[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47040-47042]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17057]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270; FRL-9949-34-Region 3]

Finding of Failure To Submit a State Implementation Plan;
Maryland; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action finding that Maryland has failed to submit an infrastructure
state implementation plan (SIP) to satisfy certain interstate transport
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2008 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically,
these requirements pertain to the obligation to prohibit emissions
which significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. This
finding of failure to submit establishes a 2-year deadline for EPA to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the
interstate transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states unless, prior to EPA promulgating a
FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these
requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when
an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the
agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making
this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for
comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a
finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the
CAA, where states have made no submissions, or incomplete submissions,
to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are
unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).

I. Background and Overview

A. Interstate Transport SIPs

    CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs
that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must
meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. EPA refers to this type
of SIP submission as the ``infrastructure'' SIP because it ensures that
states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within
these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to
address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision
submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an ``interstate
transport SIP.'' In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that such
a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state
that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 2). Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, also called
the ``good neighbor'' provisions, are the requirements relevant to this
findings document.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), EPA must determine no later
than 6 months after the date by which a state is required to submit a
SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the minimum
completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA refers
to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP that meets
the minimum completeness criteria as a ``finding of failure to
submit.'' If EPA finds a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its
statutory obligation to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to section
110(c)(1) EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years to address the CAA requirement. This
finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a
FIP, in accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such
promulgation the state submits, and EPA approves, a submittal from the
state to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA notes this action does not start a
mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this
finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for
nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP
call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

B. Finding of Failure To Submit for States That Did Not Submit a SIP

    On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ozone. EPA
revised the 8-hour primary ozone standard from 0.08 parts per millions
(ppm) to 0.075 ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-hour standard to
the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary
standard. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard,
including the interstate transport requirements, were due March 12,
2011.
    On December 27, 2012, Maryland submitted an infrastructure SIP for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA determined the December 27, 2012 SIP
submittal as complete on January 2, 2013. On May 2, 2014, EPA proposed
approval of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, but did not propose to take action on the portion of the
submittal related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), stating that EPA would
take separate action on this part of the submittal. See 79 FR 25054.
    On July 13, 2015, EPA published a rule finding that 24 states
failed to submit complete SIPs that addressed the ``good neighbor''
provision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015).\1\
The finding action triggered a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs
to address the ``good neighbor''

requirements for those states by August 12, 2017. Prior to issuance of
the finding action, Maryland made a submission addressing the ``good
neighbor'' provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012,
therefore, the state was not included in EPA's July 2015 finding
notice. Following Maryland's submittal of its infrastructure SIP and
EPA's July 2015 finding notice, EPA proposed a rule on November 16,
2015 \2\ to address the ``good neighbor'' requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The rule proposed to promulgate FIPs in 23 eastern states,
including Maryland, to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to issue FIPs only for those states that
either failed to submit a SIP or for which the EPA disapproved the
state's SIP addressing the ``good neighbor'' provision by the date the
rule was finalized. EPA expects to finalize the rule and respective
FIPs, as applicable, later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This finding is included in the docket for this action and
available online at www.regulations.gov.
    \2\ See ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules,'' 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20, 2016, EPA received a letter, dated April 12, 2016,\3\
from the Maryland Department of the Environment acknowledging that the
transport component of the December 27, 2012 infrastructure SIP
submittal needed to be updated with additional control measures and
withdrawing from EPA's consideration the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
portion of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal dated December 27,
2012. The letter also states that Maryland plans to submit to EPA an
updated good neighbor SIP in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Maryland's April 12, 2012 letter inadvertently referred to
an incorrect submittal date of December 31, 2012. The only
infrastructure SIP submission from Maryland addressing section
110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the December 27, 2012
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Action

    With the withdrawal of the good neighbor portion of the December
27, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal, Maryland has not submitted to
EPA a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is therefore finding that Maryland has failed to submit a
complete good neighbor SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This finding starts a 2-
year clock for promulgation by EPA of a FIP after the effective date of
this final rule, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), unless prior to
such promulgation that Maryland submits, and EPA approves, a submittal
that meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
finding of failure to submit does not impose sanctions, and does not
set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179,
because it does not pertain to the elements of a CAA title I, part D
plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I),
and because this action is not a SIP call pursuant to section
110(k)(5).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.
This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the
agency has invoked the APA ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C.
553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and
explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the
exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA
for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the
requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a)
within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.

    This action finding that Maryland has failed to submit a CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(I) SIP may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.

    Dated: July 8, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-17057 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18313-18316]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07846]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0186]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum Fireworks
Display; 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, Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum fireworks display. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the

navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 7:45 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on
April 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0186]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and 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 a maritime fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 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;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    Between 7:45 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. on April 11, 2015, a fireworks
display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor in
Cleveland, OH, in the vicinity of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is
anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of
the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that
such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant
risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and
accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning
debris.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame and Museum fireworks display. This zone will be effective
and enforced from 7:45 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on April 11, 2015. This
zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor,
Cleveland, OH within a 210-foot radius of position 41[deg]30'37.40'' N.
and 081[deg]41'50.07'' W. (NAD 83).
    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. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    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 a 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.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of Cleveland Harbor on the evening of
April 11, 2015.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this
safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF

channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination 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

0
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. Section 165.T09-0186 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0186  Safety Zone; Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum
Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie,
Cleveland Harbor; Cleveland, OH within a 210-foot radius of position
41[deg]30'37.40'' N. and 081[deg]41'50.07'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced on April
11, 2015 from 7:45 p.m. until 9:15 p.m.
    (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 must 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: March 23, 2015.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-07846 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 056502 DP BARCODE: 291286 MEMORANDUM December 22, 2003 SUBJECT: Pentachloronitrobenzene, Revised Drinking Water Assessment: Tier II Drinking Water EDWCs for Use in the Human Health Risk Assessment.

