[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68257-68261]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27891]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695; FRL-9934-05]

Diethofencarb; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
diethofencarb in or on banana. Sumitomo Chemical Company requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 4, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 4, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 4, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a

pesticide petition (PP 4E8232) by Sumitomo Chemical Company, LTD., 27-1
Shinkawa 2 Chrome, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo 104-8260, Japan. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance
without a U.S. registration for residues of the fungicide diethofencarb
in or on banana at 0.09 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Sumitomo Chemical
Company, LTD, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no FFDCA-related comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based on available data, EPA is establishing a tolerance at a level
that is slightly different from what was requested. The reason for this
change is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicology database is complete for diethofencarb. In
repeated dose animal studies, the liver was a target organ in the rat,
mouse, and dog. Increased liver pigmentation observed histologically in
the dog, and foci of necrosis and hepatocellular hyperplasia in the
mouse, were considered adverse and evidence of toxicity. Other target
organs identified were the kidney (proteinaceous cast and regenerative
epithelium), urinary bladder (submucosal lymphoid hyperplasia) and
thyroid (follicular cell adenomas and carcinomas) in the rat, and the
nervous system (changes in functional observational battery parameters,
decreased motor activity, and decreased pupillary reflex) in the rat.
The neurotoxicity in the rat, however, occurred only at high dose
levels, at or above the limit dose, and were minimal in severity and
there was no other evidence of neurotoxicity in the data base;
therefore, there is no concern for neurotoxicity. There was no evidence
of immunotoxicity in the data base, including the immunotoxicity study.
Decreased body weight and food consumption and increased salivation
were observed in the dog. In the pre-natal developmental studies in
rats and rabbits, increased abortions were observed in the rabbit only
at dose levels near the limit dose; in the multi-generation
reproduction study in rats, decreased body weight was seen in F2 pups
during lactation in the absence of parental toxicity, raising a concern
for increased susceptibility in offspring. However, appropriate
endpoints and points of departure were used to address the
susceptibility issue and there are no residual pre- and/or post-natal
uncertainties for offspring. The Agency has classified diethofencarb as
``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity'' based on the presence of
thyroid tumors in male and female rats. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in male or female mice at dose levels that were
considered adequate to assess carcinogenicity. Additionally, there is
no concern for mutagenicity. Quantification of human cancer risk is not
required. The chronic reference dose (RfD) will adequately account for
all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, which could result
from exposure to diethofencarb.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by diethofencarb as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Proposed Tolerance of Diethofencarb in/on Banana'' at pp. 15-18 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or RfD--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For
non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in
terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the
risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diethofencarb used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Diethofencarb for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (All Populations)..                     A toxicity endpoint was not identified.
                                      Toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) were not
                                                         observed in oral toxicity studies.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.50   Chronic Toxicity, Dog.
                                   UFA = 10X...........   mg/kg/day           LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.50 mg/kg/    decreased body weights and
                                                          day.                 emesis.
                                   FQPA SF = 1X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity to humans'' based on
                                    the rat thyroid follicular cell tumors; quantification is not required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. RfD = Reference Dose. cPAD =
  chronic Population Adjusted Dose.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diethofencarb, EPA assessed dietary exposures from
diethofencarb in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
diethofencarb; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). The
assessment assumes residues of diethofencarb are present at tolerance
levels and that 100% of bananas are treated with diethofencarb.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that diethofencarb was assigned the classification
``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity to humans'' based on the rat
thyroid tumors, but quantification is not required.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for diethofencarb. Tolerance-level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. An assessment of residues
in drinking water is not required for this assessment because
diethofencarb is not registered for use in the United States, and thus,
there is no exposure to diethofencarb in drinking water in the United
States.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Diethofencarb is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found diethofencarb to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and diethofencarb does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
diethofencarb does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the rat developmental
study, there were no indications of toxicity in the dams or fetuses up
to the limit dose. An acceptable (non-guideline) rabbit developmental
toxicity study showed late-term abortions (considered evidence of both
maternal and fetal toxicity) at dose levels near the limit dose (800
milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and above). In the rat reproduction
study, offspring effects (decreased pup body weight in F2
males and females) were noted below the parental NOAEL, indicating
increased quantitative susceptibility in offspring. However, clear
NOAELs and LOAELs are available for all parental and offspring effects
and endpoints and PODs are based on the effects in the offspring.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for diethofencarb is complete.
    ii. There are no concerns for neurotoxicity and there is no need
for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty
factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is evidence that diethofencarb results in reproductive
susceptibility as shown in the multi-generation reproduction study, but
the effect is well characterized; therefore, there is no need to retain
the 10X FQPA safety factor to account for effects on infants and
children.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The Agency used tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT. No
drinking water and residential exposures are expected as there are no
U.S. registrations containing diethofencarb.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
diethofencarb is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
diethofencarb from food will utilize <= 100% of the cPAD for the
general U.S. population and all population sub-groups. The most highly
exposed population subgroup was children 1-2 years old with an
estimated risk of <= 1% cPAD. There are no residential uses for
diethofencarb.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risks. Short-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level); intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into
account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to
food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because
there are no residential uses for diethofencarb registered in the
United States, no assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating risk for diethofencarb.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.A., EPA has determined that diethofencarb is not
expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to diethofencarb residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography method with tandem mass-spectrometry detection (HPLC/MS/
MS), PTRL West Method No. 2348W) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for diethofencarb.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The requested tolerance levels differ from those being established
by EPA. The petitioner used the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development Maximum Residue Limit (OECD MRL) methodologies and
entered 12 trials. EPA determined that 2 sets of trials (out of 12
total) were not independent. As a result, EPA entered 10 values only
into the calculator, and is establishing a tolerance level slightly
higher than what was proposed.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of
diethofencarb, in or on banana at 0.10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132,
entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive
Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to
this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 21, 2015.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  180.688 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.688  Diethofencarb; tolerance for residue.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide diethofencarb, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
diethofencarb (1-methylethyl N-(3,4-diethoxyphenyl)carbamate).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana *................................................            0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There is no U.S. registration for use on this commodity as of November
  4, 2015.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2015-27891 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61620-61621]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP19-310-000]

