7 p.m. on January 18, 2008 to facilitate mechanical
repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on December 3, 2007 to 7
p.m. on January 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District,
Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-
5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Commander (dpb),
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this
temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CONRAIL Bridge, a swing-type bridge, has
a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of seven feet,
above mean high water.
    CONRAIL, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from
the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR Part 117.741 to
close the swing bridge to navigation to perform essential mechanical
repairs. The repairs will consist of removing and replacing the drive
shaft and main pinion gear and repairing the steel which supports the
assembly.
    To facilitate the repairs, the CONRAIL Bridge will be maintained in
the closed-to-navigation position beginning at 7 a.m. on December 3,
2007, until and including 7 p.m. on January 18, 2008.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2007.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-22068 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5785-5786]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0545; FRL-9109-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Site Remediation, EPA
ICR Number 2062.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0534

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0545, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, Mail code: 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7021; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 30, 2009 (74 FR 38004), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0545, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Site Remediation.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2062.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0534.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2010.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, applies to site
remediation activities to cleanup materials containing organics that
could be released to the atmosphere as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP).
These site remediation activities are conducted at any facility where
materials containing organic HAP currently are or have been stored,
processed, treated, or otherwise managed at the facility. The types of
businesses most likely to be subject to the standard include, but are
not limited to: organic liquid storage terminals, petroleum refineries,
chemical manufacturing facilities, and manufacturing facilities using
organic materials.
    The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the
NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any

changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-
time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 219
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Site remediation facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 286
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 125,027
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $12,596,594, which includes
$12,014,594 in labor costs, no annualized capital/startup costs, and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $582,000.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years. Secondly, the growth rate for respondents is very low, negative,
or non-existent. Therefore, the labor hours in the previous ICR reflect
the current burden to the respondents and are reiterated in this ICR.
There is a minor change to the cost figures due to updates in labor
rates. The updated labor categories and associated rates result in an
increase to total labor cost.
    There is also a change in the method of reporting in this ICR. The
labor hours and costs are calculated separately for each respondent
type: ``private sector,'' ``state, local or tribal governments,'' and
``federal government''. There is no change in the total respondent
burden hours (comprising both industry and federal government
respondents).

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-2390 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51903-51906]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program--Announcement
of Establishment of Program and Request for Applications

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

ACTION: Notice of the establishment of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) Integration Pilot Program and request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: Through the FAA, the DOT announces a new pilot program that
encourages State, local, and tribal governments, in partnership with
UAS operators and other private sector stakeholders, to conduct
advanced operations safely and with public support in affected
communities. State, local, and tribal governments, and any partnered
stakeholders, with guidance from the FAA, will propose and define these
operational concepts and determine how to manage them at the local
level under the safety oversight role of the FAA. All organizations
interested in applying or participating must follow the procedures set
forth in the agency's Screening Information Request (SIR), which is
described later in this document.

DATES: Interested State, local, or tribal governments must declare an
intent to participate in the Program no later than November 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested governments may request FAA/UAS Program Portal
(Portal) access via email to [email protected] as detailed in the
SIR (SIR DTFAWA-18-R-00001) available at http://faaco.faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general Program questions, Mr.
Earl Lawrence, Director, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office,
490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 7225, Washington, DC 20024, telephone
(844) 359-6982, email [email protected]; or, for solicitation
questions, Mr. Gavin Byrne, Manager, AAQ-220, Automation Contracts
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Purpose and Objectives

    The DOT announces a new pilot program that will accelerate existing
UAS integration plans by working to solve technical, regulatory, and
policy challenges, while enabling advanced UAS operations in select
areas subject to ongoing safety oversight and cooperation between the
Federal government and applicable State, local, or tribal
jurisdictions. In a memorandum dated October 25, 2017, the President
declared that it is the policy of the United States to promote the safe
operation of UAS and enable the development of UAS technologies and
their use in agriculture, commerce, emergency management, human
transportation, and other sectors.\1\ The President directed the
Secretary to establish a pilot program under which State, local, and
tribal governments can submit proposals to the Secretary to test and
evaluate the integration of civil and public UAS operations into the
low-altitude NAS. The Program announced in this document implements
this national policy under the FAA's general authority to develop plans
and policy for the use of the navigable airspace. 49 U.S.C. 40103(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A link to the Presidential Memorandum can be found on the
FAA's Web site www.faa.gov/uas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum, the DOT has
established four objectives for the Program: (1) To accelerate the safe
integration of UAS into the NAS by testing and validating new concepts
of beyond visual line of sight operations in a controlled environment,
focusing on detect and avoid technologies, command and control links,
navigation, weather and human factors; (2) to address ongoing concerns
regarding the potential security and safety risks associated with UAS
operating in close proximity to human beings and critical
infrastructure by ensuring that operators communicate more effectively
with Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement to enable law
enforcement to determine if a UAS operation poses such a risk; (3) to
promote innovation in and development of the United States unmanned
aviation industry, especially in sectors such as agriculture, emergency
management, inspection

services, and transportation safety, in which there are significant
public benefits to be gained from the deployment of UAS; and (4) to
identify the most effective models of balancing local and national
interests in UAS integration.
    We are looking for visionary participants to demonstrate effective
ways to meet these Program objectives, which will help the DOT to
achieve the broader national policy objective of full UAS integration
and United States leadership in unmanned aviation and automated
technology. Never losing sight that safety is our highest priority, we
expect this program to provide valuable data to assist us in enabling
the UAS industry to thrive and safely share the airspace.
    Specifically, the Program will forge deep working relationships
between the private sector and State, local, and tribal governments to
conduct a variety of advanced operational testing under controlled
criteria managed at a local level with FAA oversight. Applicants are
expected to demonstrate advances in technological capabilities or
operational concepts and means of communication with the public and law
enforcement agencies. By ensuring safety through appropriate
mitigations, the FAA intends to evaluate and approve advanced
operations beyond those currently permitted today. The FAA will use the
data provided by the Program to advance the overall state of the
industry, including the development of enabling regulations that will
increase other types of routine drone operations, such as: (1) Beyond
line-of-sight flights--e.g., for pipeline inspections in remote areas
and search and rescue operations; (2) operations over human beings--
such as newsgathering or public safety; and (3) package delivery,
including the delivery of consumer goods and medical supplies. The
operational experience gained through these partnerships will be used
to enable the FAA to more quickly authorize operations that currently
require special permission and will inform future policy development to
help expand this burgeoning industry. The Program has a number of
short- and long-term benefits for the participants, the DOT, and the
public. Activities under the Program will:
     Accelerate the use and standardization of low-altitude UAS
operations;
     provide immediate opportunities to accelerate commercial-
use concepts of operations such as: Commerce, photography, emergency
management, agricultural support, infrastructure inspections, package
delivery, and others;
     identify and help resolve operational barriers to expanded
UAS operations; and
     foster community participation to provoke meaningful
dialogue on balancing local and national interests in UAS integration.
    The DOT will use the data collected and experience gained over the
course of this Program to:
     Identify and resolve technical challenges to UAS
integration;
     address airspace use to safely and efficiently integrate
all aircraft;
     inform operational standards and procedures to improve
safety (e.g., detect and avoid capabilities, navigation and altitude
performance, and command and control link);
     inform FAA standards that reduce the need for waivers
(e.g., for operations over human beings, night operations, and beyond
visual line of sight (BVLOS)); and
     address competing interests regarding UAS operational
expansion, safety, security, roles and responsibilities of non-federal
government entities, and privacy issues.

