[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4436-4438]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01587]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500; FRL-9905-83-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a portion of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from the State of Louisiana to
address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements that prohibit air
emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state for the 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA proposes to determine that the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant
emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state as required by the
Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 27,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0500, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Mr. Carl Young at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-
0500. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Interstate Transport and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    In 2006, we established a revised 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (October
17, 2006, 71 FR 6114). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies
four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of
interstate transport of air pollutants with respect to a new or revised
NAAQS. In this action for the state of Louisiana, we are addressing the
first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The first element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
contain adequate measures to prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in
another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the transport SIP provision (in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
past

regulatory actions.\2\ The final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(Transport Rule) addressed the first two elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern United States with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208).
The Transport Rule was intended to replace the earlier Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded.\3\ See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008) modified on rehearing,
550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport
Rule. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012). The court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR in
the interim. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the United
States' petition for certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EME Homer City. The Supreme Court held oral arguments on
December 10, 2013. In the meantime, and unless the EME Homer City
decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court, EPA
intends to act in accordance with the D.C. Circuit opinion in EME Homer
City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Louisiana's Submittals

    On May 16, 2011, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittal stated that the State had
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on Louisiana
having EPA-approved CAIR SIPs requiring certain electric generating
units to participate in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide trading
programs (72 FR 39741; 72 FR 55064). On May 21, 2013, the State
submitted a letter to EPA serving as a technical supplement for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The letter stated that because the more
recent and improved air quality modeling evaluating interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS conducted by EPA for the
Transport Rule is now available and supports the conclusion that
emissions in Louisiana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other State, it was being submitted as the basis for the conclusions in
lieu of the previous technical information provided in the May 16, 2011
submission. The submittal and technical supplement document the State's
assessments that Louisiana emissions will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any other state for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals and technical
supplement are available electronically through the www.regulations.gov
Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500).

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. EPA's Approach for Evaluating Interstate Transport of Air Pollution

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA must determine whether a state's emissions contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in any
other state. If this factual finding is in the negative, then section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any changes to a state's SIP. EPA
is proposing to determine that the existing SIP for Louisiana is
adequate to satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
to address interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed conclusion is based on air
quality modeling originally conducted by EPA to quantify each
individual eastern state's (including Louisiana's) contributions to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas during the rulemaking
process for the Transport Rule.
    In the Transport Rule rulemaking, we used air quality modeling to:
(1) identify locations projected to be nonattainment or have
maintenance problems in 2012 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (nonattainment and maintenance receptors) and (2) quantify the
air quality contributions of emissions from upwind states on downwind
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at the receptors for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012.\4\ As detailed in the Air
Quality Modeling TSDs, we used a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS to
identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. With respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, our analysis for the Transport Rule found that
the 1 percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total
pollution transport affecting downwind states with nonattainment/
maintenance receptors.\5\ The air quality threshold used for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ (1 percent of 35.0
[mu]g/m\3\). If a state's air quality contribution to downwind
nonattainment/maintenance receptors in all other states did not exceed
the threshold, it was concluded that its emissions do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another
state for the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the Technical Support Documents for the Transport Rule
(proposal and final) found in the regulations.gov e-docket for this
action (EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0500).
    \5\ See section IV.F (Analysis of Contributions Captured by
Various Thresholds) of the Air Quality Modeling TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of the State's Submittals

    EPA's evaluation confirms Louisiana's analysis provided in the SIP
submittal for the State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the
technical supplement submitted on May 21, 2013. The air quality
modeling performed for the Transport Rule found that the impact from
Louisiana emissions on both downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors was less than the 1 percent threshold for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did not find emissions from
Louisiana linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Below is a summary of the air quality modeling results for
Louisiana from Table IV-9 of EPA's Air Quality Modeling TSD regarding
Louisiana's largest contribution to both downwind PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas.

             Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Largest downwind     Largest downwind
                                                       Air quality        contribution to      contribution to
                      NAAQS                         threshold ([mu]g/      nonattainment     maintenance ([mu]g/
                                                          m\3\)             ([mu]g/m\3\)            m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\).........                0.35                 0.11                 0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, we propose to approve the portion of the
May 16, 2011 Louisiana SIP submittal, and the technical supplement
submitted on May 21, 2013, determining that the existing SIP for
Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant
emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    We continue to believe it is appropriate to rely on the modeling
conducted during the rulemaking for the Transport Rule even though the
rule itself was vacated by the D.C. Circuit. EME Homer City Generation
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).\6\ Nothing in the EME Homer
City opinion suggests that the air quality modeling on which our
proposal relies is flawed or invalid for any reason. In addition,
nothing in that opinion undermines or calls into question our proposed
conclusion that, because emissions from Louisiana do not contribute
more than one percent of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to any
downwind area with nonattainment or maintenance problems, Louisiana
does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another state for this NAAQS. Further, EPA is not
proposing to rely on any requirements of the Transport Rule or emission
reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion that
Louisiana has met its 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted EPA's petition
for certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in
EME Homer City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Section 110(l) of the Act

