[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11701-11702]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03690]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-38, OMB Control No. 3235-0045]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 19b-4 (17 CFR 240.19b-
4), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Section 19(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78s(b)) requires each self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') to file with the Commission copies of
any proposed rule, or any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion
from the rules of such SRO. Rule 19b-4 implements the requirements of
Section 19(b) by requiring the SROs to file their proposed rule changes
on Form 19b-4 and by clarifying which actions taken by SROs are subject
to the filing requirement set forth in Section 19(b). Rule 19b-4(n)
requires a designated clearing agency to provide an advance notice
(``Advance Notice'') to the Commission of any proposed change to its
rules, procedures, or operations that could materially affect the
nature or level of risks presented by such clearing agency. Rule 19b-
4(o) requires a registered clearing agency to submit for a Commission
determination any security-based swap, or any group, category, type, or
class of security-based swaps it plans to accept for clearing
(``Security-Based Swap Submission''), and provide notice to its members
of such submissions.
    The collection of information is designed to provide the Commission
with the information necessary to determine, as required by the Act,
whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
rules thereunder. The information is used to determine if the proposed
rule change should be approved, disapproved, or if proceedings should
be instituted to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    The respondents to the collection of information are self-
regulatory organizations (as defined by the Act), including national
securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered
clearing agencies, notice registered securities future product
exchanges, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
    In fiscal year 2012, thirty-four respondents filed a total of 1,688
proposed rule change responses.\1\ Each response takes approximately 38
hours to complete. Thus, the total annual reporting burden for filing
proposed rule changes with the Commission is 64,144 hours (1,688
proposals per year x 38 hours per filing).\2\ In addition to filing
their proposed rule changes with the Commission, the respondents also
are required to post each of their proposals on their respective Web
sites, a process which takes approximately four hours to complete per
proposal. Thus, for 1,688 proposals, the total annual reporting burden
on respondents to post the proposals on their Web sites is 6,752 hours
(1,688 proposals per year x 4 hours per filing). Further, the
respondents are required to update their rulebooks, which they maintain
on their Web sites, to reflect the changes that they make in each
proposal they file. Thus, for all filings that were not withdrawn by a
respondent (120 withdrawn filings in fiscal year 2012) or disapproved
by the Commission (2 disapproved filings in fiscal year 2012), the
respondents were required to update their online rulebooks to reflect
the effectiveness of 1,566 proposals, each of which takes approximately
four hours to complete per proposal. Thus, the total annual reporting
burden for updating online rulebooks is 6,264 hours ((1,688 filings per
year--120 withdrawn filings--2 disapproved filings) x 4 hours)).
Finally, a respondent is required to notify the Commission if it does
not post a proposed rule change on its Web site on the same day that it
filed the proposal with the Commission. The Commission estimates that
SROs will fail to post proposed rule changes on their Web sites on the
same day as the filing 16 times a year, and that each SRO will spend
approximately one hour preparing and submitting such notice to the
Commission, resulting in a total annual burden of 16 hours (16 notices
x 1 hour per notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission expects four additional respondents to
register during the three year period for which this Paperwork
Reduction Act Extension is applicable (three as registered clearing
agencies and one as a national securities exchange), bringing the
total number of respondents to thirty-eight.
    \2\ In fiscal year 2012, respondents filed 120 optional
amendments to their proposals, as well as 629 required prefilings of
their proposed rule changes. Because those submissions are part of
the Form 19b-4 process as required by Rule 19b-4, they are included
within the 38 hour burden estimate, and, because amendments and
prefilings are part of a single proposal, they do not constitute a
separate response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing agencies have additional information collection burdens.
As noted above, a designated clearing agency must file an Advance
Notice with the Commission of any proposed change to its rules,
procedures, or operations that could materially affect the nature or
level of risks presented by such designated clearing agency. The
Commission estimates that 10 designated clearing agencies will each
submit 35 Advance Notices per year, with each submission taking 90
hours to