Program Overview

    Any State, local, or tribal jurisdiction (as the Lead Applicant) is
eligible to apply to participate in the Program. The jurisdiction may
partner with one or more private sector stakeholders or other
government agencies (such as law enforcement) to assist in carrying out
its obligations under this Program. The success of the Program will
depend on the mutually beneficial partnerships between UAS operators,
including private sector operators, and the local jurisdictions where
the projects will take place. Any project partnerships must be
established prior to the Lead Applicant's completing its application.
    The first step will be for interested State, local, or tribal
governments to submit a notice of intent to participate. Private sector
stakeholders that are interested in participating, as well as
jurisdictions that have not identified a program partner, may submit a
request to be added to an Interested Parties list which the FAA will
publish on its Web site at http://faaco.faa.gov">faaco.faa.gov. Interested parties can use
this list to help identify suitable partners. All jurisdictions that
submit a notice of intent will receive an invitation to apply, but no
jurisdiction may submit an application for participation without first
submitting a notice of intent.
    The DOT will evaluate all applications received in accordance with
the SIR and select a minimum of five for participation. Once an
application is selected, the Lead Applicant will enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FAA. The MOA will establish the
responsibilities of the parties, describe the concept of operations to
be undertaken, establish any data sharing requirements, and assure that
no Federal funds are available for Program participation. The MOAs will
expire at the end of the Program unless the FAA terminates or extends
them.
    Examples of possible Program proposals:
     An agricultural State and several of its municipalities
desiring to explore with stakeholders how UAS could be used to assist
farmers in reducing costs (e.g., checking crops for insects or disease,
counting spring calves, or checking fences for damage without having to
walk or drive along them--cost reductions would be identified in
advance and measured).
     A State partnering with a UAS operator seeking to take
advantage of the public benefits of, and the cost savings associated
with, utilizing UAS for bridge inspections.
     A city working with a UAS operator to tap the novel
capabilities of UAS to support critical government activities in
emergency management planning and response, and also limiting UAS
operations within designated altitudes within airspace over the
jurisdiction and specifying maximum speed of flight over specified
areas.
     To facilitate development and innovation of commercial UAS
within the community, a city partnering with stakeholders to establish
a dedicated drone-port or an asset in drone technology research
designed to attract business.
     A county or multi-county industrial development authority
wishing to position itself as a national destination for the
development of a drone-operator workforce to support the emerging drone
industry in the United States.
     A municipality interested in utilizing UAS for local
emergency management, disaster response, or law enforcement operations.
     A city or county working with a UAS manufacturer and or a
hard goods retailer to develop and test operational concepts for the
delivery of goods via UAS to businesses and homes under various
scenarios and conditions.
    These examples are just a sampling of possible opportunities under
this Program. The fundamental purpose of this Program is to provide an
opportunity for stakeholders to identify and propose a broad spectrum
of innovative and beneficial concepts of

operations, and models of local management, for UAS operations subject
to FAA oversight. Accordingly, we look to Lead Applicants to submit
applications showing us how their innovative technological and
operational use cases can push the boundaries of what is possible
today.
How To Apply
    Notice of Intent. Any State, local, or tribal government seeking to
participate in the Program must submit a notice of intent November 28,
2017, to apply. Eligible jurisdictions include State, local, or tribal
transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), police departments, other political subdivisions of State or
local governments, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups
applying through a single point of contact. The DOT encourages
prospective applicants to work closely with all relevant State and
local law enforcement agencies that would serve in the identified
project areas and consider including them as project partners.
    Prospective applicants may submit a notice of intent before
establishing a project partnership. The DOT encourages jurisdictions to
submit a notice of intent even if they are unsure of their commitment
to participate because there are no penalties for this submission.
Jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders also may submit a request
to be added to an Interested Parties list. The FAA will publish this
list on its Web site at http://faaco.faa.gov">faaco.faa.gov to facilitate the formation of
partnerships between jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders. To
provide the widest opportunity for participation in this Program, the
DOT encourages jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders to submit
a notice of interest as early as possible even if the entity is
uncertain of its desire to participate.
    Prospective applicants must submit a notice of intent by November
28, 2017, to be considered in this round of applications. The DOT has
established a short deadline for notices of intent in view of the short
timeframes in the Presidential Memorandum to begin integration of UAS
under this Program. Instructions for this submission, which is a
formatted email, are included in the SIR (SIR DTFAWA-18-R-00001)
available at http://faaco.faa.gov. The DOT will not consider an
application in this round unless the Lead Applicant has submitted a
notice of intent within the applicable timeframe; however, the DOT will
offer an opportunity for jurisdictions to submit notices of intent in a
subsequent round as resources allow.
    The DOT will invite each eligible applicant that submitted a notice
of intent to submit an application to participate through the FAA/UAS
Program Portal (with a username and password). Any project partnerships
must be formalized and documented before an application is finalized
and submitted to the FAA.
    Application Submission. As detailed in the SIR, the FAA/UAS Program
Portal will be open for submissions through January 4, 2018. An
application would include, for example, the following information:
    1. Identification of the airspace to be used, including shape files
and altitudes;
    2. description of the types of planned operations;
    3. identification of stakeholder partners to test and evaluate
planned operations;
    4. identification of available infrastructure to support planned
operations;
    5. description of experience with UAS operations and regulations;
    6. description of existing UAS operator and any other stakeholder
partnerships and experience;
    7. description of plans to address safety, security, competition,
privacy concerns and community outreach.
    The applicant may request reasonable time, place and manner
limitations \2\ on low-altitude UAS operations within its jurisdiction
to facilitate the proposed development and testing of new and
innovative UAS concepts of operations in addition to other selection
criteria. The FAA will require jurisdictions to ensure that any time,
place and manner limitations, including those adopted through means
such as legislation or regulation, include self-implementing provisions
that automatically terminate those restrictions upon the termination of
the MOA. Monitoring and enforcement of any limitations enacted pursuant
to this pilot project would be the responsibility of the jurisdiction,
but the FAA retains the authority to enforce Federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Examples of reasonable time limitations may include
prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening rush hours
or only permitting flight during specified hours such as daylight
hours, sufficient to ensure reasonable airspace access. Reasonable
place limitations may include designated take-off and landing zones,
limiting operations over moving locations or fixed site public road
and parks, sidewalks or private property based on zoning density, or
other land use considerations. Reasonable manner limitations may
include requiring notice to public safety or zoning/land use
authorities prior to operating, limiting UAS operations within
designated altitudes within airspace over the jurisdiction;
specifying maximum speed of flight over specified areas; prohibiting
operations in connection with community or sporting events that do
not remain in one place (e.g., parades, running events); or
mandating equipage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOT may select among complete applications on a rolling basis
and may exclude from consideration any incomplete applications. Once a
proposal is selected, within five days, the Lead Applicant must be
prepared to enter into a MOA with the FAA governing the terms of its
participation in the Program. After the first five applicants have
entered into MOAs, the DOT will continue to evaluate proposals as
resources permit.