TO: Mohsen Sahafeyan, Chemist RRB2/ HED ( 7509C)

FROM: Cheryl A. Sutton, Ph. D. Environmental Scientist ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

THRU: R. David Jones, Ph. D., Senior Agronomist ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief ERBIV/ EFED ( 7507C)

This memo summarizes the Tier II estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWC) for pentachloronitrobenzene ( PCNB) in surface water for use in the human health risk assessment. These estimates account for contributions from the degradate pentachloroaniline ( PCA), as described in the initial memo dated 11/ 12/ 03 in which Tier I screening level EDWC's were presented. The values presented here are revised from those in the previous memo. The values for groundwater presented in the intial memo have not changed. As of this time, available monitoring data and the available information on PCP have also not changed and you should refer to the 11/ 12/ 03 memo with regard to those issues.

In determining revised surface water EDWC's for the drinking water assessment EFED utilized the Tier II screening models PRZM/ EXAMS. The EDWC's recommended by EFED for use in the human health risk assessment for PCNB are presented in Table 1. Reported values are chosen to represent the maximum contamination levels resulting from the labeled uses ( excluding ornamental, greenhouse or residential uses) listed in the 1700+ uses on the labels, as presented in EPA's LUIS report for labels accepted as of 2/ 20/ 02 ( LUIS Report run date 6/ 28/ 02). The general fate and physical chemical property data used as the source of the input parameter values for modeling were obtained from the guideline studies and other submissions from the registrant and are presented in Attachment 1. Values used as input in modeling are presented in Table 2 along with the complete results for all scenarios modeled for the drinking water assessment ( surface water portion). 2 Table 1. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations for use in the PCNB human health risk assessment based on use on cabbage ( surface water) or bulb crops ( groundwater).

Surface water drinking water sources acute: 440

g/ L ( ppb) 1 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 44.2

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 27.5

g/ L ( ppb)

Groundwater drinking water sources 30.6 ug/ L ( ppb) 2 1Surface water EDWC values ( Tier II screening level) were generated using the PRZM/ EXAMS model with a ground spray to cabbage ( one single application at 30 lb a. i./ A) in Florida application scenario. The actual output value from PRZM/ EXAMS was 574.5 ppb for the cabbage use acute concentration. However, as this is greater than the aqueous solubility of 440 ppb for PCNB, the solubility limit should be used instead. 2Groundwater EDWC's ( Tier I screening level) are based on PCNB use on bulb crops at 213.4 lb a. i./ A/ application in a single application.

Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations The EDWC's for surface water bodies were determined using the Tier II screening level simulation models PRZM ( v. 3.12; input generated by PE4VO1. pl, dated 8/ 8/ 03) and EXAMS ( 2.98.04). Input parameter values utilized for PRZM/ EXAMS modeling and the resultant EDWCs to be used for the human health risk assessment are presented in Table 2. The actual PRZM/ EXAMS output/ input files for the simulations on all uses modeled are presented as Attachment 2. For additional information on PRZM and EXAMS, see http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ models/ water/.

The five agricultural or recreational ( turf) uses of PCNB chosen to represent the use of the compound in the environment are turf, peanuts, cabbage ( cole crop), potatoes and cotton. To simulate these uses, EFED used a standard Pennsylvania turf scenario, a standard North Carolina peanuts scenario, a standard Florida cabbage scenario, a standard Idaho potatoes scenario, and a standard Mississippi cotton scenario. Application dates were chosen based on whether PCNB is applied as a pre or post emergent to the respective crops as well as on reported planting dates found in the USDA agricultural crop profiles at www. pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles. Separate simulations were performed to determine estimated water concentrations for the human health ( drinking water component) risk assessment and the ecological risk assessment. The human drinking water EDWCs were determined using the standard index reservoir scenario in which a 172 ha field drains into a 52000 m2 reservoir and percent cropped area ( PCA) is taken into consideration. The PCA for each of the five crops modeled is the default value of 0.87. The surface water EEC's for the ecological assessments were determined using the standard pond scenario in which a 10 ha field drains into a 10000 m2 pond, with the assumption that the small field is cropped at 100%. Complete PRZM and EXAMS output/ input files can be found in Attachment 1. Chemical property input values were chosen according to the current EFED standard guidance document ( Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II, February 28, 2002).

The choice to use the Pennsylvania standard scenario is based on the registrant's information that PCNB is used on turf ( as a post emergent), to prevent snowmold, mainly in the Great Lakes regions. An application date of November 15th was chosen to represent a post emergent application ( generally done prior to Thanksgiving) made during the part of the growing season in which snow mold occurs ( November through April). Incorporation of the pesticide was not utilized, as the 3 application simulated was a post emergent ( foliar/ ground) spray.

Based on the pesticide survey usage information, the crop with the highest usage in terms of its total U. S. planted acres treated with PCNB is the cole crop brussel sprouts. However, because EFED did not have a standard modeling scenario available for brussel sprouts, cabbage ( which is treated at the same rate as brussel sprouts) was chosen as the representative cole crop and the choice was made to use the Florida standard scenario for cabbage. An application date of August 15th was chosen for a pre plant application of PCNB based on a planting time of August to February in northeast Florida, where 50% of the state's cabbage acreage is located. The application simulated represents a ground spray with an incorporation to the 1 inch depth ( EFED's default value).