complete. The total annual reporting burden for filing Advance Notices
is therefore 31,500 hours (10 designated clearing agencies x 35 Advance
Notices per year x 90 hours per response).
    Designated clearing agencies are required to post all Advance
Notices to their Web sites, each of which takes approximately four
hours to complete. For 35 Advance Notices, the total annual reporting
burden for posting them to respondents' Web sites is 1,400 hours (10
designated clearing agencies x 35 Advance Notices per year x 4 hours
per Web site posting). Respondents are required to update the postings
of those Advance Notices that become effective, each of which takes
approximately four hours to complete. The total annual reporting burden
for updating Advance Notices on the respondents' Web sites is 1,400
hours (10 designated clearing agencies x 35 Advance Notices per year x
4 hours per Web site posting).
    The respondents are also required to provide copies of all
materials submitted to the Commission relating to an Advance Notice to
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board'')
contemporaneously with such submission to the Commission, which is
estimated to take two hours. The total annual reporting burden for
designated clearing agencies to meet this requirement is 700 hours (10
designated clearing agencies x 35 Advance Notices per year &2 hours per
response).
    The Commission estimates that six security-based swap clearing
agencies will each submit 20 Security-Based Swap Submissions per year,
with each submission taking 140 hours to complete resulting in a total
annual reporting burden of 16,800 hours (6 respondent clearing agencies
x 20 Security-Based Swap Submissions per year x 140 hours per
response). Respondent clearing agencies are required to post all
Security-Based Swap Submissions to their Web sites, each of which takes
approximately four hours to complete. For 20 Security-Based Swap
Submissions, the total annual reporting burden for posting them to the
six respondents' Web sites is 480 hours (6 respondent clearing agencies
x 20 Security-Based Swap Submissions per year x 4 hours per Web site
posting). In addition, three of the six respondent clearing agencies
that have not previously posted Security-Based Swap Submissions,
Advance Notices, and proposed rule changes on their Web sites may need
to update their existing Web sites to post such filings online. The
Commission estimates that each of these three clearing agencies would
spend approximately 15 hours updating its existing Web site, resulting
in a total one-time burden of 45 hours (3 respondent clearing agencies
x 15 hours per Web site update) or 15 hours annualized over three
years.
    Respondent clearing agencies will also have to provide training to
staff members using the Electronic Form 19b-4 Filing System (``EFFS'')
to submit Security-Based Swap Submissions, Advance Notices, and/or
proposed rule changes electronically. The Commission estimates that
each of the six estimated security-based swap clearing agencies will
spend approximately 20 hours training all staff members who will use
EFFS to submit Security-Based Swap Submissions, Advance Notices, and/or
proposed rule changes electronically, for a total of 120 hours (6
respondent clearing agencies x 20 hours) or 40 hours annualized over
three years. The Commission also estimates that each of these six
clearing agencies will have a one-time burden of 130 hours to draft and
implement internal policies and procedures for using EFFS to make these
submissions, for a total of 780 hours (6 clearing agencies x 130 hours)
or 260 hours annualized over three years. The four remaining clearing
agencies that have existing internal policies and procedures for using
EFFS will need to update them for submitting Security-Based Swap
Submissions and/or Advance Notices with the Commission. The Commission
estimates that each of these four clearing agencies will have a one-
time burden of 30 hours to draft and implement modifications to their
internal policies, for a total of 120 hours (4 clearing agencies x 30
hours) or 40 hours annualized over three years. After the initial
training is completed, the Commission estimates that each of the 38
respondents will spend 10 hours each year training new compliance staff
members and updating the training of existing compliance staff members
to use EFFS, for a total annual burden of 380 hours (38 respondent SROs
x 10 hours).
    Based on the above, the total estimated annual response burden
pursuant to Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 is the sum of the total annual
reporting burdens for filing proposed rule changes, Advance Notices,
and Security-Based Swap Submissions; training staff to file such
proposals; drafting, modifying, and implementing internal policies and
procedures for filing such proposals; posting each proposal on the
respondents' Web sites; updating Web sites to enable posting of
proposals; updating the respondents' online rulebooks to reflect the
proposals that became effective; and submitting copies of Advance
Notices to the Board, which is 130,191 hours.
    Compliance with Rule 19b-4 is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 19b-4 shall not be kept confidential; the information
collected is public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03690 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31492]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0407]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones located in
federal regulations for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port
Buffalo Zone. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of
life and property on navigable waters during these events. During each
enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety
zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) as listed in Table
165.939 will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 11:15 p.m. on June 14,
2019.
    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(5) as listed in Table 165.939
will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on July 03, 2019.
    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(7) as listed in Table 165.939
will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. through 11:15 p.m. on July 04, 2019.
    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(b)(11) as listed in Table 165.939
will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 04, 2019.
    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(c)(1) as listed in Table 165.939
will be enforced from 7:15 a.m. through 11:45 a.m. July 20, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone
216-937-0124, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:
    (1) Festival of the Fish, Vermilion, OH; The safety zone listed in
Table 165.939 as (a)(1) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 11:15
p.m. on June 14, 2019.
    (2) Mentor Harbor Yacht Club Fireworks, Mentor, OH; The safety zone
listed in Table 165.939 as (b)(5) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on July 03, 2019.
    (3) Lorain Independence Day Celebration, Lorain, OH; The safety
zone listed in Table 165.939 as (b)(7) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m.
through 11:15 p.m. on July 04, 2019.
    (4) Bay Village Independence Day Celebration, Bay Village, OH; The
safety zone listed in Table 165.939 as (b)(11) will be enforced from
9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 04, 2019.
    (5) Whiskey Island Paddlefest, Cleveland, OH; The safety zone
listed in Table 165.939 as (c)(1) will be enforced from 7:15 a.m.
through 11:45 a.m. July 20, 2019.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16,
VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
respective safety zone.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2019-13910 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38597-38598]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0146]