Arena Energy, LP, Castex Offshore, Inc., EnVen Energy Ventures,
LLC, Fieldwood Energy LLC, Walter Oil & Gas Corporation, W&T Offshore,
Inc. v. High Point Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on November 21, 2018, 2018, pursuant to Rule 206
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2018), Arena Energy LP, Castex
Offshore, Inc., EnVen Energy Ventures, LLC, Fieldwood Energy LLC, W&T
Offshore, Inc., and Walter Oil & Gas Corporation (Complainants) filed a
complaint against High Point Gas Transmission, LLC (Respondent),
alleging that Respondent failed to adequately respond to a request for
transportation service, is in violation of the Commission's open-access
transportation policies, the Commission's policies with respect to an
interstate pipeline acquiring off-system capacity, and Respondent's

FERC Gas Tariff., all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainants certify that a copy of the complaint was served on
Respondent's corporate representatives designated on the Commission's
Corporate Officials List.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the website that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 11, 2018.

    Dated: November 23, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26006 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29007-29011]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0523]
RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and
Hudson River, Manhattan, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area and safety zone for waters of the Harlem and Hudson
Rivers in the vicinity of the Amtrak Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge at
mile 7.9 over the Harlem River. The regulated navigation area and
safety zone are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the removal and
reinstallation of the swing span portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad
Bridge. During heavy lift operations this regulated navigation area
will establish speed restrictions on vessels transiting the Hudson
River to eliminate vessel wake. During heavy lift operations entry of
vessel or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the First District Commander or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from June 22, 2018
through September 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from June 12, 2018 through June 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0523 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management, First Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected]. You may also call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker,
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LNM Local Notice to Mariners
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 1, 2018, Amtrak sent the U.S. Coast Guard a letter
describing work it would be conducting to remove and replace the
moveable portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge over the Harlem
River at mile 7.9. On May 7, 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard District One
Bridge Administration notified Amtrak, the bridge owner, that it had no
objections to the proposed project.
    From May 27 to September 29, 2018, Amtrak will be repairing the
Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This repair project includes the
removal and reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge.
    During the removal of the swing span a crane barge and support
vessels will be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be lifted
from the bridge by a heavy lift crane barge and then secured to another
barge. The barge with the swing span will then be towed away and moored
west of the bridge, in the Hudson River. These operations, from
preparing for the removal of the swing span, removing and securing the
swing span to the waiting barge, to mooring the barge with the secured
swing span in the Hudson River, will take approximately 72 hours.
Amtrak anticipates this work will be conducted over a three-day period
between June 12 and June 17, 2018.
    During the reinstallation of the swing span a barge and support
vessels will again be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be
lifted from a support barge by a heavy lift crane barge and
reinstalled. The preparation for and reinstallation of the swing span
will take approximately 72 hours. Amtrak anticipates this work will be
conducted over a three-day period between July 15 and July 28, 2018.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)(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 the schedule for the removal and
reinstallation of the swing span was only recently finalized and
provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to
the potential safety hazards associated with this bridge project. The
schedule for the repairs and notification to the Coast Guard was
delayed by the late finalization of project details, including
coordinating the two heavy lift operations with the schedules of known
waterway users, and writing a Maintenance of Waterway Traffic Plan. It
is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM
because we must establish this RNA and safety zone by June 12, 2018, to
allow for timely repairs to the bridge's swing span and promote the
safety of the public.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with repairs to the swing span of the bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The First District Commander has determined that potential hazards
associated with the bridge swing span removal and reinstallation will
be a safety concern for anyone within approximately 300 yards of the
center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The RNA and safety zone
are needed to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from hazards associated with the removal and replacement of
Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The Coast Guard anticipates that crane
lifting operations may create the potential for falling debris into the
waterway. The RNA is needed to limit vessel speed and wake of all
vessels operating in the Hudson River in the vicinity to minimize the
unexpected or uncontrolled movement of water. Construction operations
