                          BURDEN REDUCTION FROM THE
                      EXPANSION OF CROP GROUPING PROGRAM

                                 Prepared by:

                   BIOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION
                         OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

                                August 5, 2022

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
                             Washington, DC 20640

Executive Summary	3
Chapter 1	Introduction	5
1.1 Background	5
1.2 Tolerances	6
1.3 Crop Groups, Subgroups, and Representative Commodities	6
1.4 Problem Statement	6
1.5 Affected Community	7
Chapter 2	Changes in Crop Grouping for Legume Vegetables, Foliage of Legume Vegetables, Cereal Grains, and Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains	8
Chapter 3	Data	10
Chapter 4	Methodological Approach to the Economic Analysis	13
4.1 Benefits and Positive Impacts of the Rule	13
4.2 Negative Impacts of the Rule	17
4.3 Characterizations and Uncertainties	17
4.4 Summary of Changes from the Proposed Economic Analysis	18

 Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending Crop Group 6: Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried); Crop Group 7: Foliage of Legume Vegetables; Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains; and Crop Group 16: Forage, Fodder and Straw of Cereal Grains. The amendments include updating the terminology in the names of Crop Groups 6, 7, and 16, the addition of commodities to Crop Groups 6, 15, and 16, revisions to the subgroups for Crop Group 6, and the addition of subgroups to Crop Group 15. EPA is also amending the associated commodity definitions. This is the sixth in a series of planned crop group updates expected to be prepared over the next several years.

Legume vegetable growers, cereal grain growers, and pesticide registrants are anticipated to be the biggest beneficiaries of this rulemaking. While not quantified, it is expected that growers will benefit from this rule via more registered pesticide products for small scale commodities, and IR-4 and pesticide registrants will benefit from reduced data generation costs.

This is a burden-reducing regulation for both registrants and EPA. Crop grouping saves money by permitting the results of pesticide residue studies for some crops, called representative crops, to be applied to other, similar crops in the group. Once final, EPA expects these revisions to promote greater use of crop groupings for tolerance-setting purposes.

The Agency anticipates that revisions to the crop grouping program will result in no appreciable costs or negative impacts to consumers, specialty crop producers, pesticide registrants, the environment, or human health. Although this rule may make it possible to get a pesticide tolerance on a larger number of crops within a group, it will not necessarily increase the amount of pesticides released into the environment and will expand the choice of pesticides for crop producers, which may result in the use of safer pesticides.

The analysis here is somewhat different than that provided for the proposed rule. The analysis for the proposed rule provided quantitative estimates based on avoided costs of field trials to generate residue data.  However, there is significant uncertainty as to the number of trials that would be conducted in the absence of this rule, which led to an enormous range in the estimated monetary benefits of the proposal. This attempt at quantifying the range of potential benefits did not provide additional useful information to decisionmakers, stakeholders, or the public beyond what the current qualitative description of the benefits to key stakeholders (e.g., growers and registrants) provides.

Benefits and Costs of the Rule

                         Expected Benefits of the Rule
Cost Savings per Commodity
                                   $101,700
          (i.e., avoided residue field trial cost per crop commodity)
Number of Legume Vegetable, Foliage of Legume Vegetable, Cereal Grain, and Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grain Commodities
                                  248 total
(120 Legume Vegetable + 8 Foliage of Legume Vegetable + 60 Cereal Grain + 60 Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grain)
Qualitative Effects
It is expected that:
  Growers of legume and cereal commodities will benefit from this rule via more registered pesticide products for their commodities
  Registrants of pesticide products will benefit from reduced data generation costs
                          Expected Costs of the Rule
There are no expected increases in costs from this rule.
                                 Other Impacts
Small Business Impacts
  No significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The affected community for this rule includes several types of entities that are engaged in agricultural production, food production and pesticide manufacturing.
  Affected NAICS codes include:
      :: Crop production (NAICS code 111).
      :: Animal production (NAICS code 112).
      :: Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
      :: Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
  No increased costs to small entities are expected because the rule should reduce the per commodity cost of registering pesticides on legume vegetable, foliage of legume vegetable, cereal grain, and forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grain commodities.

 Introduction

EPA is revising its pesticide tolerance regulations for crop grouping, which allow the establishment of tolerances for multiple related crops based on data from a representative set of crops. The data in question are primarily for use in the exposure analysis of dietary risk assessments. EPA establishes tolerances for each pesticide on each crop or crop grouping after assessing the potential risks to human health posed by that pesticide. A tolerance is the maximum permissible residue level established for a pesticide in raw agricultural produce and processed foods.

This analysis covers revisions to Crop Group 6: Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried); Crop Group 7: Foliage of Legume Vegetables; Crop Group 15: Cereal Grains; and Crop Group 16: Forage, Fodder and Straw of Cereal Grains. The revisions include updating the terminology in the names of Crop Groups 6, 7, and 16, the addition of commodities, revisions to the subgroups for Crop Group 6, and the addition of subgroups to Crop Group 15. EPA is also amending the associated commodity definitions.

This is a burden-reducing regulation. Crop grouping saves registrants money by permitting the results of pesticide residue studies for one crop to be applied to other, similar crops. The regulation updates four crop groups, and expands three of them (i.e., 6, 15, and 16) to include more crops. Because of this expansion, it is expected that IR-4 and chemical registrants will benefit from reduced data generation costs, and that legume vegetable and cereal grain growers will benefit from this rule via more registered pesticide products. Having additional pesticides for use may help growers to lower costs (e.g., due to more effective pesticides helping growers to manage weeds or other pests) or increase yields (e.g., due to less competition from weeds or other pest damage reducing the quality or quantity of commodities harvested), which could lead to increases in grower incomes and/or decreases in prices for consumers if producer savings are passed on. The benefits to producers and consumers are not quantified in this assessment. It will also save EPA resources since there will be fewer studies overall for Agency scientists to review for all commodities in these newly expanded crop groups. The potential cost savings to EPA are not estimated in this economic analysis.

EPA expects these revisions to promote greater use of crop groupings for tolerance-setting purposes, both domestically and in countries that export food to the United States. This is the sixth in a series of seven planned crop group updates expected to be prepared over the next several years.

1.1 Background

EPA establishes maximum residue limits (MRLs) or tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food commodities under section 408 of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a). EPA establishes pesticide tolerances only after determining that aggregate exposure to the pesticide is safe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforce compliance with tolerance limits.

1.2 Tolerances

A tolerance is the maximum permissible pesticide residue level established for pesticides in raw agricultural commodities (e.g., unprocessed fruits, vegetables, meat, etc.) and processed foods. To establish a tolerance, a petition is submitted to the Agency, requesting the tolerance and furnishing information on the chemical identity, composition, use pattern, toxicity, and nature and magnitude of the residue of the proposed use. EPA uses these data to determine the appropriate tolerance level. In order to obtain these data, it is usually necessary for the petitioner to conduct residue field trials for the pesticide on a given commodity.