II. Selection Criteria

    In making determinations, the DOT will evaluate whether
applications meet or exceed the following criteria contained in the
Presidential Memorandum:
    1. Overall economic, geographic, and climatic diversity of the
selected jurisdictions;
    2. overall diversity of the proposed models of government
involvement;
    3. overall diversity of the UAS operations to be conducted;
    4. the location of critical infrastructure;
    5. the involvement of commercial entities in the proposal and their
ability to advance objectives that may serve the public interest as a
result of further integration of UAS into the NAS;
    6. the involvement of affected communities in, and their support
for, participating in the Program;
    7. the commitment of the governments and UAS operators involved in
the proposal to comply with requirements related to national defense,
homeland security, and public safety and to address competition,
privacy and civil liberties concerns; and
    8. the commitment of the governments and UAS operators involved in
the proposal to achieve the following policy objectives:
    a. Promoting innovation and economic development;
    b. enhancing transportation safety;
    c. enhancing workplace safety;
    d. improving emergency response and search and rescue functions;
and
    e. using radio spectrum efficiently and competitively.
    Lead Applicants are encouraged to identify which of the above
criteria and agency objectives they meet and how.

III. Memorandum of Agreement

    Once selected, a Lead Applicant would become a Lead Participant.
Lead Participants would be required to enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) pursuant to the FAA's authority

under 49 U.S.C. 106(l)(6). The MOA would establish the terms of
participation in the Program and would identify the respective rights
and responsibilities of both the FAA and the Lead Participant. A sample
MOA can be found at http://faaco.faa.gov">faaco.faa.gov. The FAA expects to negotiate MOAs
tailored to the specifics of each Lead Participant's proposal.
    The Lead Participant will establish a process to meaningfully and
effectively notify the local community about and garner its support for
the proposed operations and any related limitations on UAS operations
within the local airspace. The Lead Participant will, at a minimum,
place this information on a publicly accessible Web site, which will be
referenced on the FAA Web site at www.faa.gov.
    Lead Participants will engage in periodic exchanges with the FAA
relating to the purposes of the project, including discussing and
sharing the results of and experiences with the expanded UAS
capability. Lead Participants will adhere to privacy policies specified
in the MOA. Each Lead Participant will bear its own costs; no Federal
Government funds will be provided through the MOA.
    Upon signing, the MOA will not include the transfer of any
authority for airspace management or access. However, a purpose of the
Program is to explore concepts for shared Federal/State/local
management of the NAS. Any approval of airspace use will be handled in
accordance with existing procedures.
    The Lead Participant will share data with the FAA resulting from
its development and testing of the concepts of operations consistent
with the terms of the MOA. Such data will enable the FAA to study the
effects of UAS integration into the NAS. In the case where the Lead
Participant has established a time, place, or manner limitation on low-
altitude UAS operations, data collected would support the FAA's efforts
to assess the relative effectiveness of various technologies and
operational aspects of the safe integration of UAS into the NAS, as
well as the economic benefits provided by the UAS operations.
    The FAA will provide a means for the Lead Participant and
stakeholder partners to submit confidential or proprietary data
concerning their operations. However, any operational data and general
experience obtained through the partnerships will be available to the
public.
    The FAA may terminate the MOA for any reason. The Lead Participant
may terminate the MOA, subject to meaningful and effective notice to
the affected community or population.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2017.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-24126 Filed 11-2-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61635-61637]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12496-002; Rugraw, LLC]

Notice of Joint Scoping Meetings With the California State Water
Resources Control Board and Environmental Site Review and Soliciting
Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Major Original License.
    b. Project No.: 12496-002.
    c. Date filed: April 21, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Rugraw, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the South Fork Battle Creek, nearby the Town of
Mineral, Tehama County, California. No federal lands or Indian
reservations are located within the proposed project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Charlie Kuffner, 70 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon,
CA 94920;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Beeco at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    California State Water Board Contact: Michelle Lobo at (916) 327-
3117<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the Commission's
staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1). Deadline for filing scoping comments:
December 5, 2014 (5:00 p.m. EST; 2:00 p.m. PST).
    Scoping comments should be filed separately with the Commission and
the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board),
as noted below.
Commission
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
12496-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
State Water Board
    Written comments should be provided as noted below. When submitting
your comments, provide the contact person's name and phone number. The
State Water Board is seeking information regarding what type of
environmental document should be prepared (i.e., negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report), as
well as scoping comments.

