                                 ATTACHMENT E                                             Survey to Test Awareness and Perceptions of EPA's Safer Choice Label:                         General Adult Population Survey                                                                                OMB Control No. 2070-0189                          Approval expires 02/28/17                                                  The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 0.33 hours per response. Responses will be private to the extent permitted by law. This is a voluntary collection; respondents do not have to respond if there is no OMB control number. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.                              Survey for EPA Safer Choice                Awareness and Perceptions of Safer Choice Label                          General Adult Population Survey

The survey below is designed to test awareness and perceptions of the primary Safer Choice label. In the event that EPA needs to test awareness and perceptions of the alternate fragrance-free label, the same survey will be used, with the addition of four questions.

 Are you familiar with a labeling program implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that enables consumers to select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for people, families, and pets?

 Yes  No [SKIP to Q3]

 What is the name of the labeling program? [Open-ended]

 For 15 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a voluntary labeling program that enables consumers to select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for families and pets. This labeling program, called "Safer Choice," evaluates human health and environmental concerns associated with traditional and alternative chemicals in a variety of products, including commonly used household cleaning products. Products that meet EPA's Safer Choice Standard for Safer Products are allowed to carry the Safer Choice label. When you see the Safer Choice label on a product it means the Safer Choice scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and has determined the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern.

   Now that you have heard more about the labeling program, do you recall hearing or seeing anything about this labeling program?

 Yes  No

 Have you seen this label on any products you have purchased?  (show image of label)

 Yes  No

 Based on what you now know about the labeling program, how likely are you to use the Safer Choice label to help you select a product to purchase?

 Extremely likely  Very likely  Somewhat likely  Slightly likely  Not at all likely

Please answer the following questions about the program name and visual design of the Safer Choice label (show image of label).

  On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree", and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I would notice this label if I saw it on a product or packaging

2 The label is attractive and appealing

3 The visual design is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

4 The visual design is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

5 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

6 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

7 The tagline "Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards" is credible

8 This label is a useful resource for shoppers

9 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

 Have you seen products with this label in stores where you shop for household goods?      YES  NO  I don't know         Have you purchased a product with this label in the past six months?

 YES  NO  I don't know

 What would most motivate you to purchase products with this label? [PLEASE SELECT ONE RESPONSE ONLY]

 If it was cost competitive  If it was easy to locate on store shelves  If there was scientific information readily available to support claims  If I had a coupon to encourage me to buy the product  If it was proven to be safer for children and animals  I would not purchase products with  this label

OPTIONAL QUESTIONS ON LOGO VARIATION (could be fragrance free version, industrial version, or pesticides version).

In addition to the general design, there is a variation of the Safer Choice logo. Please answer the following questions as they relate to this variation.

LOGO VARIATION                                      Logo                                      Logo

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree", and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                               Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2                       Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I prefer to buy [fragrance free] products for my [family or workplace]

2 I buy [fragrance free] products on a regular basis (at least once a month)

3 The label is effective in showing that the product is [fragrance free]

4 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

OPTIONAL FRAGRANCE FREE DESIGN QUESTIONS

In addition to the general design, there is a "fragrance free" label for products. Please answer the following questions as they relate to the fragrance free design.   FRAGRANCE FREE DESIGN

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree", and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I prefer to buy fragrance free products for my family

2 I buy fragrance free products on a regular basis (at least once a month)

3 The label is effective in showing that the product is fragrance free

4 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17570-17571]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-495-000]

Double E Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Double E Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Double E Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Double E Pipeline, LLC
(Double E) in the above-referenced docket. Double E filed an
application in Docket No. CP19-495-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities. Double E requests authorization to construct and operate
approximately 135 combined miles of varying diameter trunk-lines and
lateral pipeline connecting the Delaware Basin production areas in New
Mexico and Texas to the Waha Hub. The proposed trunkline and lateral
pipelines run through Eddy County, New Mexico and Loving, Ward, Reeves,
and Pecos Counties, Texas.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Double E Pipeline Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA.
Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with
respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis. The BLM will adopt and use the EA to
issue a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permits for the portion of
the Project on federal lands.
    The proposed Double E Pipeline Project includes the following
facilities:
     Approximately 33.3 miles of new 30-inch-diameter T100
pipeline from Summit Midstream Partners, LP's existing Lane Processing
Plant located in Eddy County, New Mexico, to the proposed Poker Lake
Meter Station site, also in Eddy County;