Regulatory Guidance: Applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations to Operators of Certain Farm Vehicles and Off-Road
Agricultural Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA extends the public comment period for its May 31, 2011,
notice concerning regulatory guidance on the applicability of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to operators of certain farm
vehicles and off-road agricultural equipment. The public comment period
is extended from June 30, 2011, to August 1, 2011.

DATES: Comments on the notice must be received on or before August 1,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2011-0146 by any of the following
methods
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
the ground floor, room W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316) or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can
obtain electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under
the ``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and
also at the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you want us
to notify you that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and

Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31279), FMCSA published a notice requesting
public comment on: (1) Previously published regulatory guidance on the
distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce in deciding
whether operations of commercial motor vehicles within the boundaries
of a single State are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations; (2) proposed guidance on the relevance of the distinction
between direct and indirect compensation in deciding whether farm
vehicle drivers transporting agricultural commodities, farm supplies
and equipment as part of a crop share agreement are subject to the
commercial driver's license regulations; and, (3) proposed guidance to
determine whether off-road farm equipment or implements of husbandry
operated on public roads for limited distances are considered
commercial motor vehicles. The Agency indicated the guidance would be
used to help ensure uniform application of the safety regulations by
enforcement personnel, motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle
drivers.
    Since the publication of the notice, the Agency has received a
letter signed by 18 U.S. Senators and numerous requests from the
agricultural industry to extend the comment period. The Senators and
industry acknowledged the importance of the issues covered by the
notice and requested additional time to provide farmers, many of whom
have planting and harvesting responsibilities during this time of the
year, additional time to review the notice and consider the likely
impacts of the guidance on their operations. Copies of the requests for
an extension of the comment period are included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    The FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of the U.S. Senators and
farmers and extends the public comment period from June 30, 2011 to
August 1, 2011. The Agency will consider all comments received by close
of business on August 1, 2011. Comments will be available for
examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses
section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the extent
practicable comments received in the public docket after the closing
date of the comment period.

    Issued on: June 27, 2011.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-16548 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<TEMPLATE:>

<  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)>

<Petition Number 9E7570>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 9E7570) from IR-4, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540, proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of fluazinam, (3-chloro- N
-[3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine), in or on the raw
agricultural commodity carrot, root at 0.8 parts per million (ppm).  EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<Plant metabolism.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The residue of concern is best
defined as the parent, fluazinam in most crops and as the parent,
fluazinam and its metabolite, AMGT, in fruit crops (grape and
blueberry).    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The metabolism of fluazinam in plants
(potatoes, peanuts, apples and wine grapes) is adequately understood for
the purposes of these tolerances.  The metabolism of fluazinam in peanut
and potato involves initial reduction of the nitro groups, hydrolysis of
the trifluoromethyl group as well as replacement of chlorine by
glutathione with subsequent reactions along the glutathione pathway.
Following replacement of the deactivating NO2 and Cl groups with
activating groups such as OH, NH2 and sulfhydryl, ring cleavage occurs.
Parent fluazinam is then rapidly degraded to form CO2 and carbon
fragments which are incorporated into natural products such as glucose,
fructose, sucrose, oils and protein.  Thus, parent fluazinam is either
not found or barely detectable in peanuts and potatoes.  Fluazinam
parent was the major identifiable residue in both the grape and apple
metabolism studies.  However, minor levels of AMGT (less than 5% of the
total radioactive residue) were also formed in grapes and apples.  In
grape and apple metabolism studies, following reduction of the nitro
groups and replacement of chlorine with a sulfur containing side-chain
such as glutathione (as occurred in peanuts and potatoes), glucose is
attached to the thiolactic acid conjugate of AMPA to form the metabolite
known as AMGT.  This metabolite was not found in   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
the peanut or potatoes metabolism studies.  It is analogous to the
cysteine conjugate of AMPA found in rats.  Identifiable residues in
plant metabolism studies either closely resemble fluazinam in structure
or are the result of re-incorporation of the fluazinam carbon pool into
natural products.