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Water
Quality Certification Program, Attention: Michelle Lobo, P.O. Box 2000,
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The proposed Lassen Lodge Project consists of: (1) A 6-foot-high
and 94-foot-long diversion dam; (2) an impoundment of approximately 0.5
acre; (3) a 20 by 10 foot enclosed concrete intake structure; (4) a
7,258-foot-long pipeline and a 5,230-foot-long penstock with a net head
of 791 feet; (5) a 50 by 50 foot powerhouse containing one generating
unit with a 5,000-kilowatt capacity; (6) a 50 by 50 foot substation
area; (7) a 40 by 35 foot switchyard; (8) 100 by 100 foot multipurpose
area; and (9) a new 12-mile-long, 60-kilovolt transmission line. The
project is estimated to produce approximately 25,000,000 kilowatt hours
annually.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item ``h.'' above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
n. Scoping Process
    The Commission intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA)
on the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action.
    The State Water Board has not determined what type of environmental
document it will prepare at this time and is seeking input from
agencies and interested parties as part of the scoping process.

Scoping Meetings

    In addition to written comments solicited by this SD1, we will hold
two public scoping meetings and an Environmental Site Review in the
vicinity of the project. A daytime meeting will focus on concerns of
the resource agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and Indian
tribes. An evening meeting will focus on receiving input from the
public. We invite all interested agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and
individuals to attend one or both of the meetings to assist us in
identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed
in the EA and the State Water Board's environmental document.
    These scoping meetings are being coordinated with the State Water
Board and are considered joint scoping meetings for the purposes of
both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), should the State Water Board prepare
an environmental impact report (EIR). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
15083, 15223, 15226.) This notice is intended to provide notice of the
State Water Board's informal consultation with responsible and trustee
agencies pursuant to section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines as to the
potential for the proposed action to cause a significant impact to the
environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 15063, subd. (g).) Recipients
of this notice are invited to comment on whether an EIR, negative
declaration, or mitigated negative declaration should be prepared. In
addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15083, subdivision (c),
these meetings are intended to simultaneously serve the purposes
identified in California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15082,
subdivision (c). Any responsible or trustee agency or other interested
parties that believes an EIR should be prepared should identify the
scope and content of any environmental information it believes should
be required, should the State Water Board prepare an EIR.
    The times and locations of the meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Wednesday, November 5, 2014, 9:00 a.m. (PST).
    Location: Cal/EPA Building at 1001 I Street, Sacramento,
California. Byron Sher Auditorium on the 2nd floor.
    Phone number: Michelle Lobo--(916) 327-3117, Webcast: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Broadcast/.
    Paid parking is available in the parking garage across from the
Cal/EPA Building. Metered parking is available on nearby and adjacent
streets. Information on traveling to the Cal/EPA Building is available
online at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EPABldg/location.htm.
    Please enter the Cal/EPA Building through the public entrance at
the corner of 10th Street and I Street. Once you enter the building, go
to the Visitor's Center located on the left. You will need to sign-in
at the Visitor's Center and receive a badge for the 1st and 2nd floors.
The Byron Sher Auditorium is on the 2nd floor and may be accessed by
using the elevator or stairs.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Wednesday, November 5, 2014, 7:00 p.m. (PST).
    Location: Holiday Inn Express Hotel, 2810 Main St., Red Bluff,
California.
    Phone number: Front Desk--(530) 528-1600.
    Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in
the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing
list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link
(see item m above).

Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental
Site Review beginning at 8:00 a.m. (PST) on Thursday, November 6, 2014.
All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to
attend. All participants should meet at the Walmart Parking Lot, 1025
S. Main St., Red Bluff, California. All participants are responsible
for their own transportation to the meeting site. Anyone with

questions about the Environmental Site Review (or needing directions)
should contact Charlie Kuffner of Rugraw, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Those individuals planning to
participate in the Environmental Site Review should notify Mr. Kuffner
of their intent, no later than Friday, October 31, 2014. For more
details about the Environmental Site Review, including meeting
locations, transportation options, meal options, and the itinerary,
please see the information in Appendix A of the SD1.

Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, the staff will: (1) Summarize the
environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the EA and
CEQA document; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available
information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue;
(3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that
should be analyzed in the EA, and CEQA document, including viewpoints
in opposition to, or in support of, the staffs' preliminary views; (4)
determine the resource issues to be addressed in the EA and CEQA
document; (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis,
as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis; (6)
solicit from the meeting participants, input to the State Water Board
on the type of CEQA document that should be prepared, and (7) solicit
from any responsible or trustee agency or other interested parties that
believes an EIR should be prepared, environmental information to
identify the scope and content of an EIR should the State Water Board
determine an EIR should be prepared.

Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and become part of
the formal record of the Commission and State Water Board proceedings
on the project.
    Individuals, organizations, and agencies with environmental
expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting(s) and to
assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed
in the EA and CEQA document.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24299 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Monsanto Company authorizes the EPA to publish the following summary of the petition to comply with the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. An electronic copy on computer disc is provided with the cover letter for this submission.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP XXXX XXXX; FRL XXXX X]

Sulforsulfuron; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish Tolerances for Certain Pesticide Chemical In or On Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ACTION: Notice SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification ( ID) number OPP XXXX XXXX, must be received on or before XXXX.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Tompkins ( PM 25), Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20450 0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308 9364; e mail address: Tompkins. Jim@ epa. gov.

****************************

Summary of Petition A summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The petition summary was prepared by the Petitioner and represents the views of the Petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Monsanto Company Pesticide Petition ( PP) xxxxxx EPA has received PP xxxxxx from Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW, Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005, proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.552 by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide sulfosulfuron, 1( 4,6 dimethoxypyrimidin 2 yl) 3[( 2 ethane sulfonyl imidazo[ 1,2 a] pyridine 3 yl) sulfonyl] urea and its metabolites converted to 2( ethylsulfonyl) imidazo[ 1,2 a] pyridine and calculated as sulfosulfuron in or on grass forage at 13 parts per million ( ppm), grass hay at 14 ppm, milk at 0.02 ppm, fat ( of cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.03 ppm, meat ( of cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.01; and meat byproducts ( of cattle, goat, horse and sheep) at 0.4 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d) ( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue in wheat has been thoroughly investigated and is adequately understood. Metabolism of sulfosulfuron in plants is negligible; plant residues are primarily parent and metabolites containing the imidazopyridine ring. Postemergence applications to wheat result in residues that are mostly parent with small amounts of 5 or 6 metabolites that represent less than 15% of the TRR. Tolerance expressions take into account these metabolites and are calculated as sulfosulfuron. It is reasonable that the nature of the sulfosulfuron residue in wheat would be the same or similar in other grass species, such as those being considered in this petition.