1.3 Crop Groups, Subgroups, and Representative Commodities

Traditionally, tolerances are established for a specific pesticide and commodity combination. However, under EPA's crop grouping regulations (40 CFR § 180.41), a single tolerance may be established that applies to a group of related commodities. EPA regulations currently enable the establishment of tolerances for a group of crops based on residue data for designated crops that are representative of the group. For example, the pome fruit crop group (11-10) has apple and pear as its representative commodities. Crops are grouped based on similarities in cultural production practices, edible food portions and animal feed items, residue levels, geographical locations, and pest problems. All of the crops in a group may be granted a tolerance based on residue data from designated representative commodities within the group. Similarly, all of the crops in a subgroup may be granted a tolerance based on residue data from the designated representative commodity within the subgroup.

Representative commodities are selected based on EPA's determination that they are likely to have the highest residues that could occur on any crop within the group. The minimum residue data required for a group tolerance consists of residues on all representative commodities for a group. Once the group tolerance is established, the tolerance level generally applies to all agricultural commodities in the group.

1.4 Problem Statement

All registered pesticides used on commercially produced food commodities must have either a tolerance or an exemption from a tolerance. EPA is authorized to establish tolerances for pesticide residues in or on food commodities under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA) section 408. EPA has defined by regulation groups of raw agricultural commodities for which group tolerances may be established (40 CFR § 180.41) and changing the crop groups requires an EPA regulatory action.

EPA is reevaluating existing crop groupings because there are many related or small commodities that are not covered by an existing group. As risk assessments conducted for crop groups are as conservative and comprehensive as risk assessments conducted for individual crops, adding these commodities to existing crop groups is not expected to result in an appreciable increase in risk. Additionally, in some cases, there may be other reasons for revisions, like aligning language with industry standards.

1.5 Affected Community

The affected community for this rule includes several types of entities that are engaged in agricultural production, food production, and pesticide manufacturing, along with government and quasi-government organizations. Firms in the following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) are potentially affected:
      ::  Crop production (NAICS code 111)
      ::  Animal production (NAICS code 112)
      ::  Food manufacturing (NAICS code 317)
      ::  Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 3250A1).

Among the beneficiaries are the producers and consumers of small-acreage crops. Major and minor crop producers should benefit because lower registration costs could encourage more products to be registered on legume vegetable and/or cereal grains, both large and small acreage crops, which would provide growers of these crops with additional tools for pest control. If these pest control options lead to cost savings or increased yields, then consumers may also benefit if lower prices result from these changes.

Other beneficiaries are the participants in the nation-wide cooperative project the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), who perform field trials necessary to obtain pesticide tolerances on minor crops. The IR-4 Project's mission is to provide safe and effective pest management options for specialty crop growers. Their focus has historically been to facilitate the registration of conventional crop protection chemicals on fruits, vegetables, herbs and nuts. The IR-4 Project is needed because there are insufficient financial incentives for the agrochemical industry to invest in registering their products for low use specialty crops. Additionally, during the data development phase, crop injury due to product failure can occur in low acreage, high value crops which may create larger, unfavorable risk-reward relationships for registrants. The IR-4 Project develops the data to support these registrations. All data from IR-4 sponsored studies are transferred from the field sites or analytical laboratories to the IR-4 Headquarters where the data are placed into petition format required for submission to EPA. The data are also reviewed by the registrant. Once complete, the petition is submitted to EPA. In doing so, the IR-4 Project helps to improve the international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. The IR-4, which is publicly funded, is also expected to benefit from this rule as it will help IR-4 use its resources more efficiently in its efforts to ensure that minor/specialty crop growers have access to legal, registered uses of essential pest management tools such as pesticides.

Pesticide registrants develop, manufacture, formulate, package, distribute, and sell pesticide products. Pesticide products themselves fall into several categories: conventional pesticides, biochemical pesticides, plant incorporated pesticides, specialty and niche pesticides, and antimicrobial pesticides. Conventional pesticides are those products that are commonly available to users including herbicides (weed killers), insecticides ("bug" killers), and fungicides (fungus killers), as well as some special classifications such as fumigants used to sterilize soil to remove pathogens. Pesticide production involves combining substances into a formulation. The most important ingredient of a pesticide product is the active ingredient: the chemical that controls the targeted pest. While many economic sectors consume pesticide products, the agricultural sector is by far the largest conventional pesticide user. Pesticide products support agricultural production of crops under varied weather and pest pressure. Pesticide products are more readily available for crops grown on a large scale such as field corn and soybeans. Specialty crops (e.g., fruits, tree nuts, etc.) comprise nearly a quarter of the value of agricultural production in the U.S., yet there are often insufficient financial incentives for pesticide registrants to invest in registering their products for a specific low acreage specialty crop. In the data development phase, there may be crop injury in low-acreage, high-value crops that may create unfavorable risk-reward relationships for registrants. For this reason, pesticide registrants can be hesitant to act to establish pesticide uses on specialty crops. If despite this hesitance they decide to register a tolerance due to crop groups, then they will have benefits similar to IR-4 above. Otherwise, their primary benefit is the potential for increased sales of their products if another entity, like IR-4, pursues a registration.

The EPA will benefit from broader operational efficiency gains, which result from fewer emergency pesticide use requests from specialty crop growers, the ability to conduct risk assessments based on crop grouping, greater ease of establishing import tolerances, greater capacity to assess risks of pesticides used on crops not grown in the U.S., further harmonization of crop classification and nomenclature, harmonized commodity import and export standards, and increased potential for resource sharing between EPA and other pesticide regulatory agencies. Revisions to the crop grouping program will result in no appreciable costs or negative impacts to consumers, specialty crop producers, pesticide registrants, the environment, or human health.

 Changes in Crop Grouping for Legume Vegetables, Foliage of Legume Vegetables, Cereal Grains, and Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains

The following provides a summary of the revisions for the Legume Vegetables, Foliage of Legume Vegetables, Cereal Grains, and Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains. A more detailed description of the changes, and a list of all new and old commodities in each crop group are provided in the text of the rule.