utilizing a crane barge are sensitive to water movement and wake from
passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to
construction workers.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a RNA and safety zone from noon on Monday,
June 12, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 30, 2018.
    The RNA covers all waters of the Hudson River, approximately 500
yards upstream, and downstream, of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge
from surface to bottom bound by the following approximate positions
starting south of a line drawn from 40[deg]53'15.67'' N,
073[deg]56'29.22'' W, thence to 40[deg]52'56.48'' N, 073[deg]55'21.57''
W, and all waters north of a line drawn from 40[deg]52'47.97'' N,
073[deg]56'42.85'' W, thence to 40[deg]52'31.58'' N, 073[deg]55'45.06''
W (NAD 83), excluding the portion of the safety zone surrounding the
Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge as discussed in the following paragraph.
    The safety zone covers all waters of the Hudson River and Harlem
River

within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil
Railroad Bridge, from surface to bottom, bound by the following
approximate positions starting on the Manhattan side of Spuyten Duyvil
Railroad Bridge with position 40[deg]52'38.20'' N, 073[deg]55'36.70''
W, thence to 40[deg]52'39.96'' N, 073[deg]55'43.75'' W, thence to
40[deg]52'46.34'' N, 073[deg]55'36.90'' W, thence to 40[deg]52'43.98''
N, 073[deg]55'29.83'' W, thence along the Bronx shoreline to the Henry
Hudson Bridge at mile 7.2 of the Harlem River, thence south across the
Harlem River following along the Henry Hudson Bridge to the Manhattan
side, thence along the Manhattan shoreline to the point of origin (NAD
83). For illustrations of the RNA and the safety zone, please refer to
the docket.
    During operations involving the removal and reinstallation of the
swing span a safety zone will prohibit the transit of vessels in the
Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the
center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This safety zone will
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge swing span
removal and reinstallation project.
    Additionally, during the removal and reinstallation of the swing
span all vessels transiting the Hudson River within the regulated
navigation area (RNA) will be required to follow a ``Slow-No Wake''
speed limit. When this RNA is enforced, no vessel may produce a wake
nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum
speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The heavy lift
operations involving the removal and reinstallation of the bridge swing
span are currently scheduled to take place in June and July 2018. The
Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable,
through September 30, 2018, in case the project is delayed due to
unforeseen circumstances.
    We anticipate enforcing the RNA and safety zone during the two
periods of heavy lift operations, one occurring between June 12 and
approximately June 17, 2018 and the other between approximately July 15
and July 28, 2018. The RNA and safety zone is expected to be enforced
for approximately two 72-hour periods when vessels are preparing for,
and conducting, the swing span removal and reinstallation operations.
The duration of enforcement for both the RNA and safety zone is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these waters while the bridge span is being removed and reinstalled.
During the enforcement periods, all vessels and persons must obtain
permission from the First District Commander or a designated
representative before entering the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this
RNA and safety zone through the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 in advance of
any enforcement period. The regulatory text we are enforcing appears at
the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the following
reasons: (1) The RNA and safety zone only impact a small designated
area of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers; (2) the RNA and safety zone will
only be enforced during heavy lift operations tentatively scheduled to
occur between June 12-17, 2018, for the swing span removal, and between
July 15-28, 2018, for the swing span reinstallation; (3) persons or
vessels may transit the RNA at any time, subject to a speed restriction
during any periods of enforcement; (4) persons or vessels desiring to
enter the safety zone may do so when the heavy lift operations are not
in progress; (5) the Coast Guard previously published the approximate
project dates in the LNM #18-2018 dated May 2, 2018, LNM #19-2018 dated
May 9, 2018, LNM #20-2018 dated May 17, 2018, LNM #21-2018 dated May
23, 2018, LNM #22 dated May 30, 2018, and also requested impacted
mariners to contact the contractor to discuss their schedules and
receive email schedule updates; (6) the contractor contacted known
waterway users to discuss the project and waterway impacts. Although
the heavy lift operations will result in two periods of enforcement of
a safety zone, closing the Harlem River in the vicinity of the Spuyten
Duyvil Railroad Bridge, these operations are scheduled to accommodate
sight-seeing vessels and marine events to the greatest extent possible.
    The Coast Guard will also notify the public of the enforcement of
this rule via appropriate means, such as the LNM and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
the creation of an RNA and a safety zone, both of which are expected to
be enforced for two periods each lasting approximately 72 hours. The
RNA is will restrict the speed of vessels transiting the Hudson River
within approximately 500 yards upstream and downstream of the Spuyten
Duyvil Railroad Bridge while heavy lift operations are conducted. The
safety zone will prohibit vessels on the Hudson and Harlem Rivers from
coming within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten
Duyvil Railroad Bridge during heavy lift operations. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0523 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0523   Regulated navigation area and safety zone; Harlem
River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY.