    Ruminant and poultry metabolism studies demonstrated that the
transmittal of residues from the feed of goats and hens through to meat,
milk, and eggs was low.  Total 14C residues were below 1 ppm in all
tissues, milk and eggs.  Identifiable residues were less than 2% of the
administered dose in all matrices, except for chicken fat and liver.
The major metabolite found in animal tissues and milk were DAPA, AMPA,
and their sulfamate conjugates.  Parent Fluazinam was only detected in
very small amounts.>

<	2. Analytical method. An analytical method using gas chromatography
with electron capture detection (GC-ECD) for the determination of
fluazinam residues on carrots has been developed and validated.  The
method involves solvent extraction followed by liquid-liquid
partitioning and concentration prior to a final purification using
column chromatography.  The method has been successfully validated by an
independent laboratory using peanut nutmeat as the matrix.  The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) of the method is 0.02 ppm in carrot.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Carrot. A total of 13 field trials were
conducted on carrot.  Treatment 02 of each field site consisted of four
(4) foliar applications at the target rate of approximately 0.52 lb
a.i./A, applied at 7 (+1) day intervals, followed by sprinkler
irrigation within 2 hours of each application.  Treatment 03 of each
field site consisted of four (4) foliar applications at the target rate
of approximately 0.52 lb a.i./A, applied at 7 (+1) day intervals.
Sprinkler irrigation was not permitted until 24 hours after the
application.  Carrots were harvested 6 - 8 days after the last
application.   One decline trial was also included with sampling at 1,
8, 13 and 20 days after the last application.  The results show that all
residues in carrots following a total of approximately 2.04 lb a.i./A to
2.94 lb a.i./A/season with an average PHI of 7 days, ranged from <0.02
ppm (LOQ) to 0.56 ppm for Treatment 02 and from <0.02 ppm (LOQ) to 0.45
ppm for Treatment 03.  The mean fluazinam residue was 0.15 ppm for
Treatment 02 and 0.12 ppm for Treatment 03, indicating that both
treatment yield similar residue patterns.>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  A battery of acute toxicity studies was conducted
which placed technical fluazinam in Toxicity Category III for oral LD50,
dermal LD50, dermal irritation, Category II for inhalation LC50 and
Category I for eye irritation.  Technical fluazinam showed potential for
dermal sensitization.  In an acute neurotoxicity study, the NOAEL for
neurotoxicity was 2000 mg/kg bw (the highest dose tested) and the NOAEL
for systemic effects was 50 mg/kg bw.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. A battery of tests has been conducted to assess the
genotoxic potential of technical fluazinam.  Assays conducted included
two gene mutation tests in bacteria, a chromosomal aberration test in
mammalian cells, a mouse micronucleus test and a DNA repair test in
bacteria.  Technical fluazinam did not elicit a genotoxic response in
any of the studies conducted.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a two-generation
reproductive toxicity study, the NOAEL for reproductive effects was 100
ppm (10.6 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 20 ppm
(1.9 mg/kg bw/day).>

    In a rat developmental study, there were no developmental effects
observed at non-maternally toxic doses.  The developmental NOAEL was 50
mg/kg bw/day and the LOAEL was 250 mg/kg bw/day, based upon decreased
mean fetal body weight and other evidence suggestive of delayed fetal
development related to maternal toxicity. The maternal NOAEL was shown
to be 50 mg/kg bw/day.

    In a rabbit developmental study, there were no developmental effects
observed at non-maternally toxic doses.  The developmental NOAEL was 7
mg/kg bw/day and the LOAEL was 12 mg/kg bw/day, based on increased
incidence of total litter loss and possible slightly increased
incidences of fetal findings at this dose.  It was concluded that the
maternal NOAEL was 4 mg/kg bw/day.

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. The NOAEL for the 13-week feeding study in
rats was 50 ppm (3.8 mg/kg bw/day in males, 4.3 mg/kg bw/day in
females).  The LOAEL was 500 ppm (38 mg/kg bw/day in males, 44 mg/kg
bw/day in females), based on periacinar hepatocellular hypertrophy and
sinusoidal chronic inflammation in males, increased liver weights in
males and increased lung weights in females.

    In a 13-week dog study, the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day.  The LOAEL
was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on ocular change observed
ophthalmoscopically and liver effects consisting of increased relative
liver to body weight, bile duct hyperplasia with or without
cholangiofibrosis and increased plasma phosphatase levels.

    In a 21-day dermal study, the NOAEL for systemic effects was 10
mg/kg bw/day.  The LOAEL was 100 mg/kg bw/day, based on hepatocelluar
hypertrophy and increases in AST and cholesterol levels.