Crop Group 6: Legume Vegetables
EPA is removing "Succulent or Dried" from the old group name "Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried)" since this qualification is not needed and is unclear; providing examples of different types of beans or peas that are included within the definition of certain commodities; and identifying explicitly edible podded representative commodities as separate from succulent shelled representative commodities. EPA is updating the subgroups and adding three new crop subgroups to crop group 6, bringing the total number of subgroups to six. The six subgroups are: Crop Subgroup 6-22A, Edible podded bean subgroup; Crop Subgroup 6-22B, Edible podded pea subgroup; Crop Subgroup 6-22C, Succulent shelled bean subgroup, Crop Subgroup 6-22D, Succulent shelled pea subgroup; Crop Subgroup 6-22E, Pulses, dried shelled bean, except soybean, subgroup; and Crop Subgroup 6-22F, Pulses, dried shelled pea subgroup. EPA is listing the following seven representative commodities for Crop Group 6-22:  Bean (Phaseolus spp. or Vigna spp.; one edible podded cultivar, one succulent shelled cultivar, and one dried seed); Pea (Pisum spp.; one edible podded cultivar, one succulent shelled cultivar, and one dried seed); and Soybean, seed. EPA is adding Vigna spp. as an alternate representative commodity to bean, Phaseolus spp. This change is not intended to increase the number of field trials needed for this crop group. EPA expands the crop group from 88 to 120 commodities.

Crop Group 7: Forage and Hay of Legume Vegetables Group
EPA is revising the name of Crop Group 7: Foliage of Legume Vegetables Group, removing the term Foliage and inserting the terms Forage and Hay. Matching the name change of the group, EPA is revising the name of the subgroup. EPA is revising the name of subgroup 7A from "Crop Subgroup 7A. Foliage of legume vegetables (except soybeans) subgroup" to "Crop Subgroup 7-22A. Forage and hay of legume vegetables (except soybeans) subgroup." EPA is updating the representative commodities for Crop Group 7-22, currently defined as "any cultivar of bean and field pea, and soybean." EPA is changing the representative commodities to "Any cultivar of either cowpea or bean; field pea; and soybean." There is no expansion in the number of commodities, 8, in this crop group. While there are theoretically more forage and hay commodities in crop group 7-22 because of the expansion of crop group 6-22, there is no expansion in the number of commodities in this crop group because only a limited number of the bean and pea commodities are used as animal feed

Crop Group 15: Cereal Grain Group
EPA is increasing specificity in names for 21 commodities in this group to better align with the global standard. EPA is creating 6 subgroups: Crop Subgroup 15-22A, Wheat subgroup; Crop Subgroup 15-22B, Barley subgroup; Crop Subgroup 15-22C, Field corn subgroup; Crop Subgroup 15-22D, Sweet corn subgroup; Crop Subgroup 15-22E, Grain sorghum and millet subgroup; and Crop Subgroup 15-22F, Rice subgroup. The representative commodities for the group are currently listed as corn (fresh sweet corn and dried field corn), rice, sorghum, and wheat. EPA is including the current representative commodities for Crop Group 15, adding barley as a representative crop to accommodate the new Barley Subgroup (15-22B), and adding proso millet as an alternative representative commodity for the Grain Sorghum and Millet Subgroup (15-22D). Proso millet will be an alternate, representative commodity for the Grain sorghum and millet crop subgroup 15-22E and also for Crop Group 15-22. This change is not intended to increase the number of field trials needed for this crop group. EPA is expanding the crop group from 36 to 60 commodities.

Crop Group 16: Forage, Hay, Stover, and Straw of Cereal Grain Group:
For Crop Group 16, EPA is also changing the Crop Group name from "Crop Group 16: Forage, Fodder and Straw of Cereal Grains Group" to "Crop Group 16-22 Forage, Hay, Stover, and Straw of Cereal Grain Group." Consistent with the changes for Crop Group 15, EPA is adding the same additional commodities to Crop Group 16. EPA is including the following in Forage, Hay, Stover, and Straw of Cereal Grain Crop Group 16: the forage, hay, stover and straw of the commodities included in Cereal Grain Crop Group 15. EPA is not creating subgroups for Crop Group 16-22 and is not changing the representative commodities. The representative commodities continue to be corn, wheat, and any other cereal grain crop. EPA is expanding the crop group from 36 to 60 commodities.
 Data

Cost of the field trial

The cost of the field trial to obtain a tolerance is estimated to be $101,700 per trial, based on estimated cost of OPP data requirement 860.1500. The estimated costs of the data requirements for registration are available on the EPA pesticide registration website. The estimates were obtained by EPA from independent laboratories and are adjusted for inflation annually. These are cost estimates and the actual costs of studies may vary.

Tolerance Actions per Year

The history of registration actions for the legume vegetable crop group shows that, accounting for tolerance exemptions, legume vegetables have historically had about twelve tolerance actions per year, foliage of legume vegetables have had about nine tolerance actions per year, cereal grains have had about thirteen tolerance actions per year, and forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains have had about eleven tolerance actions per year (Table 1).
EPA publishes an annual report of the decisions made in each fiscal year for conventional pesticide chemicals (Report of Conventional Chemical Registration Decisions). These annual reports are publicly available at the EPA website, and document registration decisions by year from 2001 to the present. These annual reports list, by chemical, the use(s) (e.g., crops, non-agricultural/food sites, commodities, etc.), the data submitter (e.g., registrant, IR-4, or their authorized agent), the date of the decision, a link to the decision in the Federal Register, and the decision number. Most decisions are for tolerances. In addition, this report lists other decisions such as those that do not require a new tolerance, such registration actions for non-food uses (which do not require a tolerance) and withdrawals of use, as well as crop group changes, typically conversions or expansions.
EPA extracted data on all tolerance actions for ten years (2010-2019) from an internal database of these reports for the relevant crops and crop groupings for this rule. The crops and crop groupings for which data were extracted included: legume vegetable crop group, foliage of legume vegetable crop group, cereal grains crop group, forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains crop group, sweet corn, grains sorghum, field corn, rice, wheat, dried bean, edible podded pean, succulent shelled bean, dried shelled pea, edible podded pea, succulent shelled pea, dried soybean, forage/hay cowpea, and field pea. There is another data source available to EPA which has similar information to the EPA report on pesticides from BC Global. BC Global is a company with a database of pesticide MRLs on over 1,000 pesticides on 875 commodities in over 140 countries. This data source has an added benefit, which is useful for refining the estimate of the historical average of tolerances for these crop groups. Specifically, this dataset delineates between pesticides that have tolerances and exemptions for tolerances. Pesticides that have an exemption for a tolerance do not require residue field trials to get registered on a crop. The tolerance action averages for the past ten years from both EPA and BC Global are similar for these crop groups. This analysis only includes conventional pesticide chemicals.
Table 1. Historical Averages of Tolerances for Relevant Crop Groups (2010-2019)
                             Legume Vegetables (6)
                        Foliage of Legume Vegetable (7)
                                 Cereal Grain
                                     (15)
                Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grain (16)
                                      12
                                       9
                                      13
                                      11
Source: EPA Estimates, BC Global