    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. The SIP submittal from the State of
Louisiana contains no new regulatory provisions and does not affect any
requirement in Louisiana's applicable implementation plan. Therefore,
the submission does not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. EPA has concluded, based on
Louisiana's and EPA's technical analysis, that the existing Louisiana
SIP is sufficient to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve a portion of a SIP submittal for the
State of Louisiana submitted on May 16, 2011, and the technical
supplement submitted on May 21, 2013, to address interstate transport
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on our evaluation we propose
to approve the portion of the SIP submittal determining the existing
SIP for Louisiana contains adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action
is being taken under section 110 of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 15, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-01587 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Monsanto Company

[IN-10965]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10965) from Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC, 20005  requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.910 by amending the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for mono-, di-, and trimethylnapthalenesulfonic acids and napthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensates, ammonium and sodium salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 9008 - 63 - 3, 9069 - 80 - 1, 9084 - 06 - 4, 36290 - 04 - 7, 91078 - 68 - 1, 141959 - 43 - 5, 68425 - 94 - 5) to include the potassium salts (CAS Reg. No. 67828-14-2).

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry [NA-Remove]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Available toxicity data indicates that SAPNFC as a class has low acute oral and inhalation toxicity.  Representatives have an oral LD50 of 3250  -  4300 mg/kg in the rat (CAS Reg. No. 67828-14-2) and greater than 5,000 mg/kg in mice (CAS Reg. No. 91078-68-1), and low inhalation toxicity, with an acute inhalation LC50 of around 50 mg/L. No irritation to the skin was revealed in several rabbit studies and at worst was only slightly irritating to the rabbit eye (CAS Reg. No. 90884-06-4).  Alternate routes of exposure to rats provided an LD50 of460 mg/kg (IP) and 435 mg/kg (IV).  Subacute mouse LD50 is reported to be 1,275 mg/kg.

	2. Genotoxicty. CAS Reg. No. 9084-06-4 was not mutagenic in an Ames test listed in the IUCLID, indicating the absence of mutagenic potential. IARC, NTP nor OSHA has listed this representative SAPNFC as a carcinogen.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Naphthalenesulfonic acid, polymer with formaldehyde sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 9084-06-4) was tested in an OECD 422 Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test. No developmental or reproductive effects were observed at doses of 100, 300, and 1,000 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL for reproduction/developmental toxicity was considered to be 1000 mg/kg/day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Naphthalenesulfonic acid, polymer with formaldehyde sodium salt (CAS RN 9084-06-4) has been tested in an OECD 422 Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with a Reproduction /Developmental Toxicity Screening Test. The general toxicity NOAEL from the OECD 422 Study was 1000 mg/kg body weight/day. In this study male rats received doses of the test substance for 28 days and the females were treated for 14 days prior to pairing, through the pairing and gestation periods until the Fl generation reached day 4 post partum.

The overall toxicity NOAEL is 1000 mg/kg/day as the only effects observed at this dosage level were transient effects on food consumption and body weight at the beginning of treatment and were not considered adverse because they recovered immediately thereafter, and had no impact on the terminal mean body weight of both males and females treated at the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. There are no chronic data available on the SANFC surfactants; however, no structural alerts for cancer were identified in a qualitative structure activity relationship (SAR) database, DEREK Version 11. In addition, there was little concern about any of the postulated metabolites having greater toxicity than the parent compounds.

	6. Animal metabolism. The higher molecular weight (MW) polymeric SANFC surfactants (MW >1,000) are not expected to be readily absorbed or metabolized, and should thus be rapidly excreted (likely in the feces) unchanged. Additionally, lower molecular microsome cytochrome P-450 oxygenases may hydroxylate the naphthalene ring and/or methylene bridge to produce alternative metabolites that should also be readily conjugated and excreted.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. No metabolites having greater toxicity than the parent compounds are expected from SAPNFCs based on the proposed limited animal metabolic pathway.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Naphthalenesulfonate formaldehyde condensates do not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the estrogen receptor or endocrine system. CAS Reg. No. 9084-06-4 has been evaluated in repeat dose, developmental, and reproductive studies capable of detecting effects on endocrine mediated events. The results of these studies did not give any indication of a treatment-related effect on the estrogen receptor or endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. EPA assesses potential dietary exposures to inert ingredients used in agricultural pesticide formulations using a screening-level model referred to as "I-DEEM," in which the "I" stands for inerts and "DEEM" is the dietary exposure evaluation model that is used by EPA to assess dietary exposures to active ingredients in pesticide  products. EPA's Inert Ingredients Assessment Branch and residue chemists in the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs jointly developed I-DEEM.