    In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, no effects considered to be
indicative of neurotoxicity were observed at the highest dose tested,
3000 ppm (233 mg/kg bw/day in males, 280 mg/kg bw/day in females).  The
NOAEL for systemic toxicity (body weight differences) was 1000 ppm (74
mg/kg bw/day).

    In a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, fluazinam was
administered by gavage to female rats from Day 6 after mating to Day 20
of lactation and additionally to their offspring from Day 7 of age to
Day 20 or 21 of age.  The author concluded that the maternal NOAEL was 2
mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weights and lower food intake.  No
effects were seen on the microscopic structure of the nervous system of
the dams at any dose level (maximum dose of 50 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOAEL
for behavior and nervous system of the dams was >50 mg/kg bw/day, the
highest dose tested.  No adverse effect of treatment at any dose level
was seen on number of implantations, litter size or offspring survival.
Signs of general toxicity in the offspring were evident based on lower
Day 1 body weights and lower weight gains at 10 and 50 mg/kg bw/day
through weaning.  The NOAEL for general toxicity to offspring was 2
mg/kg bw/day.  There was no evidence of developmental neurotoxicity in
the offspring.  The NOAEL for the functional and morphological
development of the nervous system in the offspring was >50 mg/kg bw/day,
the highest dose tested.  There was no increased sensitivity of the
fetus or young rat pups to fluazinam as compared to the dams.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. Fluazinam was not carcinogenic in rats.  A NOAEL
of 10 ppm (Males: 0.38 mg/kg bw/day; Females: 0.47 mg/kg bw/day) of
fluazinam was established based on the following effects at 1000 and/or
100 ppm: lower food consumption and efficiency of food utilization,
slight anemia, elevated cholesterol, increased liver weights, an
increased number of macroscopic liver and testes lesions and an
increased incidence of microscopically observed lung, liver, pancreas,
lymph node and testes lesions.

    An additional study was conducted to further define the NOAEL for
long-term effects in the rat.  In the second study, a NOAEL of 50 ppm
(2.2 mg/kg bw/day) was established based on liver and testes effects.

    Two long-term feeding studies were conducted in mice.  In the first,
the NOAEL for all effects was 10 ppm (Males: 1.1 mg/kg bw/day; Females:
1.2 mg/kg bw/day) and the LOAEL was 100 ppm (Males: 10.7 mg/kg bw/day;
Females: 11.7 mg/kg bw/day) based on the treatment-related effects
observed in the liver.

    A second oncogenicity study in mice was conducted at 1000, 3000 and
7000 ppm to ensure that an MTD dose was studied.  Findings included
increased female mortality, reduced body weight gains, increased brain
weights and/or liver weights.  An impurity in the test material used in
this study resulted in vacuolation of the white matter of the brain and
cervical spinal cord in treated animals. A statistically significant
higher incidence of hepatocellular adenomas was observed in the 3000 ppm
dose males.  Hepatocellular adenomas are common tumors in male mice.
There was no dose relationship in the induction of the adenoma and no
increase in hepatocellular carcinomas.  It was concluded that fluazinam
is not carcinogenic in the mouse.

    In a chronic dog study, the NOAEL was determined to be 1 mg/kg
bw/day.  The LOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day based on generalized, nonspecific
toxicity.  No ocular effects were observed ophthalmoscopally at any dose
in this study.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. After an oral dose of fluazinam the median peak
time for blood concentration of radiolabel activity for both sexes was 6
hours.  The major route of excretion was the feces with urine
contributing as a minor route. Less than 1% of the administered dose was
found in the terminated animals.  The highest concentration in tissues
was found in the liver.  There were no major differences related to sex
or dose level in the findings.  It was concluded that fluazinam is
metabolized by both reduction and glutathione and glucuronide
conjugation and further metabolism.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. The same metabolic processes occur in plants
and animals but metabolism in plants is more extensive than in animals.
All of the major identified metabolites in both plants and animals
retain the phenylpyridinylamine structure.  Many of the metabolites
resulting from fluazinam are similar in plants and animals and,
therefore, have already been evaluated toxicologically.