Number of Commodities in the Crop Group
The current or baseline number of commodities is 88 in Crop Group 6, 8 for Crop Group 7, and 36 for both Crop Groups 15 and 16 as shown in Table 2 below.
For this rule, there are additions to the number of crops in groups 6, 15, and 16. EPA is adding 32 commodities to Crop Group 6, no commodities to Crop Group 7, and 24 commodities to both Crop Groups 15 and 16. This expansion of commodities brings the total number of commodities to 248 for the four groups, with 120 commodities in Crop Group 6, 8 commodities in Crop Group 7, 60 commodities in Crop Group 15, and 60 commodities in Crop Group 16.
Table 2. Number of Commodities in the Crop Group

                                 Crop Group 6
                                 Crop Group 7
                                 Crop Group 15
                                 Crop Group 16
Original/Current number of crops
                                      88
                                       8
                                      36
                                      36
Additions to the crop group
                                      32
                                       0
                                      24
                                      24
New total number of crops
                                      120
                                       8
                                      60
                                      60

Number of Residue Field Trials Required to Obtain a Pesticide Registration Tolerance by Crop

The number of residue field trials required to obtain a tolerance will vary based on the crop. The number of residue field trials per commodity is based on EPA guidelines for crop field trials (Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1500 Crop Field Trials). The number of residue field trials per commodity is determined in part by "economic (acreage) importance and/or dietary significance." For example, for commodities or crops with acreage greater than 10 million acres (e.g., field corn), the required number of field trials is 16, while the number of residue field trials needed for commodities with less than 200 acres (e.g., lablab bean) and low dietary significance is 1. Table 3 below re-creates a copy of acreage methodology from the Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines.
Table 3: Methodology for Determining Number of Field Trials
                                Number of Acres
                            Number of Field Trials
                                > 10,000,000
                                      16
                       > 1,000,000 to >= 10,000,000
                                      12
                         > 300,000 to >= 1,000,000
                                       8
                          > 30,000 to >= 300,000
                                       5
                           > 2,000 to >= 30,000
                                       3
                             > 200 to >= 2,000
                                       2
                                    <= 200
                                       1
Source: OPPTS 860.1500 Crop Field Trials

Number of field trials needed for a group tolerance using Representative Commodities
The number of residue field trials required to obtain a tolerance will vary based on the crop, which was described in the previous section. Representative commodities are treated somewhat differently than non-representative commodities. For example, the minimum number of residue field trials for any representative commodity is 3, not 1. Table 5 below reports the number of residue field trials needed for all relevant representative commodities in this rulemaking. It should be noted that the number of residue field trials needed is reduced by 25% for crop groupings. For example, all of the legume representative crops residue field trials would be 64 in total if added together separately, but only 50 are needed for a legume crop group tolerance.
Table 5. Number of Residue Field Trials Required to Establish a Tolerance for Representative Commodities
                                  Crop Group
                           Representative Commodity
                             Minimum No. of Trials
                 Total No. of Trials for Entire Crop Group[10]
                             Legume Vegetables (6)
Bean, Dried
                                      12
                                      50

Bean, Edible Podded
                                       8

Bean, Succulent Shelled
                                       8

Pea, Dried Shelled
                                       5

Pea, Edible Podded
                                       3

Pea, Succulent Shelled
                                       8

Soybean (dried)
                                      20

                       Foliage of Legume Vegetables (7)
Cowpea or bean (forage/hay)
                                       3
                                      21

Pea, Field (forage/hay)
                                       3

Soybean (dried)
                                      20

                              Cereal Grains (15)
Corn, Sweet
                                      12
                                      60

Sorghum, Grain or
Millet, Proso
                                      12

Corn, Field
                                      20

Rice
                                      16

Wheat and Barley[11]
                                      20

Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains (16)
Corn, Field
                                      20
                                      42

Any other cereal grain crop
                                      16

Wheat
                                      20

Source: EPA

 Methodological Approach to the Economic Analysis

 Benefits and Positive Impacts of the Rule

The expansion of the Agency's crop grouping program will reduce the burden of pesticide regulation in terms of obtaining pesticide uses for specialty crops. The components of the impact of the rule that are evaluated in this assessment are the benefits and impacts to IR-4, minor crop growers, pesticide registrants, consumers, and EPA. The impacts of the changes are considered individually for each of the affected entities. The impacts of the rule are measured primarily on a qualitative basis, though IR-4 efficiency gains are quantified in terms of the cost of registering a tolerance for a new use in the four crop groups before and after this phase of the crop grouping rule. Instead of conducting field trials for each individual crop in the group, field trials are required only for the representative crops in the crop group.

Benefits and Impacts of the Rule for IR-4 and Pesticide Registrants:

IR-4:

This rule increases the efficiency of the IR-4 program. IR-4 can establish tolerances for more crops with the same residue trials, administrative process, and laboratory effort.

For a single chemical use on a crop, between 1 and 20 residue trials are required. The average number of residue trials required for a typical IR-4 chemical crop combination registration is 3. EPA's current estimate for the cost of a residue field trial, as noted in an earlier section, is around $107,500. If the average number of residue trials required is still 3, then the average cost of typical IR-4 registration is around $322,500.

To establish a crop group tolerance, IR-4 conducts the specified number of field trials; the process for which was described in the previous chapter of this EA. For the crop groups covered in this phase of the rule, Table 5 above provides the details for the number of field trials required. Typically, when residue trials are conducted as part of a crop group request, there is a 25% reduction in the number of trials. For example, all of the legume representative crops residue field trials would be 64 in total if added together separately, but only 50 are needed for a legume crop group tolerance. The total residue trials needed for crop groups 6,7,15, and 16 with and without the 25% reduction are provided in Table 5. IR-4 must also expend laboratory and administrative resources in processing data collected in residue trials and administering the program.

Changes to the crop grouping program in this rule increases the number of crops covered by crop group tolerances. Though the number of additional covered crops varies by crop group, efficiency gains from the rule are extensive. They include the benefit of tolerances that are established without the burden of the cost of residue trials, the 30-month administrative process, and use of laboratory and analytical resources. These efficiency gains are described in more detail in the sections below that consider the impacts to the crop groups.

Other Pesticide Registrants:

Although IR-4 may be the primary pesticide tolerance petitioner that benefits from this rule, registrants, primarily chemical companies, could benefit from this rule as well. Some chemical firms may decide that the reduction in residue field trials allowed for crop groups along with the expansion of a given crop group provides sufficient economic incentive to pursue a tolerance for registration of their chemical on that crop group. The benefits enumerated above for IR-4 would be expected to apply to these firms as well since the pesticide tolerance process for both is the same; however, the level of benefits may differ along with the number of field trials needed. In addition to the potential benefits garnered if chemical firms decide to pursue a tolerance on a crop, there may be additional sales of their pesticide products. Additional sales may be anticipated because of the wider availability of registered pesticides due to expanded and new crop groups. This is their primary benefit from crop grouping.