The choice to use the North Carolina peanuts and the Mississippi cotton standard scenarios is based on the registrant's information that PCNB is used on those crops predominantly in the south. An application date of April 15th was chosen for a pre plant application to peanuts based on a planting time of April 20th to May 20th. An application date of April 20th was chosen for a pre plant application to cotton based on a May 1st planting time. The application simulated for both crops represents a ground spray with an incorporation to the 1 inch depth.

The choice to use the standard Idaho potatoes scenario is based on the registrant's information that PCNB is used on that crop mainly in the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes regions. An application date of May 20th was chosen for a pre plant application to potatoes based on a planting time of April to June 10th for eastern Idaho, where the majority of the crop is grown in the state. The application simulated represents a granular formulation with an incorporation to the 1 inch depth.

In addition to uncertainty associated with modeling inputs ( detailed in the initial memo), there is an uncertainty component associated with limitations of the Tier II models ( i. e., PRZM/ EXAMS). One particular uncertainty in the EDWC's which warrants some further discussion is how the effects of solubility have been handled in this assessment. In the environment, solubility places an upper limit on the concentration in solution ( not including any suspended solid material) at a particular temperature. While concentrations higher than the solubility do occur ( i. e., supersaturation), they are highly unlikely in the environment, given the large number of nucleation sites ( soil and organic matter particles) available on which precipitation reactions can start. Due to the restrictions in place in the EXAMS model, it cannot simulate an aqueous concentration that saturates the water body at the aqueous solubility limit of the compound, as EXAMS does not use the solubility input parameter as the direct upper limit on concentration. In general, the model disregards a portion of the mass of the compound once the concentration of that compounds exceeds a set limit ( 50% of the solubility), thereby effectively removing some mass and making it unavailable from that point onward so that it cannot be reintroduced into the water phase even as the compound is degraded. This is done as a 1 Personal communication, Lawrence Burns, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA 4 way to reflect Freundlich adsorption behavior in EXAMS1. Unfortunately, the removal of mass from the system when one half the solubility is exceeded tends overestimate the removal of the substance from the environment. In addition, it prevents EXAMS from reflecting concentrations in the environment higher than one half the solubility, even though they can physically occur. Consequently, EFED's policy is to multiply the solubility by 10 ( to obtain the input parameter value) to prevent EXAMS from using the solubility dependent routines. While this does not change the results ( i. e., the model output values), it does allow for output values that exceed the solubility limit ( at the modeled temperature of 25oC). In cases where the resulting EDWC's are greater than the solubility, they are reported as equivalent to the solubility limit. It is thought that this better reflects the fate of the pesticide in the environment for the purposes of the drinking water and ecological risk assessments.

EFED recommends that the acute EDWC to be used in the human health risk assessment for surface water is 440 ppb, based on the use of PCNB on cabbage at an application rate of 30.0 lb a. i./ A in a single application. Note that the value " 440 ppb" is the aqueous solubility limit of the parent compound at 25 oC. EFED recommends that the chronic EDWC to be used in the drinking water assessment for surface water is 44.2 ppb, also based on the use of PCNB on cabbage. While the use of PCNB on ( ornamental) bulb crops at an application rate of 213.4 lb a. i./ A/ application ( single application) may result in higher values, EFED does not have a standard modeling scenario available to simulate application to ( ornamental) bulb crops. Since the model results for cabbage were an estimated acute concentration which was equal to the solubility limit for the compound, the predicted acute concentration for bulb crops could not be higher than the one ( i. e., 440 ppb) recommended for use in the human health risk assessment. 5 Table 2. PRZM/ EXAMS input parameter values and surface water EDWC results for PCNB plus PCA for the drinking water assessment.

Parameter Value Application Rate ( lb a. i./ A/ application) turf: 32.67 peanuts: 10 cabbage ( cole crop): 30 potatoes: 25 cotton: 2.06 Number of Applications turf: 2 peanuts: 1 cabbage: 1 potatoes: 1 cotton: 1 Interval Between Applications ( days) turf: 21 peanuts: Not Applicable ( NA) cabbage: NA potatoes: NA cotton: NA Date of First Application turf: November 15 ( post emergent) peanuts: April 15 ( pre plant) cabbage: August 15 ( pre plant) potatoes: May 20 ( pre plant) cotton: April 20 ( pre plant)

Application Type and Depth of Incorporation ( cm) turf: ground spray; 0 cm peanuts: ground spray; 2.5 cm cabbage: ground spray; 2.5 cm potatoes: granular; 2.5 cm cotton: ground spray; 2.5 cm Soil Partition Coefficient ( K d; mL/ g) 15.5 ( MRID 41648201; lowest non sand K d)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 1555 days ( parent plus PCA) 1 ( source data from MRID's 42911902, 41384501, 41713202, 42112801)

Spray Drift Fraction ( ground spray) 0.01 Application Efficiency 0.99 Molecular Weight 295.3 g/ mole Vapor Pressure 1.13 x 10 4 Torr Henry's Law Constant 4.42 x 10 5 atm m3 mol Solubility in Water at 25oC ( ppm) 10 ppm ( set above solubility limt of 0.44 ppm for modeling purposes based on model guidance and limitations)

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 3110 days ( parent plus PCA) ( input value is two times the aerobic soil metabolism half life input value)

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half life ( days) t 1/ 2 = 1231 days ( parent plus PCA) ( input value is two times the anaerobic soil metabolism half life value calculated using source data from MRID's 41384301, 41203602)