2. Analytical method. An analytical method utilizing LC/ MS/ MS detection is available for enforcement purposes. The method involves acid hydrolysis to ethyl sulfone, a common chemophore that quantifies all sulfosulfuron residues in which the imidazopyridine ring remained intact.

3. Magnitude of the residues. Residue trials were conducted on bermudagrass and bahaigrass pastures, and rangelands of mixed grasses, at 12 locations distributed across the U. S. The nature of sulfosulfuron residue in grass is adequately understood through the wheat ( a grass) metabolism study. Following maximum annual application rates, residue of sulfosulfuron and its metabolites calculated as sulfosulfuron in grass forage ranged from 0.99  12.4 ppm at 0 days after application ( 0 DAA) and from 0.009  5.7 ppm 14 DAA, and in from 0.06  7.23 ppm in grass hay harvested 14 days after application. These residue data were the basis for establishing tolerances for grass forage and grass hay.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity studies with the technical grade of the active ingredient sulfosulfuron: Oral LD50 in rats is greater than 5000 mg/ kg, Toxicity Category IV; Dermal LD50 in rabbits is greater than 5000 mg/ kg, Toxicity Category IV; no mortality was observed in rats following a 4 hour inhalation exposure at 3.0 mg/ l, the highest attainable concentration, Toxicity Category IV; slightly irritating to the eyes, Toxicity Category III; not a skin irritant, Toxicity Category IV; not a dermal sensitizer.

2. Genotoxicity. Sulfosulfuron is not considered to be genotoxic. The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: Ames Salmonella point mutation assay in five test strains; a CHO/ HGPRT mammalian point mutation assay, an in vitro chromosomal aberration test in human lymphocytes; an in vivo mouse micronucleus assay with confirmatory radiolabeled assay that demonstrated that the test material, or a metabolite, did reach the bone marrow. A cytogenetics assay using Chinese Hamster lung cells was conducted at elevated concentrations up to and including 5000 µ g/ ml. This high concentration in the test media exceeded the solubility limit of sulfosulfuron. In this study, dose dependent toxicity was observed in the presence of S9 at dose levels exceeding solubility (> 1000 µ g/ ml), with precipitating test material present. Similarly, increases in chromosome aberrations were only observed in the absence of S9 at dose levels exceeding solubility (> 2000 µ g/ ml) with precipitating test material present. Also, historical results at this testing facility indicate that of the substances tested there, 46% induced chromosomal aberrations in this assay, and that 65% of these had a high incidence of chromatid exchanges at both the low and highdose levels. The biological significance and the mechanism responsible for induction of toxicity and chromosomal aberrations only after extended treatment at precipitating dose levels are not clear. The observation that an in vitro chromosomal aberration test in human lymphocytes and an in vivo mouse micronucleus assay were negative indicate, in this case, that this in vitro CHL assay does not represent a genotoxic potential for sulfosulfuron.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

i. Rat development toxicity study. Mated female Sprague Dawley rats at dose levels of 0, 100, 300, and 1000 mg/ kg/ day on days 6  15 of gestation, no signs of maternal toxicity or developmental effects were observed at any dose level ( NOEL = 1000 mg/ kg/ day).

ii. Rabbit developmental toxicity study. Dose levels of 0, 50, 250 and 1000 mg/ kg/ day on days 7  19 of gestation, no signs of maternal or developmental effects were observed at any dose level ( NOEL = 1000 mg/ kg/ day). iii. Two generation rat reproduction study. Sprague Dawley rats, at dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 500, 5000 and 20000 ppm, mild body weight/ weight gain reductions were observed in adult animals and urinary tract microscopic changes ( related to urolith formation) in adults and some offspring at 20,000 ppm, and there were no treatment related adverse effects on any reproductive indices or pup survival/ development at any dose level ( NOEL = 5000 ppm ( 312 mg/ kg/ day in males and 378 mg/ kg/ day in females) for subchronic toxicity, and NOEL = 20,000 ppm ( 1313 mg/ kg/ day in males and 1598 mg/ kg/ day in females) for reproductive toxicity).

4. Subchronic toxicity. Studies conducted in rats, mice and dogs, with the urinary tract being the primary target organ system in all three species tested.

i. 90 Day rat feeding study. ( Also served as range finding study for reproduction study.) Sprague Dawley rats administered dietary concentrations of 0, 20, 200, 2000, 6000, and 20,000 ppm, after 13 weeks resulted in mild weight/ weight gain reductions at 20,000 ppm; no adverse effects on food consumption, hematological or clinical chemistry parameters, organ weights, or gross or microscopic pathology observations. ( NOAEL = 6000 ppm ( 370 mg/ kg/ day males and 448 mg/ kg/ day females)).

ii. 90 Day dog study. Gelatin capsule dose 0, 30, 100, 300 and 1000 mg/ kg/ day, 5 days a week, showed no adverse effects on body weights, food consumption, or hematological or clinical chemistry parameters. Urinary bladder/ uretheral stones ( calculi) found at 1000 mg/ kg/ day in one male dog; urinary tract gross and microscopic effects in females at and above 300 mg/ kg/ day and in males at 1000 mg/ kg/ day. ( NOEL = 300 mg/ kg/ day male and 100 mg/ kg/ day female).

ii. 90 Day mouse study. Concentrations of 0, 100, 1000, 3000 and 7000 ppm were administered for 90 days to groups of 20 CD 1 mice ( 10 males and 10 females). There was no indication of toxicity up to the highest dose tested ( 7000 ppm). An equivocal decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase level was present in females at the 7000 ppm dietary level, but the finding was not considered treatment related. The no observed effect level ( NOAEL) was considered to be 7,000 ppm ( 1144 mg/ kg body weight/ day in males and 887 mg/ kg body weight/ day in females.

5. Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity.

i. 1 Year chronic dog study. Administered by gelatin capsule at dose levels of 0, 5, 20, 100 and 500 mg/ kg/ day five days per week. Urinary crystals were present in both sexes at 500 mg/ kg/ day by mid study, and a calculus, thickened/ irregular mucosa, and red foci observed in one male dog at 500 mg/ kg/ day at the conclusion of the study. Mucosal lesions were considered to have been related to the presence of calculus( i). As a result, considered to have demonstrated chronic toxicity secondary to urinary crystal and/ or calculus formation at a dose level of 500 mg/ kg/ day in male and female dogs ( NOEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day for chronic toxicity).

ii. 18 Month mouse oncogenicity study. CD 1 mice fed diets containing 0, 30, 700, 300 and 7000 ppm. Mortality not significantly affected; treatment related effects included clinical signs or urine stained hair, intra abdominal swellings and abnormal penile erection; gross pathology findings of urinary calculi and related dilation/ distension/ enlargement of urinary tract organs in male at 3000 and/ or 7000 ppm. Statistically significant increase in mean serum levels of BUN in males at 7000 ppm at the end of the study that was considered treatment related and the result of gross and microscopic renal effects. Hyperplasia of the transitional epithelium, chronic/ active inflammation, dilatation and/ or calculi were present in the urinary bladder of male mice at 3000 and 7000 ppm, and squamous metaplasia of the urinary bladder mucosal was observed at 7000 ppm. In the kidneys of male mice, there was an increase in the incidence of atrophy of the cortex and dilatation of the renal pelvis at 7000 ppm. All of these effects were associated with the presence of and/ or a direct result of urinary calculi/ microcalculi. There were no effects in female mice at any dose level. ( Chronic Toxicity NOEL = 700 ppm ( 93.4 mg/ kg/ day) male and 7000 ppm ( 1388.2 mg/ kg/ day) female). A small increase in benign mesenchymal tumors of the urinary bladder mucosa in males at 7000 ppm was seen. ( NOEL = 3000 ppm ( 393.6 mg/ kg/ day) male oncogenic effects and 7000 ppm ( 13882 mg/ kg/ day) in females). iii. Two year combined rat chronic toxicity/ oncogenicity study. Sprague Dawley rats administered dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 500, 5000 and 20,000 ppm, was ended at day 259 for the 20,000 ppm group due to excessive mortality, all others sacrificed at 22 months due to poor long term survival. There were no other treatment related effects on survival and no apparent clinical signs of toxicity. Treatment related effects included, statistically significant decreases in mean body weight and/ or cumulative body weight gain at 20,000 ppm in females, decreased albumin and albumin/ globulin ratio at 5000 ppm males, abnormal crystals in urine at 5000 ppm for males and at 5000 and 20,000 ppm for females ( urinary tract calculi were observed in some females at these doses), and increased numbers of urinary red blood cells and/ or occult blood at 20,000 ppm for both sexes. Gross necropsy findings considered to be treatment related in females at 5000 and 20,000 ppm were, renal calculi, renal pelvic dilatation, and granular/ pitted/ irregular kidney surface; urinary bladder calculi; ureteral calculi, ureter dilatation, and abnormal contents; and thyroid/ parathyroid enlargement. Microscopic effects in kidney, urinary bladder, and ureter of females included renal pelvic calculus/ microcalculus, pelvic dilatation, pelvic epithelial hyperplasia, squamos metaplasia, pyelonephritis, and increased mean severity of nephropathy; urinary bladder mucosal hyperplasia, acute inflammation and polymorph exudate; and ureteral calculus/ microcalculus, dilatation, inflammation, mucosal hyperplasia, squamos metaplasia, and erosion. Microscopic calculi/ microcalculi in the urethra or kidney at 5000 ppm of two males were considered treatment related. Increased mineralization in several tissues, diffuse parathyroid hyperplasia, femoral and sternal fibrous osteodystrophy, and pyloric stomach erosions in females at 5000 and 20,000 ppm were considered to be secondary to nphropathy. Chronic toxicity was demonstrated at dietary concentrations of 5000 and 20,0000 ppm. ( Chronic toxicity NOEL = 500 ppm ( 24.4 mg/ kg/ day males and 30.4 mg/ kg/ day females). A urinary bladder transitional cell carcinoma and urinary bladder transitional cell papilloma in two females at 5000 ppm were considered treatment related, but secondary reactive effects to urinary system calculi. ( Oncogenic effects NOEL = 5000 ppm for males ( 244.2 mg/ kg/ day), and 500 ppm for females ( 30.4 mg/ kg/ day)).

6. Animal metabolism. Four groups of Sprague Dawley rats, two low dose groups of 10 mg/ kg via single oral and single intravenous injection, and two groups high oral dose of 1000 mg/ kg via single oral and repeat 14 day oral. Sulfosulfuron and its metabolites were readily excreted, with urinary excretion being the major route of elimination at low dose and fecal excretion at high dose; no evidence of bio retention; tissue and blood levels were negligible with no tissue exceeding 0.2% of dose. In low dose groups, absorption was greater than 90%; high dose groups, absorption was around 40%. Metabolism was limited, with demethylation and pryrimidine ring hydroxylation as major metabolic routes; cleavage of the sulfonylurea bond is a minor metabolic pathway; expiration as carbon dioxide or volatiles was insignificant.

7. Metabolite toxicology. Dietary residues are almost entirely unmetabolized sulfosulfuron and imidazopyridine containing metabolites sulfonamide and guanidine, for which specific toxicology data is not available, but structures do not suggest any specific toxicologic concern and the level of dietary exposure is low. Metabolites are not toxicologically significant.

8. Endocrine disruption. No evidence that exposure to sulfosulfuron had any effect on reproduction, fertility or mating indices, development or maturation of embryos, or development, growth and survival of offspring in the short term, chronic, reproductive and developmental mammalian, avian and aquatic studies conducted. There were no gross or microscopic pathologic effects in endocrine organs or endocrinesensitive tissues, or in any reproductive organs, tissues or endpoints that were considered related to exposure to sulfosulfuron. With no evidence of bioaccumulation and low environmental concentrations, there is negligible risk of endocrine disruption in humans or wildlife.

C. Exposure and Risk Assessment 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established ( 40 CFR 180.552) for the combined residues of sulfosulfuron in or on wheat grain, forage, hay, straw and related milk and meat commodities. Risk assessments were conducted using the proposed tolerances to assess dietary exposures for sulfosulfuron in food as follows: i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary 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 one day or single exposure. A dose and endpoint was not selected for acute dietary risk assessment because there were no effects attributable to a single dose ( exposure) observed in oral toxicology studies including developmental toxicity in the rat and rabbit and an acute neurotoxicity study in the rat; sulfosulfuron has low acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity, it is non irritating to skin and slightly irritating to eyes, and is not a skin sensitizer. This risk assessment is not required.

ii. Chronic exposure and cancer assessment. Chronic and cancer dietary risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model   Food Consumption Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   ) model ( ver. 2.0), which uses food consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII); 1994 1998 data. The chronic and cancer analyses assumed tolerance level residues, 100% crop treated, and DEEM   default processing factors.