In addition to the administrative costs expected by IR-4 above, chemical firms also have other potential costs. Chemical pesticide registrants are required to add crop sites to the label. This is a potential burden of the rule but requires minimal effort on the part of the registrant and can be done at their choosing. Companies may require or perform efficacy tests on all the crops in a group or subgroup before they include them on pesticide labels. This may be needed if there are concerns about efficacy or phytotoxicity of the pesticide on a given use site. Efficacy trials are an additional cost and take one growing season to complete. Crop groups can be created that exclude certain crops, which may allow registrants to minimize their efficacy data needs and target specific crops.

Benefits and Impacts of the Rule for EPA:
The EPA more efficiently uses the resources it devotes to review tolerance petitions for specialty crop registrations. This includes personnel and resources used to guide tolerance petitions through the registration process, and scientific review process. Under this new crop grouping rule, the Agency utilizes a similar level of resources to review tolerance petitions but can establish a greater number of tolerances for specialty crops.

Broader operational efficiency gains are also likely to accrue to the Agency. It is anticipated that crop grouping changes in the rule facilitate risk assessments based on crop grouping, increase the ease of establishing import tolerances, facilitate the risk assessment of pesticides used on crops not grown in the U.S., promote harmonization in crop classification and nomenclature, harmonize commodity import and export standards, increase the potential for resource sharing between EPA and other pesticide regulatory agencies, and reduce the need to process emergency pesticide use requests on specialty crops under Section 18 of FIFRA.

Impact of Changes to the Legume Vegetable, Crop Group 6:
The rule expands Crop Group 6, legume vegetables, from 88 to 120 crops, an increase of 32 crops. Under the old and new crop grouping program, a Crop Group 6 tolerance can be established with 50 residue trials. The addition of these crops greatly increases the efficiency of IR-4 and EPA in registering pesticides on specialty crops. Assuming that the crops added to the crop group require only one field trial to be granted a standalone registration (grown on a regional basis and on few enough acres), to accomplish the same result without expanding Crop Group 6 would require 32 separate field trials, at a cost of $3.3 million ($101,700 per field trial) and the administrative costs of both the IR-4 testing process and the EPA review process. In addition, specialty crop producers of legume vegetables potentially gain access to important pest control tools on 32 additional crops, consumers benefit from the potential for a cheaper, more abundant, and varied supply of legume vegetables, and pesticide registrants potentially have increased sales.

Impact of Changes to the Foliage of Legume Vegetable, Crop Group 7:
This rule does not expand this crop group. The primary benefit for this crop group is additional clarity from updating its name, and the representative crops for this group.

Impact of Changes to the Cereal Grains Vegetable, Crop Group 15:
The rule expands Crop Group 15, cereal grains, from 36 to 60 crops, an increase of 24 crops. Under the old and new crop grouping program, a Crop Group 15 tolerance can be established with 60 residue trials. The addition of these crops greatly increases the efficiency of IR-4 and EPA in registering pesticides on specialty crops. Assuming that the crops added to the crop group require only one field trial to be granted a standalone registration (grown on a regional basis and on few enough acres), to accomplish the same result without expanding Crop Group 15 would require 24 separate field trials, at a cost of $2.4 million ($101,700 per field trial) and the administrative costs of both the IR-4 testing process and the EPA review process. In addition, specialty crop producers of cereal grains potentially gain access to important pest control tools on 24 additional crops, consumers benefit from the potential for a cheaper, more abundant, and varied supply of cereal grains, and pesticide registrants potentially have increased sales.

Impacts of Changes to the Forage, Hay, Stover, and Straw of Cereal Grains, Crop Group 16:
The rule expands Crop Group 16, Forage, Hay, Stover, and Straw of Cereal Grains, from 36 to 60 crops, an increase of 24 crops. Under the old and new crop grouping program, a Crop Group
16 tolerance can be established with 42 residue trials. The addition of these crops greatly increases the efficiency of IR-4 and EPA in registering pesticides on specialty crops. Assuming that the crops added to the crop group require only one field trial to be granted a standalone registration (grown on a regional basis and on few enough acres), to accomplish the same result without expanding Crop Group 16 would require 24 separate field trials, at a cost of $2.4 million ($101,700 per field trial) and the administrative costs of both the IR-4 testing process and the EPA review process. In addition, growers of these crops potentially gain access to important pest control tools, and pesticide registrants potentially have increased sales.

Benefits of the Rule for Specialty Crop Producers:
Changes to the crop grouping program provides new safer pesticides to agricultural producers. The greater availability of pesticides to specialty crop producers enhances IPM programs, decreases the probability of pest resistance by providing more pest control tools, gives more pesticide choices for related crops grown in close proximity, and reduces the chance of inadvertent residues on crops grown in close proximity, e.g., mustard greens and kale.

Benefits of the Rule for Consumers:
The changes to the crop grouping program may lead to a more reliable and abundant supply of specialty produce, including imports. The rule promotes a safe food supply through better pest control. The rule promotes diversity of produce available in the U.S.

Summary of Economic Impacts:
This rule helps to increase the efficiency of the IR-4 program. IR-4 will be able to establish tolerances for more crops with the same residue trials, administrative process, and laboratory effort. EPA is also expected to utilize a similar level of resources to review tolerance petitions, while establishing a greater number of tolerances for specialty crops. The primary impact of this crop grouping rule to chemical firms is expected to be additional sales of their pesticide products, directly or indirectly, to producers of legume and cereal grain specialty crops. Specialty crop producers of legumes and cereal grains will potentially gain access to important pest control tools. The greater availability of pesticides to specialty crop producers should enhance IPM programs, decrease the probability of pest resistance by providing more pest control tools, give more pesticide choices for related crops grown in close proximity, and reduce the chance of inadvertent residues on crops grown in close proximity. Consumers may benefit from a more reliable, potentially cheaper, and abundant supply of specialty produce, including imports.

Overall, in terms of aggregate economic impact, the efficiency of IR-4 research efforts and EPA pesticide registration efforts could increase by 2 to 3 times. Given the increase in crop groups over the course of all phases of this rule, IR-4 is expected to have added flexibility in tailoring research efforts to meet the most pressing needs of specialty crop producers. Ultimately, this crop grouping rule is expected to lead to an annual increase in the availability of pesticides for legume and cereal grain specialty crop producers.

4.2 Negative Impacts of the Rule

The Agency anticipates that revisions to the crop grouping program will result in no appreciable costs or negative impacts to consumers, specialty crop producers, pesticide registrants, the environment, or human health.