Hydrolysis Half life @ pH 7 ( days) stable Aquatic Photolysis Half life @ pH 5 ( days) 1.83 6 PRZM/ EXAMS Results ( EDWC's for surface water) Turf: acute: 377

g/ L ( ppb) 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 37.9

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 17.5

g/ L ( ppb)

Peanuts: acute: 173

g/ L ( ppb) 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 9.5

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 5.7

g/ L ( ppb)

Cabbage: acute: 440

g/ L ( ppb) 2 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 44.2

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 27.5

g/ L ( ppb)

Potatoes: acute: 71.3

g/ L ( ppb) 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 4.0

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 2.1

g/ L ( ppb)

Cotton: acute: 48.9

g/ L ( ppb) 1 in 10 years ( chronic): 5.5

g/ L ( ppb) 30 year average: 2.7

g/ L ( ppb)

1The aerobic soil metabolism half life value used in the models represents the 90th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean of two half life values. Half live values were determined from parent plus PCA data. 2The actual output value from PRZM/ EXAMS was 574.5 ppb for the cabbage use acute concentration. However, as this is greater than the aqueous solubility of 440 ppb for PCNB, the solubility limit should be used instead. 7 ATTACHMENT 1: General fate and physical chemical property source data for PCNB modeling.

PARAMETER VALUE Chemical Name pentachloronitrobenzene Molecular Weight 295.3 Solubility ( 25 oC) 0.44 mg/ L ( 440 ppb)

Vapor Pressure ( 25 oC) 1.13 x 10 4 mmHg Hydrolysis Half life ( pH 5, 7, 9; 25 oC) stable ( MRID's 40865301, 40972601)

Aqueous Photolysis Half life ( pH 7) t 1/ 2 = 2.5 days ( MRID's 42606201, 42606202) t 1/ 2 = 26.8 hours ( MRID 42336201)

Soil Photolysis Half life stable ( MRID's 41004801, 41713201)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half life t 1/ 2 = 77, 189 days ( parent only); t 1/ 2 = 489, 1012 days ( parent plus PCA) 1 t 1/ 2 = 983, 1052 days ( total residues) 2 ( MRID's 42911902, 41384501, 41713202, 42112801)

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half life t 1/ 2 = 9 days, < 30 ( DT 50; parent only); t 1/ 2 = 210, 410 days ( parent plus PCA, PCP) t 1/ 2 = 268, 334 days ( total residues) ( MRID's 41203602, 42094401, 41384301, 41686001, 41713202, 42112802)

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient ( K oc) 1588, 2912, 3870, 17508 ( MRID 41648201)

Soil Partition Coefficient ( K d, mL/ g) 7.3, 15.5, 19.1, 210 ( MRID 41648201)

1For the purposes of the drinking water assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for the parent plus the degradates PCA and PCP, when monitored and detected. 2For the purposes of the ecological assessment, half lives were recalculated to account for total residues, inclusive of the parent plus the degradates PCA, PCTA, PCB, PCP, PCTASO, PCTASO 2, and the manufacturing contaminant HCB. 8 ATTACHMENT 2 PRZM/ EXAMS Outputs for the Drinking Water Assessment 1. Cabbage ( Standard FL Cabbage Scenario)

stored as PCNBcab4. out Chemical: PCNB PRZM environment: FLcabbageC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16: 39: 00 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w12842. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04: 28 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 236 202 134 66.24 45.02 12.81 1962 432 374 258 178 124 34.12 1963 220 188 101 43.65 39.44 17.74 1964 493 433 304 164 116 37.91 1965 143 132 88.14 54.41 43.16 15.53 1966 120 105 65.13 40.42 31.33 12.17 1967 109 96.9 71.55 49.45 39.9 14.27 1968 336 302 206 123 97.81 29.84 1969 226 196 121 99.94 73.83 30.44 1970 202 173 138 73.5 50.9 17.55 1971 552 503 316 234 181 52.47 1972 577 503 393 201 144 42.03 1973 266 229 169 110 79.2 25.01 1974 129 117 73.26 40.22 38.39 13.79 1975 312 269 196 125 90.85 28.14 1976 378 328 203 117 82.77 26.82 1977 196 169 127 89.59 63.75 19.23 1978 89.53 78.92 48.36 35.75 30.65 13.38 1979 318 289 198 150 110 44.4 1980 196 171 132 82.02 57.92 19.87 1981 476 411 281 183 128 39.87 1982 367 321 225 159 116 38.46 1983 188 164 129 78.7 56.85 22.7 1984 277 244 177 103 73.79 22.1 1985 783 682 400 191 149 42.86 1986 175 156 110 73.91 64.07 22.91 1987 153 133 105 76.61 61.74 24.43 1988 717 626 423 298 208 60.36 1989 331 290 247 143 105 32.19 1990 78.87 70.68 44.55 25.07 21.29 10.7 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 783 682 423 298 208 60.36 0.0645161290322581 717 626 400 234 181 52.47 0.0967741935483871 577 503 393 201 149 9 44.4 0.129032258064516 552 503 316 191 144 42.86 0.161290322580645 493 433 304 183 128 42.03 0.193548387096774 476 411 281 178 124 39.87 0.225806451612903 432 374 258 164 116 38.46 0.258064516129032 378 328 247 159 116 37.91 0.290322580645161 367 321 225 150 110 34.12 0.32258064516129 336 302 206 143 105 32.19 0.354838709677419 331 290 203 125 97.81 30.44 0.387096774193548 318 289 198 123 90.85 29.84 0.419354838709677 312 269 196 117 82.77 28.14 0.451612903225806 277 244 177 110 79.2 26.82 0.483870967741936 266 229 169 103 73.83 25.01 0.516129032258065 236 202 138 99.94 73.79 24.43 0.548387096774194 226 196 134 89.59 64.07 22.91 0.580645161290323 220 188 132 82.02 63.75 22.7 0.612903225806452 202 173 129 78.7 61.74 22.1 0.645161290322581 196 171 127 76.61 57.92 19.87 0.67741935483871 196 169 121 73.91 56.85 19.23 0.709677419354839 188 164 110 73.5 50.9 17.74 0.741935483870968 175 156 105 66.24 45.02 17.55 0.774193548387097 153 133 101 54.41 43.16 15.53 0.806451612903226 143 132 88.14 49.45 39.9 14.27 0.838709677419355 129 117 73.26 43.65 39.44 13.79 0.870967741935484 120 105 71.55 40.42 38.39 13.38 0.903225806451613 109 96.9 65.13 40.22 31.33 12.81 0.935483870967742 89.53 78.92 48.36 35.75 30.65 10 12.17 0.967741935483871 78.87 70.68 44.55 25.07 21.29 10.7 0.1 574.5 503 385.3 200 148.5 44.246 Average of yearly averages: 27.47 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: PCNBcab4 Metfile: w12842. dvf PRZM scenario: FLcabbageC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: PCNB Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 295.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 0.000044 atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.000113 torr Solubility sol 10 mg/ L Kd Kd 15.5 mg/ L Koc Koc mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1.83 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3110 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1231 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1555 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half life Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 33.6 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF. 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 08 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)