    Because of the rapid and complete elimination (in animals) and
re-incorporation (in plants) of fluazinam, the toxicity of metabolites
is expected to be similar to but lower than the toxicity of the parent
compound.  The residue of concern is parent fluazinam only in most crops
and parent fluazinam plus its minor metabolite AMGT on/in fruit crops
such as grape and blueberry.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. The toxicological profile of fluazinam shows
no evidence of physiological effects characteristic of the disruption of
the hormone estrogen in mammalian chronic studies or in mammalian or
avian reproduction studies.   It is therefore considered that there is
an adequate level of safety over the reference dose for possible
endocrine effects and that an additional safety factor for possible
endocrine effects is not warranted.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Potential dietary exposures from food were
estimated using the proposed tolerances for all crops using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM)
and percent crop treated of 100% (with the exception of imported wine
grapes as discussed below).  The following raw agricultural commodities
were included: apple, carrot,  brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Group
5) including turnip greens, bean (Groups 6A, 6B and 6C), bushberry
(Group 13-07B), ginseng, head lettuce, leaf lettuce, bulb onion (Crop
3-07A), peanut, potato, imported wine grapes and sherry and resulting
secondary residues in meat and milk.  For acute dietary exposure, the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) was based on the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg
bw/day from an acute rat neurotoxicity study.   For females 13-49 years
of age, the NOAEL of 7 mg/kg bw/day from the rabbit developmental
toxicity study was used for acute dietary exposure.  For chronic dietary
exposure, the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) was based on the
NOAEL from the mouse carcinogenicity study (1.1 mg/kg bw/day).  An
uncertainty factor of 100 was used in both cases since the results of a
DNT study confirmed there was no increased sensitivity of the fetus or
young rat pups to fluazinam as compared to the dams and the FQPA
uncertainty factor could be reduced to one (1).>

<	i. Food. Acute Risk Tier 1 acute dietary exposure analyses were
conducted for fluazinam to determine the exposure contribution of the
above mentioned commodities to the diet and to ascertain the acute risk
potential.  The estimates were based on: proposed tolerance level
residues for all the crops; apple, peanut and potato processing studies;
market share assumptions of 100% crop treated (except wine grapes where
it was assumed that 100% of the imported wine grapes would be treated
and 39% of wine consumed in the US is imported); and consumption data
from USDA’s CSFII (1994 through 1998) continuing survey of food
intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above,
the Tier 1 95th percentile acute dietary exposure (per capita) for the
U.S. population was estimated to be 0.016260 mg/kg bw/day or 3.25% of
the aPAD. The highest acute exposure estimate (95th percentile) was
observed in the females 13-49 yrs. subpopulation: 0.011259 mg/kg bw/day.
 This corresponds to only16.08% of the aPAD.

    Chronic Risk Tier 1 dietary exposure analyses were conducted for
fluazinam to determine the exposure contribution of the above mentioned
commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic risk potential. The
estimates were based on: proposed tolerance level residues for all the
crops; apple, peanut and potato processing studies; market share
assumptions of 100% crop treated (except wine grapes where it was
assumed that 100% of the imported wine grapes would be treated and 39%
of wine consumed in the US is imported); and consumption data from
USDA’s CSFII (1994 through 1998) continuing survey of food intake.

    Even using all of the worst-case exposure scenarios listed above,
the Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates resulted in an estimated
exposure for the U.S. population of 0.001360 mg/kg bw/day.  This
exposure corresponds to 12.4% of the cPAD of 0.011mg/kg bw/day.  The
highest exposure estimate was calculated for the all infants (<1 year)
population subgroup.  This exposure was determined to be 0.004022 mg/kg
bw/day (36.6% of the cPAD).

    It can be concluded that acute or long-term dietary exposure to
fluazinam through residues on treated apple, carrot,  brassica (cole)
leafy vegetables (Group 5) including turnip greens, bean (Groups 6A, 6B
and 6C), bushberry (Group 13-07B), ginseng, head lettuce, leaf lettuce,
bulb onion (Crop 3-07A), peanut, potato, imported wine grapes and sherry
should not be of cause for concern.>