Although this rule may make it possible to get a pesticide tolerance on a larger number of crops within the group, it will not necessarily increase the amount of pesticides released into the environment and may result in the use of safer pesticides. This is because changes to the crop grouping program broaden the choice of pesticides for crop producers and make newer pesticides available. It is also likely that growers will have a greater ability to use integrated pest management systems that could reduce the potential for environmental damage resulting from the use of pesticides.

Revisions to the crop grouping program maintain EPA standards for protecting human health. Representative crops for groups and subgroups are chosen on the basis that they have the highest residues in the group. For this reason, risk assessments conducted for crop groups are as conservative and comprehensive as risk assessments conducted for individual crops within the crop group.

4.3 Characterizations and Uncertainties

The cost savings presented above do not include potential savings from the establishment of subgroups. Subgroups create smaller crop groups within the larger crop group and allow a registrant to seek a tolerance on a subset of a crop group using the designated subgroup representative commodities. The addition and revisions of subgroups to Crop Groups 6 and 15 will provide additional flexibility for registrants seeking tolerances on a subset of crops within a crop group.
The decision by EPA to establish a tolerance or place a crop into a crop group does not reflect a registrant's business decision to market a pesticide on that crop. There are other important factors, such as the size of the potential market, and other costs, such as efficacy and crop safety studies that might have been an equal or greater deterrent to registration than the field residue trial. If so, then the actual benefit to registrants of including a site in the crop grouping for that pesticide and crop combination is zero, since they would not have pursued a field residue trial for a pesticide that would not be profitable to market.

4.4 Summary of Changes from the Proposed Economic Analysis

EPA determined that a qualitative assessment would provide the public with key information about the rulemaking, including the number of crops affected, the affected entities, potential costs avoided, and the value of crop grouping without needing to quantify potential benefits. The quantified benefits of this rule in the proposed economic analysis ranged from $0  -  $200M+. There was also significant uncertainty about how much of the potential benefits within the range would ever be realized. Therefore, this updated, final version of the economic analysis was modified to be primarily qualitative instead of quantitative.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 40392]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 19, 2016, starting at 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Arrange oral presentations by July 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
Floor, MacCracken Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Haley, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267- 3788; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on July 19, 2016, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591.
    The Agenda includes:

1. Status Reports From Active Working Groups

a. ARAC
    i. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group
    ii. Air Traffic Controller Training Working Group
    iii. Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group
    iv. Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group
    v. Load Master Certification Working Group
    vi. Airman Certification Systems Working Group
b. Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
    i. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group--Transport Airplane Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
    ii. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group--Phase 2 Tasking
    iii. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation
Working Group
    iv. Engine Harmonization Working Group- Engine Endurance Testing
Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
    v. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group

2. Status Report From the FAA

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than July 12,
2016. Please provide the following information: Full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers are
responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by July 12, 2016 to present oral statements
at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the
Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2016.
Dale Bouffiou,
Acting Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-14589 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 60782-60783]
[DOCID:fr16oc06-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54583; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
to Modify Certain of Nasdaq's Corporate Governance Standards, Including
the Definition of Independent Director

 October 6, 2006.
    On July 28, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or ``the
Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Nasdaq Rules 4200(a)(15), IM-4200, and
4350, which pertain to Nasdaq's corporate governance standards for
listed companies. On August 7, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 28, 2006.\3\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54333 (August 18,
2006), 71 FR 50955 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,\4\ and, in
particular, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\5\ The Commission believes that
the proposed rule change would provide clarity and guidance to listed
companies, particularly with respect to the determination of whether a
director is independent. In particular, the proposed rule change would
preclude a finding of independence if a director accepts any
compensation from the company or its affiliates in excess of $60,000
during the prescribed time period.\6\ This proposed change would

align the Nasdaq rule with a corresponding rule of the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') relating to corporate governance standards of
listed issuers.\7\ The proposal also would revise various other
provisions of Nasdaq's corporate governance standards, including by
amending several provisions to conform more closely with the NYSE's
corporate governance standards for its listed issuers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Under current Nasdaq Rule 4200(a)(15)(B), a director of a
listed company would not be considered independent if the director
or a family member of the director has accepted more than $60,000 in
payments from the company or its parent or subsidiary during the
time period set forth in the rule. The proposed rule change would
amend the rule to refer to compensation in excess of $60,000 from
the company, rather than payments. Nasdaq believes that, based on
its experience, a revised rule based on compensation rather than
payments more directly bears upon a director's independence.
    \7\ See Section 303A.02(b)(ii) of the NYSE Listed Company
Manual. Proposed changes to Nasdaq's IM-4200 would provide examples
of non-compensatory payments, such as interest related to banking
services, insurance proceeds, and non-preferential loans from
financial institutions. At the same time, the proposed changes to
IM-4200 would make clear that payments made by the company for the
benefit of the director--such as political contributions to the
campaign of a director or a family member and loans to a director or
family member that are on terms not generally available to the
public--could be considered indirect compensation so as to preclude
a finding that the director was independent.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3. These other changes relate to:
status of independent directors who served as interim officers for a
maximum one-year period; the definition of ``non-executive
employee;'' inclusion of parent and subsidiary within the meaning of
``company;'' and an exception in Nasdaq's standards relating to
audit committees for certain issuers that have a listed parent,
consistent with a similar exception contained in Rule 10A-3 under
the Act, 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-021), as
amended, be, and hereby is, approved.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ Nasdaq advised that it will implement the proposed rule
change immediately upon approval by the Commission. Nasdaq
represented that, to facilitate the transition to the new rules, any
director that would be considered independent under the existing
rules prior to the rule change, but that no longer would be
considered independent under the new rules, would be permitted to
continue to serve on the issuer's Board of Directors as an
independent director until no later than 90 days after the approval
of this rule filing. The Commission notes that this transition
period does not affect an issuer's obligation to comply with the
requirements of Rule 10A-3 under the Act relating to audit
committees.
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\

Jill M. Peterson
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17080 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 710]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR19-16-000]

Notice of Complaint: American Airlines, Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline
Company

    Take notice that on January 2, 2019, pursuant to sections 1(5), 6,
8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act,\1\ section 1803 of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct),\2\ Rule 206 of the Rules of
Practice and Procedures of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission),\3\ and Rules 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) of the Commission's
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings,\4\ American
Airlines, Inc. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint (complaint)
against Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or Respondent) challenging
the lawfulness of the rates charged by Colonial for transportation of
petroleum products, including aviation kerosene and jet fuel, from all
the origins to all destinations in the challenged tariffs, as more
fully explained in the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. App. 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16.
    \2\ Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2772 (1992).
    \3\ 18 CFR 385.206 (2018).
    \4\ 18 CFR 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainant certify that a copy of the complaint was served on
the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the official service 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_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 1, 2019.