    (a) Location--(1) Regulated navigation area. The following is a
regulated navigation area: All waters of the Hudson River,
approximately 500 yards upstream, and downstream, of the Spuyten Duyvil
Railroad Bridge from surface to bottom starting south of a line drawn
from 40[deg]53'15.67'' N, 073[deg]56'29.22'' W, thence to
40[deg]52'56.48'' N, 073[deg]55'21.57'' W, and all waters north of a
line drawn from 40[deg]52'47.97'' N, 073[deg]56'42.85'' W, thence to
40[deg]52'31.58'' N, 073[deg]55'45.06'' W (NAD 83), excluding the
portion of the safety zone surrounding the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad
Bridge as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Safety zone. The following is a safety zone: All waters of the
Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the
center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, from surface to bottom,
bound by the following approximate positions starting on the Manhattan
side of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge with position 40[deg]52'38.20''
N, 073[deg]55'36.70'' W, thence to 40[deg]52'39.96'' N,
073[deg]55'43.75'' W, thence to 40[deg]52'46.34'' N, 073[deg]55'36.90''
W, thence to 40[deg]52'43.98'' N, 073[deg]55'29.83'' W, thence along
the Bronx shoreline to the Henry Hudson Bridge at mile 7.2 of the
Harlem River, thence south across the Harlem River following along the
Henry Hudson Bridge to the Manhattan side, thence along the Manhattan
shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, a designated
representative of the First District Commander is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the
First District Commander to act on his or her behalf. A designated
representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, other designated craft,
or on shore and communicating with vessels via VHF-FM radio,
loudhailer, or by phone. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be
present to inform vessel operators of the regulations in this section.
    (c) Regulations--(1) Regulated navigation area. (i) The general
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.
    (ii) During periods of enforcement, entry and movement within the
RNA is subject to a ``Slow-No Wake'' speed limit. No vessel may produce
a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher
minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.
    (iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel transiting within
this RNA must comply with all directions given to them by the First
District Commander or the First District Commander's designated
representative.
    (2) Safety zone. (i) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23
apply.
    (ii) Entry into, anchoring, loitering, or movement within the
safety zone is prohibited during any periods of enforcement, including
preparations for the heavy lift operations, the heavy lift operations,
and necessary follow-on actions. This prohibition does not apply to
vessels authorized to be within the zone by the District Commander or
the