<	ii. Drinking water. Since fluazinam is intended for application
outdoors to field grown crops, the potential exists for parent and/or
metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for
drinking water.  The potential estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) associated with the application of fluazinam to carrots is less
than the maximum values estimated for blueberries.  Thus, the more
conservative EDWCs for blueberries were incorporated into the DEEM-FCID
model to estimate dietary exposure.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. No petition for registration of fluazinam is
being made for either indoor or outdoor residential use.
Non-occupational exposure of fluazinam to the general population is
therefore not expected and is not considered in aggregate exposure
estimates.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	Fluazinam is a phenylpyridinylamine fungicide.   Since there are no
other members of this class of fungicides, it is considered unlikely
that fluazinam would have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
pesticide in use at this time.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. Based on a NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg bw/day from the
mouse carcinogenicity study, and using an uncertainty factor of 100, a
reference dose (RfD) of 0.011 mg/kg bw/day is proposed for assessment of
long-term risk.  Since the results of a DNT study confirmed there was no
increased sensitivity of the fetus or young rat pups to fluazinam as
compared to the dams, the FQPA uncertainty factor could be reduced to
one (1) and the cPAD is equivalent to the RfD.  The estimate of dietary
intake was based on: proposed tolerance level residues for all the
crops; apple, peanut and potato processing studies; market share
assumptions of 100% crop treated (except wine grapes where it was
assumed that 100% of the imported wine grapes would be treated and 39%
of wine consumed in the US is imported); and consumption data.  The
estimated chronic exposure of fluazinam from drinking water is 17.7 ppb.
 Even using those conservative intake estimates, the proposed tolerances
plus drinking water will utilize only 12.4% of the RfD or cPAD for the
U.S. population.  Using these same conservative exposure assumptions,
the acute dietary exposure estimates and the acute DWEC of 71 ppb are
well below the aPAD of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day.  Based on this information, it
can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from acute or chronic exposure to fluazinam.>

<	2. Infants and children. Data from developmental toxicity studies in
the rat and rabbit, a 2-generation reproduction study and a
developmental neurotoxicity study were considered.  These studies, which
were described earlier, demonstrated no increased sensitivity of rats or
rabbits to in utero or gavage exposure of pups to fluazinam.  In
addition, the multigeneration reproductive toxicity study did not
identify any increased sensitivity of rats to in utero or postnatal
exposure.  For all four studies, parental NOAELs were lower than or
equivalent to the developmental or offspring NOAELs.  It is concluded
that the standard margin of safety will protect the safety of infants
and children and that an additional FQPA safety factor is not warranted.

    The dietary exposure of fluazinam to infants and children is
estimated to be low. The proposed tolerances plus drinking water input
will utilize only 12.17% of the aPAD for the “All Infants” subgroup,
and only 13.43% of the cPAD for the subgroup “Children (1-2 years)”.
 Thus, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from acute or chronic exposure
to fluazinam.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are presently no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established
for residues of fluazinam on any crop.  The Canadian and Mexican MRLs
for beans and potatoes are similar to the tolerances established for
these crops in the USA.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28653]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4501-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4501-DR), dated March 29, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 29, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Georgia (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10177 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21433-21436]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1145]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and Lockheed
Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent regulated
navigation area (RNA) on a portion of Elliott Bay in Seattle,
Washington. The RNA will protect the seabed in portions of the bay that
are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Pacific
Sound Resources (PSR) and Lockheed Shipyard superfund cleanup
remediation efforts. This RNA will prohibit activities that would
disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or
other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the sediment
caps that cover the superfund sites. It will not affect transit or
navigation of the area.

DATES: This rule is effective May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-1145 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1145 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Ian Hanna, Waterways Management Division, Sector
Puget Sound, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 1, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and
Lockheed Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites, Elliott Bay, WA in the
Federal Register (76 FR 45738). We received 2 comments on the proposed
rule. No one requested a public meeting and a public meeting was not
held.

Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are determined
to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be
regulated in the interest of safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the PSR and
Lockheed Shipyard sediment caps. It does so by restricting anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that involve
disrupting the integrity of the cap in an RNA around the sediment caps.
This RNA is similar to RNAs which protect other caps in the area.
Enforcement of this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget
Sound assets including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar
and closed circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget
Sound may also be assisted by other government agencies in the
enforcement of this zone.