2. Cotton ( Standard Mississippi Cotton Scenario)

stored as PCNBcot3. out Chemical: PCNB PRZM environment: MScottonC. txt modified Wedday, 22 January 2003 at 11: 52: 38 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w03940. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 05: 46 Water segment concentrations ( ppb) 11 Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 30.07 26.93 18.83 16.8 13.91 5.507 1962 11.96 10.31 6.557 3.262 2.335 1.056 1963 18.2 15.74 9.222 4.727 3.316 1.24 1964 22.17 18.38 10.14 6.317 5.873 3.327 1965 21.74 18.33 10.4 4.719 3.344 1.144 1966 23.83 21.71 13.59 9.591 6.815 2.161 1967 59.51 51.07 34.61 21.83 17.05 5.287 1968 18.97 16.66 13.19 7.872 5.52 1.818 1969 5.608 4.822 2.787 1.472 1.117 0.5061 1970 16.31 14.44 11.12 9.074 7.874 3.31 1971 59.43 50.71 37.96 21.6 15.06 4.525 1972 10.47 9.098 6.804 3.347 2.373 0.8595 1973 17.94 15.44 10.84 6.624 4.744 2.249 1974 18.2 15.27 8.391 5.154 3.854 1.727 1975 16.77 14.56 10.82 6.153 4.802 1.697 1976 42.01 36.36 28.16 18.22 15.28 5.217 1977 30.53 26.1 15.63 7.46 5.645 2.331 1978 16.26 14.23 12.33 6.585 4.737 1.649 1979 49.67 45.24 32.86 22.38 21.46 8.413 1980 35.79 31.44 21.95 14.33 10.29 3.177 1981 15.95 14.28 10.2 7.44 5.765 1.732 1982 32.92 27.86 20.41 18.04 14.19 6.088 1983 36.15 32.35 20 9.334 6.619 2.303 1984 11 9.358 5.432 3.024 2.501 1.148 1985 26.21 22.88 14.02 8.044 6.453 2.346 1986 28.64 24.61 16.66 8.872 6.552 2.062 1987 11.35 10.18 6.566 3.239 2.72 0.9285 1988 16.34 14.08 8.23 4.918 4.385 2.281 1989 23.23 20.21 14.91 10.14 7.549 2.374 1990 15.34 13.14 7.89 5.203 3.707 1.244 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 59.51 51.07 37.96 22.38 21.46 8.413 0.0645161290322581 59.43 50.71 34.61 21.83 17.05 6.088 0.0967741935483871 49.67 45.24 32.86 21.6 15.28 5.507 0.129032258064516 42.01 36.36 28.16 18.22 15.06 5.287 0.161290322580645 36.15 32.35 21.95 18.04 14.19 5.217 0.193548387096774 35.79 31.44 20.41 16.8 13.91 4.525 0.225806451612903 32.92 27.86 20 14.33 10.29 3.327 0.258064516129032 30.53 26.93 18.83 10.14 7.874 3.31 0.290322580645161 30.07 26.1 16.66 9.591 7.549 3.177 12 0.32258064516129 28.64 24.61 15.63 9.334 6.815 2.374 0.354838709677419 26.21 22.88 14.91 9.074 6.619 2.346 0.387096774193548 23.83 21.71 14.02 8.872 6.552 2.331 0.419354838709677 23.23 20.21 13.59 8.044 6.453 2.303 0.451612903225806 22.17 18.38 13.19 7.872 5.873 2.281 0.483870967741936 21.74 18.33 12.33 7.46 5.765 2.249 0.516129032258065 18.97 16.66 11.12 7.44 5.645 2.161 0.548387096774194 18.2 15.74 10.84 6.624 5.52 2.062 0.580645161290323 18.2 15.44 10.82 6.585 4.802 1.818 0.612903225806452 17.94 15.27 10.4 6.317 4.744 1.732 0.645161290322581 16.77 14.56 10.2 6.153 4.737 1.727 0.67741935483871 16.34 14.44 10.14 5.203 4.385 1.697 0.709677419354839 16.31 14.28 9.222 5.154 3.854 1.649 0.741935483870968 16.26 14.23 8.391 4.918 3.707 1.244 0.774193548387097 15.95 14.08 8.23 4.727 3.344 1.24 0.806451612903226 15.34 13.14 7.89 4.719 3.316 1.148 0.838709677419355 11.96 10.31 6.804 3.347 2.72 1.144 0.870967741935484 11.35 10.18 6.566 3.262 2.501 1.056 0.903225806451613 11 9.358 6.557 3.239 2.373 0.9285 0.935483870967742 10.47 9.098 5.432 3.024 2.335 0.8595 0.967741935483871 5.608 4.822 2.787 1.472 1.117 0.5061 0.1 48.904 44.352 32.39 21.262 15.258 5.485 Average of yearly averages: 2.65690333333333 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: PCNBcot3 Metfile: w03940. dvf PRZM scenario: MScottonC. txt 13 EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: PCNB Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 295.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry .000044 atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.000113 torr Solubility sol 10 mg/ L Kd Kd 15.5 mg/ L Koc Koc mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1.83 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3110 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1231 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1555 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 2.31 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF. 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 20 04 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)