District Commander`s designated representative.
    (iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel or person
transiting through the safety zone must comply with all orders and
directions from the District Commander or the District Commander's
designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be subject to
enforcement from noon on June 12, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on June 17, 2018;
from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2018, and at
other times during the effective period of this rule when the COTP New
York issues a notice of enforcement to be published in the Federal
Register. In addition the COTP New York will provide notice by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or both, to
announce whenever this section is subject to enforcement or whenever an
announced enforcement period will be suspended. Violations of this
regulation may be reported to the COTP New York at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on
VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
A.J. Tiongson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-13441 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18902-18903]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08217]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901; FRL-9959-83-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review'' (EPA ICR No.
1230.32, OMB Control No. 2060-0003) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2017. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 64902) on
September 21, 2016, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows
for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of
the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0901, to (1) the EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Garwood, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information about
EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, for the time period
between May 1, 2017, and April 30, 2020, and renews the previous ICR.
Title I, part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)--``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration,'' and part D--``Plan Requirements for
Nonattainment

Areas,'' require all states to adopt preconstruction review programs
for new or modified stationary sources of air pollution. In addition,
the provisions of section 110 of the Act include a requirement for
states to have a preconstruction review program to manage the emissions
from the construction and modification of any stationary source of air
pollution to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are
achieved and maintained. Tribes may choose to develop implementation
plans to address these requirements.
    Implementing regulations for these three programs are promulgated
at 40 CFR 49.101 through 49.105; 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.173; 40 CFR
51.160 through 51.166; 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S; and 40 CFR 52.21 and
52.24. In order to receive a construction permit for a major new source
or major modification, the applicant must conduct the necessary
research, perform the appropriate analyses and prepare the permit
application with documentation to demonstrate that their project meets
all applicable statutory and regulatory NSR requirements. Specific
activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting
Statement for the ICR.
    State, local, tribal or federal reviewing authorities review permit
applications and provide for public review of proposed projects and
issue permits based on their consideration of all technical factors and
public input. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a fraction of the total
applications and audits the state and local programs for their
effectiveness. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by
sources is essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal,
state, and local environmental agencies to adequately review the permit
applications and thereby properly administer and manage the NSR
programs.
    Information that is collected is handled according to EPA's
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2). See also
section 114(c) of the Act.
    Form numbers: 5900-246, 5900-247, 5900-248, 5900-340, 5900-341,
5900-342, 5900-343, 5900-344, 5900-367, 5900-368, 5900-369, 5900-370,
5900-371, 5900-372, 5900-390 and 5900-391.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities that must apply for and
obtain a preconstruction permit under part C or D or section
110(a)(2)(C) of title I of the Act. In addition, state, local and
tribal reviewing authorities that must review permit applications and
issue permits are affected entities.
    Respondent's Obligation To Respond: Mandatory [40 CFR part 49,
subpart C; 40 CFR part 51, subpart I; 40 CFR part 52, subpart A; 40 CFR
part 124, subparts A and C].
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 73,762 (total); 73,639 industrial
facilities and 123 state, local and tribal reviewing authorities.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, as necessary.
    Total Estimated Burden: 5,516,675 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $428,829,729 (per year). This includes
$3,535,524 annually in outsourced start-up costs for preconstruction
monitoring.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,417,665 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease has two primary causes: (1) A
significant decrease in the estimated number of industrial facilities
subject to CAA title I, part C permitting as a result of the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA (134
S.Ct. 2427 (2014)); and (2) a significant decrease in the estimated
number of permits and registrations on tribal lands based on the
progress in, and experience with, implementing the tribal NSR program.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-08217 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51490-51492]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0723]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC. This action is necessary to protect the
life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by
fireworks displays. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels
from a portion of Shallowbag Bay River during the Outer Banks Bluegrass
Festival Fireworks display.

DATES: This rule is effective August 29, 2014 and will be enforced from
8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014 unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Derek J. Burrill, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 17, 2013 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC'' in the Federal
Register (78 FR 29091). We received no comments on the proposed rules.
No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 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, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. This notice is
issued under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552(a).
    On September 26, 2014 fireworks will be launched from a barge
located in Shallowbag Bay in Manteo, North Carolina as part of the
Outer Banks Bluegrass Festival. The temporary safety zone created by
this rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators
from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Such hazards
include obstructions to the waterway that may cause death, serious
bodily harm, or property damage, as well as the accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around
the location of the launch area will help ensure the safety of persons
and property in the vicinity of this event and help minimize the
associated risks.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of the
Outer Banks Bluegrass