Background

    The PSR superfund site, which is located on the north shore of West
Seattle within Elliott Bay, and northwest of the mouth of the Duwamish
river, was created by the EPA to cover the remains of the Wyckoff West
Seattle Wood Treating Facility. The wood treating facility, which was
in operation between 1909 and 1994, was mostly located on a pile-
supported facility extending into Elliott Bay. The area was added to
the federal Superfund National Priorities List in May 1994. Later that
year the entire wood treatment facility was demolished and
approximately 4000 cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and process
sludge were removed from the site. Construction of a subsurface
physical containment barrier was started in 1996 and completed in 1999.
The final sediment cap, completed in 2004, is approximately 58-acres
which includes approximately 1500 linear feet of shoreline, and
intertidal and subtidal areas to depth of about 300 feet.
    The Lockheed Shipyard Sediment Operable Unit consists of
contaminated near shore sediments within and adjacent to the Lockheed
Shipyard on Harbor Island. Harbor Island is located approximately one
mile southwest of the Central Business District of Seattle, in King
County, Washington, and lies at the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway on
the southern edge of Elliott Bay. The Lockheed Shipyard sediments are
located on the west side of Harbor Island and face the West Waterway of
the Duwamish Waterway. The final site does not protrude a significant
distance into the West Duwamish waterway. Lockheed Shipyards acquired
the facility in 1959 and conducted shipbuilding operations there until
1986. In April 1997, Lockheed sold the upland property and its legal
rights to the submerged portions of the site to the Port of Seattle.
The remedy for the contaminated sediments included demolition of 3
piers, three shipways and one finger pier. The piers and shipways
primarily consist of timber superstructures supported by approximately
6000 piles. Contaminants found in sediments which were either dredged
or capped are arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, PAHs and PCBs. The
metal contaminants were associated with sand blast grit and paint
clips.
    Remedial actions for both of these sites as established by the EPA
include preventing use of large anchors on the cap. This rulemaking is
necessary to assist the EPA in that remedial action.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received two positive comments in favor of the proposed rule.
One commenter simply expressed support for the proposed rule. The
second discussed the environmental benefits of creating an RNA that
protects the sediment cap as well as supported the points made in our
regulatory analysis. There were no changes made to the rule based on
these comments.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This expectation is based on the fact
that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a small area that
should not impact commercial or recreational traffic, and prohibited
activities are not routine for the designated areas. There have been no
changes to the proposed rule published in Federal Register August 1,
2011 (76 FR 45738).

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
anchor, dredge, spud, lay cable or disturb the seabed in any fashion
when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities due to its minimal restrictive area
and the opportunity for a waiver to be granted for any legitimate use
of the seabed.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    In preparation for this rulemaking, on October 8, 2010, Sector
Puget Sound conducted a tribal consultation with representatives from
the Suquamish and Muckleshoot tribes in accordance with Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
The group noted that the sediment caps were in the usual and accustomed
(U&A) fishing grounds of both tribes. Their main concern was that this
RNA would prohibit them from exercising their U&A fishing. The Coast
Guard and EPA clarified that nothing in this rulemaking is intended to
conflict with these tribes' treaty fishing rights and they are not
restricted from any type of fishing in the described areas. As a result
of the consultation the Coast Guard added paragraph b.(3) to the
regulation. There were no comments to the NPRM concerning tribal
implications.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of
the Instruction. This rule involves a regulated navigation area which
prevents activities which would disturb the seabed within the areas
outlined in this regulation. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 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 Sec.  165.1336 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1336  Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and
Lockheed Shipyard Superfund Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation
areas:
    (1) All waters inside an area beginning at a point on the shore at
47[deg]35' 02.7'' N 122[deg]22'23.00'' W; thence north to
47[deg]35'26.00'' N 122[deg]22'23.00'' W; thence east to
47[deg]35'26.00'' N 122[deg]21'52.50'' W; thence south to
47[deg]35'10.80'' N 122[deg]21'52.50'' W; thence southwest to a point
on the shoreline at 47[deg]35'05.9'' N 122[deg]21'58.00'' W. [Datum:
NAD 1983].
    (2) All waters inside an area beginning at 47[deg]34' 52.16'' N
122[deg]21'27.11'' W; thence to 47[deg]34' 53.46'' N 122[deg]21'30.42''
W; thence to 47[deg]34' 37.92'' N 122[deg]21'30.51'' W; thence to
47[deg]34' 37.92'' N 122[deg]21'27.65'' W. [Datum: NAD 1983].
    (b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from
activities that would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging,
trawling, spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the
integrity of the sediment caps installed in the designated regulated
navigation area, pursuant to the remediation efforts of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others in the Pacific Sound
Resources and Lockheed Shipyard EPA superfund sites. Vessels may
otherwise transit or navigate within this area without reservation.
    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the superfund sites, provided that the
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP), is given advance notice of
those activities by the EPA.
    (3) Nothing in this section is intended to conflict with treaty
fishing rights of the Muckleshoot and Suquamish tribes, and they are
not restricted from any type of fishing in the described area.
    (c) Waivers. Upon written request stating the need and proposed
conditions of the waiver, and any proposed precautionary measures, the
COTP may authorize a waiver from this section if the COTP determines
that the activity for which the waiver is sought can take place without
undue risk to the remediation efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The COTP will consult with EPA in making this
determination when necessary and practicable.

    Dated: March 25, 2012.
K.A. Taylor,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2012-8545 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14205]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05233]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0806; FRL-9905-17-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
graphic arts operations and from surface preparation and cleaning
operations. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0806, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: PCAPCD Rule 239, Graphic Arts Operations and PCAPCD Rule 240,
Surface Preparation and Cleanup. In the Rules and Regulations section
of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a
direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP
revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments,
however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed
rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comments on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-05233 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P