    Dated: January 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00536 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10666-10668]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-49-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Document for a Proposed Amendment of the
Northeast Supply Enhancement Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss
the environmental impacts of a proposed amendment to Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC's (Transco) Northeast Supply Enhancement
Project. Transco seeks authorization to utilize and extend an existing
road to access Compressor Station 206 in Somerset County, New Jersey in
lieu of constructing the certificated access road. The Commission will
use the environmental document in its decision-making process to
determine whether the amendment is in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the proposed amendment/alternative
access road. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the
Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document
on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
March 20, 2020.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns regarding the amendment. Your comments should focus on the
potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the
Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the
environmental document. Commission staff will consider all filed
comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
    If you sent comments on this amendment to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on January 31, 2020, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP20-49-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this amendment. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of the potential
change in access to Compressor Station 206 and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the facilities. The company would seek
to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not
required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the amendment, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Transco provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a

comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the projects' docket number
(CP20-49-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Amendment

    Transco proposes to amend the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project
to utilize an alternative permanent access road to Compressor Station
206 (Higgins Farm Access Road) that would involve the use and extension
of an existing road rather than construction of the previously approved
access road across property owned by Trap Rock Industries (Trap Rock
Access Road). Transco states the proposal would enable it to comply
with requirements from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and reduce wetland impacts. The existing road crosses the
Higgins Farm Superfund Site for approximately 1,819 feet, terminating
at an enclosed groundwater remediation system operated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Transco would not modify the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency road but would extend the road
approximately 1,213 feet to the compressor station site. Most of the
extension would occur on land owned by Transco. The figure in appendix
1 depicts the previously-approved Trap Rock Access Road and newly
proposed Higgins Farm Access Road.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to
eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Higgins Farm Access Road would disturb about
5.4 acres of land, all of which would be permanently impacted during
operation of Compressor Station 206.

The Environmental Review Process

    The environmental document will discuss impacts that could occur as
a result of the construction and operation of the Higgins Farm Access
Road under these general headings:
     geology and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources; and
     land use.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed amendment, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid
impacts on the various resource areas.
    The environmental document will present Commission staffs'
independent analysis of the issues. The environmental document will be
available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
\2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email
notification when the environmental document is issued. The
environmental document may be issued for an allotted public comment
period. Commission staff will consider all comments on the
environmental document before making recommendations to the Commission.
To ensure Commission staff has the opportunity to consider and address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate in
the preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would
like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    Commission staff has already identified several issues that deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facility and the
environmental information provided by Transco. This preliminary list of
issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
     water resources and wetlands;
     forested land;
     residences;
     special status species;
     agricultural land;
     special land uses; and
     pre-existing contamination.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, and anyone who
submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that
Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the planned amendment.
    If the Commission issues the environmental document for an allotted
public comment period, a Notice of Availability of the environmental
document will be sent to the environmental mailing list and will
provide instructions to access the electronic document on the FERC's
website (www.ferc.gov). If you need to make changes to your name/
address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing
list, please return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix
2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the amendment/alternative access road
is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866)
208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary
link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number(s) in the

``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP20-
49). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: February 19, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03699 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, November 17, 2020 7:41 PM
To:
Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Charles Jones'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert B Sanch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Batten<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke industry review of data for Method 303, Flares, By-product Chemical, and Pushing Fugitives

Hello all - These are the final (four) files! Yeh. Thank you again for all your work to provide review of the data. Please review and return before the December holiday break, if at all possible.

The following are the instructions that are also included in each file, as appropriate. Also, some remaining EPA questions and comments follow here.

FILE #1: METHOD 303 DATA - SUBPART L
CokeOvens-Method303_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
The EPA used ICR Enclosure 1&2 information for facilities who responded to the ICR and developed emission factors from these data for the remaining facilities.
We have used the equations in the 2003 subpart L RTR Risk document to estimate EPA Method 303 (lb/yr and lb/hr) emissions.
Please review and provide comment on the `M303 Emissions' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.
FILE #2: FLARES
Coke_Flare_Emissions_for Industry review_11-17-2020.xlsx
We are using 2017 data for flares based on EPA's Emission Inventory System (EIS) data but have provided 2014 NEI data and comparison of 2014 to 2017 for your information.
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-faq

Please review and provide comment on the `2017 EIS Flare HAP Totals' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.
FILE #3: BY-PRODUCT CHEMICAL PLANT EMISSIONS
Coke_Byproduct Chemical Plant_Emissions-for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
We are using 2017 data for by-product chemical plant emissions based on EPA's 2017 Emission Inventory System (EIS) data, the precursor of the NEI.
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-faq
Please review and provide comment on the `By-product Chemical HAP' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.
FILE #4: PUSHING FUGITIVES
Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx
We are using 1998 pre-control stack test data for PAH and HAP Metals, and emission factors along with 2016 Coke ICR stack test data for Acid Gas, Semi-Vol, and Dioxin/Furan emission factors, as applicable.
Please review and provide comment on the `Calculation' tab; all other tabs provided for reference--provide comments as applicable.
EPA Questions/Comments
By-Product Industry
Currently the Blast Furnace Coke (ByP) D/F and Semi-Vol pushing emission factors are based only on AKS-Middletown-OH and AM-Monessen-PA data only, no AM-BurnsHarbor data. The EPA is waiting for a detailed analytical rationale from COETF/AM-BH for not excluding the AM-BH pushing data.
If COETF/AM-BH provides an analytical rationale for not excluding all of the data in the Semi-Vol, PAH, and D/F pushing tests, and if EPA decides the AM-BH data is okay to be used, then the D/F and Semi-Vol emission factors will need to be updated and thus the Blast Furnace Coke (ByP) fugitive pushing emissions (tpy) will change.
Heat and Nonrecovery
The EPA is waiting for response from SunCoke to the following questions.
(1) "Is EPA's current methodology of using lb/ton wet coal charged and converting to lb/ton coke produced using Erie Coke's wet coal to coke ratio value okay? Please confirm or provide suggested new methodology.
(2) "If the lb/ton coke methodology is OK, did SunCoke have a wet coal to coke ratio value you want to use instead of the Erie Coke value of 1.27 that is currently being used in EPA's methodology? If so, please provide or confirm the Erie coke value is okay to use."
Responses to the questions may result in changes to the Acid Gas, D/F and Semi-Vol emission factors and thus the HNR fugitive pushing emissions (tpy) will change.
Again, have a good Tday holiday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