Festival Fireworks Display. The fireworks display will occur for
approximately 15 minutes from 9 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on September 26,
2014. However, the Safety Zone will be effective and enforced from 8
p.m. until 10 p.m. in order to ensure safety during the setup, loading
and removal of the display equipment.
    The safety zone will encompass all waters on Shallowbag Bay within
a 200 yard radius of a barge anchor in approximate position
35[deg]54'31'' N, longitude 075[deg]39'42'' W from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m.
on September 26, 2014. All geographic coordinates are North American
Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The effect of this temporary safety zone will be
to restrict navigation in the regulated area during the fireworks
display.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol
personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector North
Carolina or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or
his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
Notification of the temporary safety zone will be provided to the
public via marine information broadcasts.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed 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. Although this regulation
will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule will not be
significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 8
p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014, (ii) the Coast Guard will give
advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust
their plans accordingly, and (iii) although the safety zone will apply
to the section of Shallowbag Bay, vessel traffic will be able to
transit safely around the safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
through or anchor in the specified portion of Shallowbag Bay on
September 26, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will only be in effect for two hours, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Although the safety zone will apply to a section of Shallowbag Bay,
vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.
Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime
advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
    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.

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 proposed 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, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule
establishes a temporary safety zone to protect the public from
fireworks fallout. This rule is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary 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 proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0723 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0723  Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: This safety zone
will encompass all waters on Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of
a barge anchor in position 35[deg]54'31'' N, longitude 075[deg]39'42''
W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 of this part apply to the area described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through any
portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or a designated representative, unless the Captain
of the Port previously announced via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on
VHF Marine Band Radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz) that this regulation will
not be enforced in that portion of the safety zone. The Captain of the
Port can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by radio on
VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014 unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port.

    Dated: August 14, 2014.
S. R. Murtagh,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2014-20675 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 28318-28319]
[DOCID:fr16my06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission,
Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

May 9, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: A Subsequent License. (Minor Project).
    b. Project No.: 946-007.
    c. Date Filed: April 28, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Hyrum City.
    e. Name of Project: Hyrum City Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Blacksmith Fork River in Hyrum City, Cache
County, Utah. The project affects about 17.03 acres of Federal lands
within the Wasatch Cache National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Dean Howard, Mayor, Hyrum City, 83 West Main
Street, Hyrum, Utah 84319;<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ken Tuttle or Mike
Wilcox, Sunrise Engineering, Inc., 25 East 500 North, Fillmore, UT
84631;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, State, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing such requests
described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the
Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of
the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: June 27, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The existing Hyrum City's Hydropower Project was initially
constructed in 1930-1931, after receiving an original license on
November 27, 1929. The project has been licensed since that time with
one amendment in 1977, and one renewal in 1981. The current license
expires on April 30, 2008. The run-of-river, base-load plant operates
on 85-cubic-foot-per-second of water diverted by a diversion dam
located in Blacksmith Fork Canyon. The 3,419-foot-by-passed reach is
not de-watered because the flows in the river exceeds the capacity of
the plant, and during low flows, Hyrum City operates the plant at less
than maximum flow to maintain a continuous flow throughout the river
channel for aesthetic enjoyment in the city park that adjoins the
powerhouse.
    The project includes the following constructed facilities: (1) A
15-foot-high, 70-foot-long earth-fill concrete core embankment to the
north, a 14-foot-high, 65-foot-long concrete spillway section, a 15-
foot-high, 125-foot-long earth-fill concrete core embankment to the
north which makes the total length of the dam approximately 260-foot-
long; (2) a 16-foot-high, 8-foot-wide concrete intake structure with a
20-foot-high, 8-foot-wide trash rack and fish ladder; (3) a 60-inch-
diameter concrete penstock inlet with head gate; (4) a 3,470-foot-long,
48-inch-diameter concrete penstock going into a 130-foot-long, 42-inch-
diameter steel penstock; (5) a 37-acre-foot de-silting pond; (6) a 26-
foot-wide, 39-foot-long, 20-foot-high brick powerhouse; (7) a 400-
kilowatt Leffel horizontal shaft scroll case turbine; (8) a 100-foot,
2.4-kV underground transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities.
    The average annual generation of the project is approximately
3,083,000 kilowatt-hours and there are no proposed changes to the
facilities or the current mode of operation at this time.
    o. 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency letter--June 2006.
Issue Acceptance letter--July 2006.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--September 2006.
Request Additional Information--November 2006.
Issue Scoping Document 2--January 2007.
Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis--February
2007.