EPA has classified sulfosulfuron as a likely human carcinogen based on, ( 1) occurrence of rare transitional cell papilloma ( benign tumors) and carcinoma of the urinary bladder in female rats; ( 2) occurrence of rare benign mesenchymal tumors of the urinary bladder in high dose male as well as renal adenomas in female and possibly male mice, and ( 3) the relevancy of the observed tumors to human exposure. For its linear low dose approach ( Q1*) for human risk characterization, EPA established the unit risk, Q1* ( in milligrams/ kilograms/ day) ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 of sulfosulfuron, at 1.03 x 10 3 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 in human equivalents, based upon the male mouse urinary bladder mesenchymal tumor rates. The rat translational cell tumors and mouse renal adenomas were not used because of their low incidence.

The mesenchymal tumors of the urinary bladder in high dose males were benign and unique to Swiss mice, with no human counterpart tumor. Monsanto contends, therefore, that these tumors should not be considered with regard to human cancer risk assessment for sulfosulfuron. Other factors, such as structureactivity analysis indicating that sulfosulfuron and the anticipated submoieties should not be carcinogenic, the lack of genotoxic effects either in vivo or in vitro, and the fact that as a class, sulfonylurea chemicals are notably lacking in carcinogenic effects, suggest that these tumors are secondary, threshold effects and are not relevant to humans at the anticipated exposure levels. Therefore, Monsanto contends that a margin of exposure ( uncertainty factor) approach would be more appropriate in assessing human exposure levels than using non threshold based models. Since the oncogenic NOEL was 24 mg/ kg bw/ day, establishment of a reference dose at 1% of the NOEL for chronic toxicity ( 0.24 mg/ kg bw/ day) would ensure that any potential oncogenic risks from dietary exposure would be negligible, especially given the extremely low residues of sulfosulfuron in wheat grain.

Chronic exposure estimates for all population subgroups were < 1% cPAD of 0.24 mg/ kg bw/ day, which is less than EPA's level of concern. Lifetime cancer risk for the U. S. population has an MOE of 126,894 based on the NOEL of 24 mg/ kg bw/ day. Using the linear low dose approach ( Q1*), the lifetime cancer risk for the U. S. general population is 1.9 x 10 7, less than EPA's level of concern for the this sub group.

iii. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated ( PCT) information. PCT information was not used in this assessment. A conservative assessment utilizing an assumption of 100% crop treated and 100% tolerance levels detected, were used for the associated commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. There is insufficient water monitoring data on sulfosulfuron to perform a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for sulfosulfuron in drinking water. Peak ( acute) and annual average ( chronic) surface water concentrations of sulfosulfuron following treatment to grass pastures were, therefore, estimated using the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST) ( version 1.0), the EPA Tier 1 screening model for drinking water pesticide exposure. FIRST estimates the peak ( acute) concentration of sulfosulfuron in surface water to be 7.982 parts per billion ( ppb) following aerial application ( worst case) of 0.094 lb/ acre, and an annual average ( chronic) concentration of 1.059 ppb. The expected environmental concentration ( EEC) for sulfosulfuron in ground water is estimated from the SCI GROW model to be 0.086 ppb at a use rate of 0.094 pound/ acre, aerobic soil halflife of 32 days and a Koc of 25 L/ kg.

3. Non dietary exposure. There are, currently, no residential uses of sulfosulfuron that would result in residential exposure. However, the commercial use of sulfosulfuron on residential and recreational turf may lead to post application exposure in individuals. A cancer risk assessment for adults and children based on post application residential exposure was conducted.

Conservative post application adult residential exposure values were calculated using REX 4.0. A lifetime average daily dose ( LADD) of 6.85 x 10 5 mg/ kg bw/ day was determined based on 14 days of exposure per year, 35 years of exposure lifetime, and a 70 year life expectancy.

It is likely that toddlers could be exposed to sulfosulfuron from incidental ingestion of grass, soil, or hand to mouth transfer from residential turf; however, this residential exposure for toddlers is short term ( no more than 30 days) and should not be considered chronic exposure. The average daily dose ( ADD) was estimated to be 0.00607 mg/ kg bw/ day, with and annual average daily dose estimated to be 0.00023 mg/ kg bw/ day. Since there are no acute toxicity concerns for sulfosulfuron, comparison of the average daily dose to subchronic toxicity endpoint would provide the most valuable risk assessment. For this purpose, the NOAEL of 370 mg/ kg bw/ day from the subchronic rat study ( MRID # 44295750) is the appropriate toxicity endpoint. Comparing then the average daily dose of 6.07 x 10 3 for toddler residential exposure to the subchronic NOAEL of 370 mg/ kg bw/ day results in a short term MOE of 60,956, well above EPA's level of concern of 100.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the 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." There is no evidence of a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sulfosulfuron, and sulfosulfuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite that is also produced by other substances.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

2. Developmental reproductive toxicity studies. The results of the two generation reproduction and developmental toxicity studies indicated that sulfosulfuron is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. The acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies showed that sulfosulfuron is not neurotoxic. Sulfosulfuron is rapidly excreted, primarily unmetabolized. Excretion at low dose occurred primarily in the urine, whereas, at high dose, a large percentage of the administered dose was excreted in the feces. Sulfosulfuron was not retained in tissues to any significant extent.