3. Peanuts ( Standard North Carolina Peanuts Scenario)

stored as PCNBnut3. out Chemical: PCNB PRZM environment: NCpeanutC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17: 12: 46 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w13737. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 06: 30 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 86.1 73.73 47.73 27.72 21.7 7.381 1962 39.36 33.76 20.58 13.79 10.99 5.255 1963 182 160 94.57 41.29 28.24 9.741 1964 95.79 80.67 52.35 25.85 18.73 6.426 1965 27.4 22.79 12.35 6.915 5.135 1.933 1966 58.21 48.49 29.31 14.05 9.954 5.724 1967 45.2 38.89 24 20.8 15.39 6.007 1968 17.14 15.44 9.119 5.446 4.497 2.982 1969 65.39 59.09 37.41 18.88 16.37 5.722 1970 40.98 36.86 26.56 14.83 13.63 4.942 1971 38.33 33.15 20.88 15.02 11.41 4.764 1972 22.93 19.26 13.27 8.462 7.116 3.617 1973 56.22 47.45 25.63 13.43 13.71 5.529 14 1974 46.51 40.7 32.25 17.48 14.3 4.874 1975 189 158 85.76 41.62 32.08 12.01 1976 29.27 24.52 15.78 7.854 8.021 3.07 1977 35.26 29.94 18.74 10.39 8.337 5.034 1978 51.18 45.41 38.09 25.57 19.94 6.55 1979 60.07 52.47 39.6 23.67 17.08 7.557 1980 86.64 73.95 41.03 22.7 16.12 6.479 1981 48.69 42.84 24.92 14.87 13.61 5.412 1982 22.48 19.22 12.44 7.844 6.195 3.342 1983 84.11 70.77 39.3 20.78 15.09 5.668 1984 252 215 138 73.19 52.94 15.3 1985 38.26 32.37 21.31 11.53 9.85 5.218 1986 36.18 30.52 17.4 9.587 6.621 2.581 1987 63.03 52.46 30.61 16.04 11.37 5.539 1988 15.98 13.65 9.375 6.136 5.314 2.657 1989 28.81 25.92 19.61 11.53 10.45 5.07 1990 38.82 33.62 20.82 11.75 9.396 4.157 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 252 215 138 73.19 52.94 15.3 0.0645161290322581 189 160 94.57 41.62 32.08 12.01 0.0967741935483871 182 158 85.76 41.29 28.24 9.741 0.129032258064516 95.79 80.67 52.35 27.72 21.7 7.557 0.161290322580645 86.64 73.95 47.73 25.85 19.94 7.381 0.193548387096774 86.1 73.73 41.03 25.57 18.73 6.55 0.225806451612903 84.11 70.77 39.6 23.67 17.08 6.479 0.258064516129032 65.39 59.09 39.3 22.7 16.37 6.426 0.290322580645161 63.03 52.47 38.09 20.8 16.12 6.007 0.32258064516129 60.07 52.46 37.41 20.78 15.39 5.724 0.354838709677419 58.21 48.49 32.25 18.88 15.09 5.722 0.387096774193548 56.22 47.45 30.61 17.48 14.3 5.668 0.419354838709677 51.18 45.41 29.31 16.04 13.71 5.539 0.451612903225806 48.69 42.84 26.56 15.02 13.63 5.529 0.483870967741936 46.51 40.7 25.63 14.87 13.61 5.412 0.516129032258065 45.2 38.89 24.92 14.83 11.41 5.255 15 0.548387096774194 40.98 36.86 24 14.05 11.37 5.218 0.580645161290323 39.36 33.76 21.31 13.79 10.99 5.07 0.612903225806452 38.82 33.62 20.88 13.43 10.45 5.034 0.645161290322581 38.33 33.15 20.82 11.75 9.954 4.942 0.67741935483871 38.26 32.37 20.58 11.53 9.85 4.874 0.709677419354839 36.18 30.52 19.61 11.53 9.396 4.764 0.741935483870968 35.26 29.94 18.74 10.39 8.337 4.157 0.774193548387097 29.27 25.92 17.4 9.587 8.021 3.617 0.806451612903226 28.81 24.52 15.78 8.462 7.116 3.342 0.838709677419355 27.4 22.79 13.27 7.854 6.621 3.07 0.870967741935484 22.93 19.26 12.44 7.844 6.195 2.982 0.903225806451613 22.48 19.22 12.35 6.915 5.314 2.657 0.935483870967742 17.14 15.44 9.375 6.136 5.135 2.581 0.967741935483871 15.98 13.65 9.119 5.446 4.497 1.933 0.1 173.379 150.267 82.419 39.933 27.586 9.5226 Average of yearly averages: 5.6847 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: PCNBnut3 Metfile: w13737. dvf PRZM scenario: NCpeanutC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: PCNB Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 295.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry 0.000044 atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.000113 torr Solubility sol 10 mg/ L Kd Kd 15.5 mg/ L Koc Koc mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1.83 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3110 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1231 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1555 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life 16 Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2.5 cm Application Rate: TAPP 11.2 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF. 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 04 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)