Notice of the availability of the environmental analysis--April 2007.
Ready for Commission's decision on the application--June 2007.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7375 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51439-51441]
[DOCID:fr07se07-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, FRL-8465-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions
(Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1189.20, OMB Control No. 2050-0053

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2007-0418, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2007-0418. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chichang Chen, Office of Solid Waste,
(5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 703-
308-0514; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0418, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 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 RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft

collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply To?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
in the private sector.
    Title: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1189.20, OMB Control No. 2050-0053.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2008. 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, are 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: Under 40 CFR 260.20(b), all rulemaking petitioners must
submit basic information with their demonstrations, including name,
address, and statement of interest in the proposed action. Under Sec.
260.21, all petitioners for equivalent testing or analytical methods
must include specific information in their petitions and demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that the proposed method is equal
to, or superior to, the corresponding method in terms of its
sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility. Under Sec.  260.22,
petitions to amend Part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular
facility (more simply, to delist a waste) must meet extensive
informational requirements. When a petition is submitted, the Agency
reviews materials, deliberates, publishes its tentative decision in the
Federal Register, and requests public comment. EPA also may hold
informal public hearings (if requested by an interested person or at
the discretion of the Administrator) to hear oral comments on its
tentative decision. After evaluating all comments, EPA publishes its
final decision in the Federal Register.
    40 CFR 260.30-260.31, and 260.33 comprise the standards, criteria,
and procedures for variances from classification as a solid waste for
three types of materials, materials that are collected speculatively
without sufficient amounts being recycled; materials that are reclaimed
and then reused within the original primary production process in which
they were generated; and materials which have been reclaimed, but must
be reclaimed further before the materials are completely recovered.
Under 40 CFR 260.32 and 260.33 are regulations governing the procedures
and criteria for obtaining a variance for classification as a boiler.
This variance is available to owners or operators of enclosed flame
combustion devices.
    40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 contain provisions that allow generators to
obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for certain types of wastes.
Facilities applying for these exclusions must submit a notification, or
supporting information and/or keep detailed records. Under Sec.
261.3(a)(2)(iv), generators may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for
wastewater mixtures subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Under Sec.
261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C), generators may obtain an exclusion for certain non-
wastewater residues resulting from high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) processing of K061, K062 and F006 waste. Also, under Sec.
261.4(a)(20)(ii)(A), generators and intermediate handlers may obtain a
hazardous waste exclusion for zinc-bearing hazardous secondary
materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers. In
addition, under Sec.  261.4(b)(6), generators of chromium-containing
waste may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion under certain conditions.
    Also addressed under this section is the shipment of samples
between generators and laboratories for the purpose of testing to
determine their characteristics or composition. Sample handlers who are
not subject to DOT or USPS shipping requirements must comply with the
information requirements of Sec.  261.4(d)(2).
    When intended for treatability studies, hazardous waste otherwise
subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA is exempted from these
regulations, provided that the requirements in Sec.  261.4(e)-(f) are
met, including the following information requests: initial
notification, record keeping, reporting, and final notification. In
addition, generators and collectors of treatability study samples also
may request quantity limit increases and time extensions, as specified
in Sec.  261.4(e)(3).
    40 CFR 261.31(b)(2)(ii) governs procedures and informational
requirements for generators and treatment, storage and disposal
facilities to obtain exemptions from listing as F037 and F038 wastes.
Also under this section are regulations promulgated in 1990 under Sec.
261.35(b) and (c) governing procedures and information requirements for
the cleaning or replacement of all process equipment that may have come
into contact with chlorophenolic formulations or constituents thereof,
including, but not limited to, treatment cylinders, sumps, tanks,
piping systems, drip pads, fork lifts, and trams.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection varies depending on the type of petition or
demonstration. For example, it is estimated that the average reporting
burden per respondent ranges from 0.00 hours (equipment cleaning and
replacement) to 788 hours (preparation of a delisting petition). The
average recordkeeping burden per respondent ranges from 63.75 hours
(equipment cleaning and replacement) to 1.75 hours (delisting
petition).
    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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 37,690.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 75,929.
    Estimated total annual costs: $10,243,000. This includes an
estimated $1,311,000 in labor costs and an estimated $8,932,000 for
capital investments and operation and maintenance costs.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 10, 2007.
Matthew Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
 [FR Doc. E7-17690 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P