3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity database for sulfosulfuron and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA has determined that the 10X safety factor to protect infants and children should be removed. The FQPA factor is removed because the developmental and reproductive toxicity data did not indicate increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/ or postnatal exposure. Any detectable residues in food or drinking water would be expected at low levels since application rates are low. There are currently no registered homeowner uses for sulfosulfuron. Finally, concern for post application exposure to infants and children from commercial application of pesticide is tempered by the low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity of this product.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for U. S. Population i. Acute risk. As discussed previously, sulfosulfuron has low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity. It is non irritating to skin, slightly irritating to eyes and is not a skin sensitizer. Endpoints for risk assessment through exposure via the acute dietary, dermal, inhalation and incidental oral routes were not identified; therefore, acute, short and intermediate term dermal and inhalation risk are not a concern. ii. Chronic risk. Since exposure from dietary sources represents less than 1% of the cPAD of 0.24 mg/ kg bw/ day for all population subgroups, including infants and children, young children, young adults, females of childbearing age and for the overall U. S. population, and since chronic residential exposure to residues of sulfosulfuron in not expected to occur, the DWLOC's for sulfosulfuron may be calculated from a maximum chronic ( non cancer) water exposure equivalent to the cPAD. DWLOC's of 8,400 ppb, 7,200 ppb, and 2,400 ppb, were calculated for adult males, adult females and children, respectively. These values far exceed the expected EEC's of 1.059 ppb in surface water and 0.086 ppb in ground water, and, therefore, are not of concern.

iii. Short term risk. The short term aggregate risk takes into account the exposure from potential residential sources in addition to average dietary residues from food and drinking water. The short term aggregate risk assessment was performed for children, with the resulting short term DWLOC of 3,700 ppb far greater than the EEC's for sulfosulfuron.

iv. Intermediate term risk. Intermediate term aggregate exposure takes into account non dietary, nonoccupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water ( considered to be a background exposure level). Although residential exposure could occur with the use of sulfosulfuron, no toxicological effects have been identified for intermediate term toxicity. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which were previously discussed.

v. Aggregate cancer risk for U. S. population. Cancer aggregate risk assessment considers exposure from food, water and residential sources. The dietary analysis assumed tolerance level residues in wheat commodities, and milk and animal products, 100% crop treated, and DEEM default processing factors. Dietary exposure for the U. S. population is 0.000189 mg/ kg bw/ day, resulting in a lifetime cancer risk MOE of 126,894, well above EPA's level of concern. Using the linear Q* approach, the lifetime excess cancer risk is 1.94 x 10 7, less than EPA's level of concern. The LADD for residential exposure is 0.0000685 mg/ kg bw/ day, resulting in a lifetime cancer risk MOE of 350,365, or an excess cancer risk of 7.06 x 10 8 using the linear Q* approach. These values do not exceed the EPA's level of concern. The aggregate cancer risk DWLOC for the general population using the MOE method is the same as discussed previously for chronic ( non cancer) risk, or 8,200 ppb. Using the linear Q* approach, the aggregate cancer risk DWLOC after combining the dietary and residential exposure is 25 ppb. These drinking water concentrations are much greater than the expected concentrations determined for sulfosulfuron in ground and surface water.

vi. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to sulfosulfuron residues.

F. International Tolerances.

There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82349-82350]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25965]

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

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: RP24-162-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: TSCA--Informational Filing
(November 2023) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/16/23.
    Accession Number: 20231116-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-163-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: TIGT 2023-11-17 Pre-filing
Settlement Stipulation and Agreement to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/23.
    Accession Number: 20231117-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP20-614-008.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: ALJ Settlement: Transco Stip & Agrmt.
    Filed Date: 11/16/23.
    Accession Number: 20231116-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-618-003.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: ALJ Settlement: Transco Stip & Agrmt.
    Filed Date: 11/16/23.

    Accession Number: 20231116-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 17, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25965 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 72677]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4412-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4412-DR), dated January 31, 2019,
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 13, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Myra M. Shird,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Elizabeth Turner as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-25076 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33312-33314]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0462]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Marine Week Cleveland, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor at Burke Lakefront Airport, Cleveland,
Ohio. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion
of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor near Burke Lakefront Airport. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect participants, spectators,
and vessels from the hazards associated with aerial insertions and
aircraft maneuvers.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. on June 15, 2012 until 3:30
p.m. on June 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0462 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0462 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then 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
temporary rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of
Waterway Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-
843-9343, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with aerial insertions and aircraft
maneuvering, which are discussed further below.
    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. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period run would
also be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Basis and Purpose

    Beginning at 10 a.m. on June 15, 2012, through 3:30 p.m. on June
17, 2012, there will be Marine Air Ground Task Force movement on and
over Burke Lakefront to include Recon Insertions (parachuting), and
various maneuvers by USMC aircraft and personnel on the Burke Lakefront
Airport grounds. A heavy amount of recreational boat traffic is
expected for this event. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined
that the Marines' maneuvers combined with a high concentration of
recreational vessels will create significant risks for the boating
public.

Discussion of Rule

    With the aforementioned risks in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of participants and the boating public during the
Marine Event. This temporary safety zone will be effective from 10 a.m.
on June 15, 2012 until 3:30 p.m. on June 17, 2012. It will be enforced
from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2012, 2
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on June 16, 2012, and 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on June 17,
2012.
    The safety zone will encompass a portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland
Harbor near Burke Lakefront Airport from position 41[deg]30'20'' N and
081[deg]42'20'' W, to 41[deg]30'50'' N and 081[deg]42'49'' W, to
41[deg]32'09'' N and 081[deg]39'49'' W, to 41[deg]31'53'' N and
081[deg]39'24'' W, then return to the original position. (NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene Patrol
Commander (PATCOM). Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. Only state, federal,
and local vessels will be allowed in the safety zone. The Captain of
the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866,
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will
have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other
agencies, will not adversely alter the

budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. 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 Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will 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 temporary final rule may affect the following entities, some
of which might be small entities: The owners of operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland
Harbor from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 15,
2012, 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on June 16, 2012, and 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on
June 17, 2012.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be enforced for approximately three hours each day in an area
with low commercial vessel traffic. Also, in the event that this
temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the
safety zone. Additionally, the Coast Guard will give advanced notice to
the public via a local Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation
is in effect. Moreover, the COTP will suspend enforcement of the safety
zone if the event for which the zone is established ends earlier than
the expected time.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this 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.
    If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Christopher
Mercurio, Chief of Waterway Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Buffalo; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone 716-843-
9343. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will 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 will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these

standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (g),
of the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety
zone. A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0462 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0462  Safety Zone; Marine Week Cleveland, Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass a portion of Lake Erie
and Cleveland Harbor near Burke Lakefront Airport from position
41[deg]30'20'' N and 081[deg]42'20'' W, to 41[deg]30'50'' N and
081[deg]42'49'' W, to 41[deg]32'09'' N and 081[deg]39'49'' W, to
41[deg]31'53'' N and 081[deg]39'24'' W, then return to the original
position (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
from 10 a.m. on June 15, 2012 until 3:30 p.m. on June 17, 2012. It will
be enforced from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June
15, 2012, 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on June 16, 2012, and 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
on June 17, 2012.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2012-13687 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P