4. Potatoes ( Standard Idaho Potatoes Scenario)

stored as PCNBpot3. out Chemical: PCNB PRZM environment: IDpotatoC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17: 00: 44 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w24156. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04: 38 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 21.63 18.58 10.65 7.249 5.211 1.326 1962 7.096 6.102 3.543 2.233 1.791 0.8802 1963 15.65 13.57 9.236 5.238 4.179 2.02 1964 14.88 13.74 8.018 3.519 3.636 1.772 1965 14.62 13.31 12.92 12.22 9.655 3.634 1966 1.184 1.184 1.182 1.172 0.9505 0.2965 1967 18.9 16.98 10.89 5.117 3.608 1.05 1968 16.2 14.84 10.53 4.948 3.908 1.548 1969 19.9 17.23 10.13 4.53 3.094 1.472 1970 143 125 76.43 38.09 26.25 7.296 1971 27.42 23.87 14.95 8.472 6.881 3.272 1972 24.13 21.21 13.06 8.675 6.952 2.993 1973 11.76 10.23 6.067 4.532 4.109 1.615 1974 79.15 67.14 37.2 16.11 11.13 3.972 1975 18.36 15.7 9.065 4.624 3.481 1.35 1976 32.8 29.16 18.69 9.049 6.485 2.45 1977 3.621 3.121 1.814 1.627 1.32 0.5893 1978 7.24 6.176 4.395 3.04 2.032 0.7655 1979 9.554 9.49 9.01 5.802 4.859 1.384 1980 40.05 35.4 24.6 13.64 9.362 4.584 1981 74.77 64.34 36.75 15.77 10.77 3.809 1982 18.23 18.1 16.06 8.784 7.054 3.047 1983 15.19 13.33 9.777 5.859 4.755 2.993 1984 18.56 17.03 11.1 9.007 8.584 3.546 1985 19.44 16.58 9.469 4.499 3.155 1.109 1986 15.25 13.36 10.56 6.068 4.501 1.281 1987 6.751 5.805 3.335 1.57 1.081 0.3301 17 1988 8.362 7.128 4.956 3.481 2.322 0.743 1989 13.41 11.55 7.84 5.188 4.555 1.376 1990 15.01 13.23 7.992 3.841 2.989 1.302 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 143 125 76.43 38.09 26.25 7.296 0.0645161290322581 79.15 67.14 37.2 16.11 11.13 4.584 0.0967741935483871 74.77 64.34 36.75 15.77 10.77 3.972 0.129032258064516 40.05 35.4 24.6 13.64 9.655 3.809 0.161290322580645 32.8 29.16 18.69 12.22 9.362 3.634 0.193548387096774 27.42 23.87 16.06 9.049 8.584 3.546 0.225806451612903 24.13 21.21 14.95 9.007 7.054 3.272 0.258064516129032 21.63 18.58 13.06 8.784 6.952 3.047 0.290322580645161 19.9 18.1 12.92 8.675 6.881 2.993 0.32258064516129 19.44 17.23 11.1 8.472 6.485 2.993 0.354838709677419 18.9 17.03 10.89 7.249 5.211 2.45 0.387096774193548 18.56 16.98 10.65 6.068 4.859 2.02 0.419354838709677 18.36 16.58 10.56 5.859 4.755 1.772 0.451612903225806 18.23 15.7 10.53 5.802 4.555 1.615 0.483870967741936 16.2 14.84 10.13 5.238 4.501 1.548 0.516129032258065 15.65 13.74 9.777 5.188 4.179 1.472 0.548387096774194 15.25 13.57 9.469 5.117 4.109 1.384 0.580645161290323 15.19 13.36 9.236 4.948 3.908 1.376 0.612903225806452 15.01 13.33 9.065 4.624 3.636 1.35 0.645161290322581 14.88 13.31 9.01 4.532 3.608 1.326 0.67741935483871 14.62 13.23 8.018 4.53 3.481 1.302 0.709677419354839 13.41 11.55 7.992 4.499 3.155 1.281 0.741935483870968 11.76 10.23 7.84 3.841 3.094 1.109 18 0.774193548387097 9.554 9.49 6.067 3.519 2.989 1.05 0.806451612903226 8.362 7.128 4.956 3.481 2.322 0.8802 0.838709677419355 7.24 6.176 4.395 3.04 2.032 0.7655 0.870967741935484 7.096 6.102 3.543 2.233 1.791 0.743 0.903225806451613 6.751 5.805 3.335 1.627 1.32 0.5893 0.935483870967742 3.621 3.121 1.814 1.57 1.081 0.3301 0.967741935483871 1.184 1.184 1.182 1.172 0.9505 0.2965 0.1 71.298 61.446 35.535 15.557 10.6585 3.9557 Average of yearly averages: 2.12685333333333 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: PCNBpot3 Metfile: w24156. dvf PRZM scenario: IDpotatoC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: PCNB Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 295.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry .000044 atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.000113 torr Solubility sol 10 mg/ L Kd Kd 15.5 mg/ L Koc Koc mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1.83 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3110 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1231 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1555 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2.5 cm Application Rate: TAPP 28 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF. 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .00 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 20 05 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run) 19 5. Turfgrass ( Standard Pennsylvania Turfgrass Scenario)