<< CokeOvens-Method303_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Flare_Emissions_for Industry review_11-17-2020.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Byproduct_Chemical Plant_Emissions-for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_11-17-20.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61068-61071]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0745]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County, MD and King
George County, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising a temporary safety zone that was
established for certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of persons, and the marine
environment from the potential safety hazards associated with
construction operations at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator
Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge, which will occur
from 7 a.m. on November 2, 2021, through 8 p.m. on December 31, 2021.
This rule will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from November 5,
2021 through December 31, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be issued from November 2, 2021, until November 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0745 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Samuel Danus, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: 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
Sec.  Section
TFR Temporary Final Rule
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On September 10, 2021, Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture,
notified the Coast Guard that the company will continue to set 200-ton
pre-cast fender ring elements at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator
Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge at Piers 43 and 44,
which are adjacent on either side of the federal navigation channel
from September 13, 2021 through December 31, 2021. In response, on
September 17, 2021, the Coast Guard issued a TFR; request for comments,
Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County, MD and King George
County, VA (86 FR 52826). There, we stated why we issued the TFR, and
invited comments on our regulatory action related to this bridge
construction activity due to the duration of the rule. During the
comment period that ended October 25, 2021, we received 5 comments. The
Coast Guard has amended this rule based on these comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this amended rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with construction operations at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator
Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge conducted within the
federal navigation channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with bridge construction starting November
2, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within the federal
navigation channel at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas
``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge construction site. This rule
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge is being
constructed.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received 5 comments to the rule. Two commenters
expressed their support of the zone, including the temporary safety
zone's importance to protecting the marine environment. We concur, as
stated in Section III, the rule is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environmental in the navigable waters within
the safety zone.
    The remaining 3 comments were provided by the bridge contractor,
Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, who provided revised dates for
work requiring the continuous 24/7 enforcement of the zone for certain
periods. One comment stated that the contruction of protective fender
rings around Piers 43 and 44, on either side of the federal channel,
was scheduled to occur October 25, 2021, through October 29, 2021.
However, the contractor provided a subsequent comment, eight days later
that revised the dates for this activity to 7 a.m. on November 4, 2021,
through 8 p.m. on November 6, 2021, and 7 a.m. November 8, 2021,
through 8 p.m. November 10, 2021. In addition, the final comment
provided by the bridge contractor stated work required to set
structural steel across the federal channel, originally scheduled to
occur in November 2021, is now scheduled to occur 7 a.m. on December 6,
2021 through 8 p.m. on December 18, 2021.
    Based on the comments provided by the contractor, the Coast Guard
is

amending the regulatory text of this rule. The work described by the
contractor requires the movement in and anchoring at multiple points of
a large crane in the channel, as well as, nighttime diver work. This
operation will impede vessels requiring the use of the channel.
Although the setting of structural steel across the channel was not
discussed in our original rule (86 FR 52826), this activity coincides
with the original rule's effective dates and requires the same safety
zone. Due to the nature of the work and susceptibility to rescheduling
due to weather, equipment readiness, material availability or other
issues resulting in construction delays, the Coast Guard is amending
the regulatory text of the regulation to state that the exact dates and
times of enforcement will be announced to the public by Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners or other appropriate
means. All other aspects of the original rule remain unchanged other
than the correction of a scrivener's error in the title to paragraph
(g).
    This amended rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7 a.m.
on November 2, 2021, through 8 p.m. December 31, 2021. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters of the Potomac River, encompassed by a
line connecting the following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N,
076[deg]59'22.04'' W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N,
076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N,
076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to 38[deg]21'48.90'' N,
076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the beginning point, located
between Charles County, MD and King George County, VA. The temporary
safety zone is approximately 450 yards in width and 270 yards in
length.
    The bridge owner will post a sign facing the northern and southern
approaches of the navigation channel labeled ``BRIDGE WORK--DANGER--
STAY AWAY'' affixed to the sides of the on-scene marine equipment and
vessels operating within the area of the safety zone. Marine equipment
means any vessel, barge or other equipment operated by Skanska-Corman-
McLean, Joint Venture, or its subcontractors. This notice will consist
of a diamond shaped sign (minimum 4 feet by 4 feet) with a 3-inch
orange retro reflective border. The word ``DANGER'' will be 10 inch
black block letters centered on the sign with the words ``BRIDGE WORK''
and ``STAY AWAY'' in 6 inch black block letters placed above and below
the word ``DANGER,'' respectively, on a white background.
    While the safety zone is effective from 7 a.m. on November 2, 2021,
through 8 p.m. December 31, 2021, in most circumstances, the safety
zone will be enforced 7 a.m. until 8 p.m., daily, Monday through
Saturday. There will be periods of continuous 24/7 enforcement due to
the nature of certain construction activites. The public will be
advised of these periods through Notice to Mariners and other
appropriate means, at least 2-5 days in advance.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the tub sections are
being set at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac''
Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge at Piers 43 and 44, which are
adjacent on either side of the federal navigation channel. Except for
marine equipment and vessels operated by Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint
Venture, or its subcontractors, no vessel or person will be permitted
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the
COTP's representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine
Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement
of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    The COTP will notify the public that the safety zone will be
enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the
public, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a).

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. 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).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size and duration
of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone is approximately 450
yards in width and 270 yards in length. We anticipate that there will
be no vessels that are unable to conduct business. Excursion vessels
and commercial fishing vessels are not impacted by this rulemaking.
Excursion vessels do not operate in this area, and commercial fishing
vessels are not impacted because of their draft. Some towing vessels
may be impacted, but bridge project personnel have been conducting
outreach throughout the project in order to coordinate with those
vessels. Vessel traffic not required to use the navigation channel will
be able to safely transit around the safety zone. Such vessels may be
able to transit to the east of the federal navigation channel, as
similar vertical clearance and water depth exist under the next bridge
span to the east. This safety zone will impact a small designated area
of the Potomac River for 60 days, but coincides with the non-peak
season for recreational boating.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business,

organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or
email 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.

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 a
temporary safety zone lasting 60 total days that will prohibit entry
within a portion of the Potomac River. 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. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0745 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0745   Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles
County, MD and King George County, VA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Potomac River, encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N, 076[deg]59'22.04''
W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N, 076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence
west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N, 076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to
38[deg]21'48.90'' N, 076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the
beginning point, located between Charles County, MD and King George
County, VA. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    Marine equipment means any vessel, barge or other equipment
operated by Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, or its
subcontractors.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement. This safety zone will be enforced during the
period described in paragraph (f) of this section. A ``BRIDGE WORK--
DANGER--STAY AWAY'' sign facing the northern and southern approaches of
the navigation channel will be posted on the sides of the marine
equipment on-scene within the location described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (f) Enforcement period. (1) The section will be enforced from 7
a.m. on November 2, 2021, through 8 p.m. December 31, 2021.
    (2) The public will be advised of the status of the safety zone, to
include dates and times, by Broadcast Notice to

Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners or other appropriate means.

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-24271 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P