     84.2 miles of new 42-inch-diameter T200 pipeline from the
proposed Poker Lake Meter Station in Eddy County, New Mexico through
Loving, Ward, and Reeves Counties, Texas and terminating at the
proposed Waha Receiver and Separation site in Reeves County, Texas;
     1.4 miles of new 42-inch-diameter T300 pipeline from the
proposed Double E Waha Receiver and Separation site in Reeves County,
Texas to the final delivery locations in Pecos County, Texas; and
     16.4 miles of new 30-inch-diameter L100 pipeline from the
existing Loving Processing Plants to the proposed T100 pipeline in Eddy
County, New Mexico.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the
eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the Docket Number field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP19-495). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 23, 2020.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
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 on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature 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 must select the type of filing you are making. If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``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 project docket number
(CP19-495-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission may grant
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
    Additional information about the project 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. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: March 24, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06560 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36950-36951]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0222; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The proposed AD would have required
revising the maintenance program to incorporate a limitation that
reduced time between overhauls, and required an initial overhaul, of
the direct current (DC) generator (bearings). Since the proposed AD was
issued, we have received new data that confirm the identified unsafe
condition is not sufficient to warrant issuance of an AD. Accordingly,
the proposed AD is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD action, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address
for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 13924).
That

NPRM would have required revising the maintenance program to
incorporate a limitation that reduced time between overhauls, and
required an initial overhaul, of the DC generator (bearings). That NPRM
resulted from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI described
the unsafe condition as:

    Time between overhaul (TBO) of DC [direct current] generator
bearings is set at 1,000 flight hours (FH) in the airworthiness
limitations section of the Falcon 7X Aircraft Maintenance Manual
Chapter 5.40.
    In service report has shown that the bearing current design
cannot sustain the current TBO. * * *
* * * * *
    Failure to comply with those revised maintenance tasks could
constitute an unsafe condition.

The proposed actions were intended to prevent failure of the DC
generator bearings, which could lead to loss of the generator and
potential loss of electrical power to the fly-by-wire system and
subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

Actions Since NPRM (76 FR 13924, March 15, 2011) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 13924, March 15, 2011), the
airplane manufacturer provided further information on the redundancy of
the electrical system that supplies power to the fly-by-wire system.
There are three DC generators that can supply electrical power to the
fly-by-wire system. Electrical power can also be supplied by two
independent permanent magnet alternator converters that are dedicated
to that system. Failure of all three DC generators to supply electrical
power automatically triggers a command to deploy the ram air turbine,
which will supply the airplane systems (including fly-by-wire) with
sufficient electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that, based on the
airplane design, and the multiple electrical power generation sources,
the potential loss of one DC generator due to an un-reduced maintenance
interval would not result in loss of electrical power to the airplane.
Therefore, the potential loss of one DC generator does not constitute
an unsafe condition. Accordingly, the NPRM (76 FR 13924, March 15,
2011) is withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (76 FR 13924, March 15, 2011) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (76 FR 13924, March 15,
2011), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2011-0222,
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-056-AD, which was published in the
Federal Register on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 13924).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 12, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15097 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 223)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65275-65278]
[DOCID:fr20no07-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0064]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: City of West Haven Fireworks, Bradley Point, West
Haven, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the permanent safety zone
for the City of West Haven Fireworks by establishing the zone around a
fireworks launch site at the approximate position 41[deg]15'7'' N,
72[deg]57'26'' W. This change to the zone would allow the zone to be
established around the launch site, whether it is on a barge or on
shore. Establishment of this safety zone is necessary to protect
recreational vessel traffic, spectators, and those operating the
fireworks display.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before January 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0064 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Douglas Miller, Chief, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any

personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0064), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, please submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at

any time, click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket number
for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0064) in the Docket ID box, and click
enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound at the address
under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The City of West Haven, Connecticut, holds an annual fireworks
display off of Bradley Point in New Haven harbor. To protect the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display,
a permanent safety zone was established and the regulation is currently
is found at 33 CFR 165.151(a)(5). The regulation states that all the
waters of New Haven Harbor within a 1200-foot radius of the fireworks
barge, at the approximate position 41[deg]15'7'' N, 72[deg]57'26'' W,
be included in the regulated area. The event organizers have determined
that at times the fireworks may need to be launched from a site on land
rather than only from a barge. The new regulation would include all the
waters of New Haven Harbor within a 1200-foot radius of the fireworks
launch site, at the approximate position 41[deg]15'7'' N,
72[deg]57'26'' W. This change to the permanent safety zone would cover
those instances when the fireworks are launched from land or a barge as
opposed to only being launched from a barge.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulation at 33 CFR
165.151(a)(5) to replace the word ``barge'' with the word ``site''.
This change would allow the safety zone to be established upon the
navigable waters in a 1200-foot radius of the fireworks launch site,
whether it is from a barge or from land. The establishment of this
safety zone around either launch site is necessary to protect the
maritime public, spectators and fireworks technicians from the hazards
associated with the fireworks display by keeping all vessels and
persons outside of the safety zone unless they have authorization from
the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact
will be minimized for the following reasons: The zone would only be
enforced for a temporary period on the day of the event and vessels may
transit in all areas around the zone at all times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators
of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of Bradley
Point on the day of the event.
    For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section
above,

this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Douglas Miller,
Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Long Island
Sound at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191 and 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  165.151 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.151  Safety Zones; Long Island Sound annual fireworks
displays.

    (a) * * *
    (5) City of West Haven Fireworks Safety Zone. All waters of New
Haven Harbor on Long Island Sound off Bradley Point within a 1200-foot
radius of the fireworks launch site in

approximate position 41[deg]15'7'' N, 72[deg]57'26'' W.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 25, 2007.
D.A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast GuardCaptain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
 [FR Doc. E7-22613 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 15734-15735]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-79]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0177; FRL-7766-9]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment or
Amendment to Regulations for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on
Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0177 and pesticide petition numbers (PPs)
4E6878 and 5E6987, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0177. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Docket Facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0177. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going at regulations.gov, your e-
mail address will be captured automatically and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one

complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that these pesticide petitions
contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of these pesticide petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

    PPs 4E6878 and 5E6987. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-
4), 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390,
proposes to establish tolerances for residues of the herbicide
glyphosate [(N-phosphonomethyl) glycine] sunflower and safflower at
25.0 parts per million (ppm) (PP 4E6878); vegetable, legume, group 6,
except soybean at 8.0 ppm (PP 5E6987); and mulberry, Indian at 0.2 ppm
(PP 5E6987). IR-4 further proposes to delete the present entire entries
for sunflower, seed at 0.1 ppm; safflower, seed at 0.1 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean at 6.0, as these tolerances
are no longer needed.
    Adequate enforcement methods are available for analysis of residues
of glyphosate in or on plant and livestock commodities. These methods
include GLC (Method I in Pesticides Analytical Manual (PAM) II; the
limit of detection is 0.05 ppm) and HPLC with fluorometric detection.
Use of the GLC method is discouraged due to the lengthiness of the
experimental procedure. The HPLC procedure has undergone successful
Agency validation and was recommended for inclusion in PAM II. A GC/MS
method for glyphosate in crops has also been validated by EPA's
Analytical Chemistry Laboratory (ACL). Thus, adequate analytical
methods are available for residue data collection and enforcement of
the proposed tolerance changes for glyphosate.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: March 20, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-4502 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S