stored as PCNBtur3. out Chemical: PCNB PRZM environment: PAturfC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17: 27: 02 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w14737. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 06: 12 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 93.75 92.73 79.83 46.1 30.73 7.577 1962 109 108 104 96.09 75.75 21.78 1963 66.03 65.27 62.3 29.28 19.88 8.478 1964 93.42 92.45 89.16 80.89 64.33 21.28 1965 72.37 71.79 69.32 53.58 44.18 12.89 1966 32.02 31.72 29.77 17.31 13.93 6.722 1967 101 88.34 54.63 33.62 28.07 11.92 1968 46.04 39.8 37.73 25.02 20.55 9.967 1969 155 153 146 56.96 38.07 16.16 1970 137 135 130 124 98.13 28.98 1971 75.64 65.84 52.68 33.56 27.74 11.69 1972 54.2 47.36 36.06 21.18 14.2 7.144 1973 155 135 109 44.72 29.99 11.7 1974 359 311 191 73.56 53.4 26.22 1975 72.44 71.95 70.4 50.97 36.16 10.87 1976 207 205 195 83.37 55.89 17.55 1977 180 179 172 159 124 38.35 1978 123 114 110 107 85.32 27.01 1979 73.51 72.82 70.11 61.61 49.56 14.41 1980 60.47 51.92 44.77 29.02 19.44 5.662 1981 41.43 41.05 39.56 28.58 20.12 6.999 1982 57.78 57.23 55.1 52.26 40.45 11.94 1983 379 375 351 159 106 27.35 1984 356 353 339 235 164 43.59 1985 574 498 310 191 128 33.37 1986 188 186 181 176 138 40.03 1987 33.68 30.49 29.65 28.04 22.97 7.879 1988 384 332 219 136 90.5 23.8 1989 158 138 83.65 44.98 33.84 10.98 1990 27.1 23.62 15.26 8.598 5.815 2.961 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 574 498 351 235 164 43.59 0.0645161290322581 384 375 339 191 138 40.03 0.0967741935483871 379 353 310 176 128 38.35 0.129032258064516 359 332 219 159 124 33.37 0.161290322580645 356 311 195 159 106 20 28.98 0.193548387096774 207 205 191 136 98.13 27.35 0.225806451612903 188 186 181 124 90.5 27.01 0.258064516129032 180 179 172 107 85.32 26.22 0.290322580645161 158 153 146 96.09 75.75 23.8 0.32258064516129 155 138 130 83.37 64.33 21.78 0.354838709677419 155 135 110 80.89 55.89 21.28 0.387096774193548 137 135 109 73.56 53.4 17.55 0.419354838709677 123 114 104 61.61 49.56 16.16 0.451612903225806 109 108 89.16 56.96 44.18 14.41 0.483870967741936 101 92.73 83.65 53.58 40.45 12.89 0.516129032258065 93.75 92.45 79.83 52.26 38.07 11.94 0.548387096774194 93.42 88.34 70.4 50.97 36.16 11.92 0.580645161290323 75.64 72.82 70.11 46.1 33.84 11.7 0.612903225806452 73.51 71.95 69.32 44.98 30.73 11.69 0.645161290322581 72.44 71.79 62.3 44.72 29.99 10.98 0.67741935483871 72.37 65.84 55.1 33.62 28.07 10.87 0.709677419354839 66.03 65.27 54.63 33.56 27.74 9.967 0.741935483870968 60.47 57.23 52.68 29.28 22.97 8.478 0.774193548387097 57.78 51.92 44.77 29.02 20.55 7.879 0.806451612903226 54.2 47.36 39.56 28.58 20.12 7.577 0.838709677419355 46.04 41.05 37.73 28.04 19.88 7.144 0.870967741935484 41.43 39.8 36.06 25.02 19.44 6.999 0.903225806451613 33.68 31.72 29.77 21.18 14.2 6.722 0.935483870967742 32.02 30.49 29.65 17.31 13.93 5.662 0.967741935483871 27.1 23.62 15.26 8.598 5.815 2.961 21 0.1 377 350.9 300.9 174.3 127.6 37.852 Average of yearly averages: 17.5086333333333 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: PCNBtur3 Metfile: w14737. dvf PRZM scenario: PAturfC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: PCNB Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weightmwt 295.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry .000044 atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.000113 torr Solubility sol 10 mg/ L Kd Kd 15.5 mg/ L Koc Koc mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 1.83 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 3110 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1231 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1555 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half life Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 36.6 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF. 99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 11 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Interval 1 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2120]
[FR Doc No: 2012-611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-02]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-
1240 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments digitally.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
(202) 493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Frances Shaver,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-207), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR
11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2012.
Julie Ann Lynch,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-1240.
    Petitioner: Embraer S.A.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.791(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Embraer S.A. requests an exemption
from the interior-cabin location requirements for no-smoking placard
placement on Embraer Model EMB-550 airplanes.
[FR Doc. 2012-611 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P