Based on I-DEEM screening level calculations, the chronic dietary exposures are estimated to be 1.9% of the proposed cPAD for the general U.S. population and 6.2% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old. These data demonstrate that the I-DEEM screening-level chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposures are below the cPAD and are therefore below EPA's established level of concern for all U.S. subpopulations.

On the basis of the OECD 422 repeat dose toxicity study and comparison of I-DEEM exposures to the proposed cPAD, the Petitioner asserts that there is sufficient basis for EPA to grant a tolerance exemption supported by way of this petition.

	i. Food. No hazard was identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and drinking water). Available data demonstrate that the I-DEEM screening level chronic dietary exposures are well below 100% of the cPAD, and are, therefore, below EPA's established level of concern for all U.S. subpopulations.

	ii. Drinking water.  Drinking water was included in the I-DEEM exposure assessment.  However, exposure to ammonium, potassium and sodium alkyl-naphthalenesulfonate formaldehyde condensates via drinking water is expected to be negligible.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Ammonium, potassium and sodium naphthalene-sulfonate formaldehyde condensates surfactants are predominantly used in agricultural formulations. In addition to pesticide formulations, many of the SAPNFC surfactants included in this Petition are used in a wide variety of industrial applications as dispersants for pigments, latex and natural fibers, defoamers in food contact packaging, and emulsifiers in personal care products and cellophane for food packaging. Given the low estimate of dietary exposure, there is ample room in the overall aggregate MOE for non-dietary uses.

D. Cumulative Effects

	There is no evidence that SAPNFCs share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and SAPNFCs do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that SANFCs do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. A dietary exposure assessment using current EPA inert screening level methodology (I-DEEM) was conducted. Based on the conservative I-DEEM dietary exposure estimates, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population from the aggregate exposure to ammonium, potassium and sodium naphthalenesulfonate formaldehyde condensates.

	2. Infants and children. FFDCA Section 408 requires an additional tenfold margin of safety for the protection of infants and children in case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity, and an inadequate toxicity database. Where an adequate and reliable database is available and there is a lack of evidence for increased susceptibility, the FQPA safety factor may be reduced or removed. An evaluation of susceptibility and uncertainty issues associated with SAPNFC surfactants has been performed. Based on the points summarized below, it is proposed that the FQPA safety factor be reduced from the default 10X to 1X. Additionally, under these circumstances the chronic Population Adjusted Dose, cPAD, is the same as the Chronic Reference Dose cited above, cPAD =cRID =10 mg/kg/day.

 A scientifically sound mammalian toxicology database, which includes acute, repeat dose, reproductive, and developmental toxicity study data indicate no adverse effects to sensitive populations.  The surfactants in this cluster do not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected to having adverse effects on the estrogen receptor or endocrine system.  OECD 422 testing indicates no reproductive and no developmental effects in offspring at the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day.  There was no evidence of effects on the nervous system in the acute, repeat dose, or reproduction studies.   No evidence of mutagenicity in the Ames test

F. International Tolerances

	The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for the SAPNFCs nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

Greetings! I write to submit my request, addressing you as an individual consumer, to extend the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On my own behalf, I hereby request that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days.  That would increase the comment period from its current length of 75 days, to a total duration of 180 days.

I am a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule; therefore, the Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me personally. There are approximately 100 questions asked by the Proposed Rule that I might want to respond to. Since I desire to comment on these questions, I need more time to be able to fully prepare and provide my comments. I have spent some time studying the Proposed Rule already, and it makes me believe that the 75-day comment period is inadequate for me to fully prepare my my comments. It took the FDA a long time to come up with the Proposed Rule, and all I request is more time to provide comment on it. As a consumer, this is my only opportunity to provide our feedback. The longer comment period would be helpful, and in fact I feel it is necessary.

I have strong, positive opinions about, and feelings toward, e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I believe e-cigarettes have saved my life, because I was able to quite smoking by using them. I want to provide you and the FDA with comment that includes my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account.  That is why you should increase the comment period.  Under 21 CFR 10.40, the FDA has the authority to extend the comment period time frame (and the FDA has exercised that authority on numerous occasions in the past). Please extend the comment period in this instance as well, so all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide well-prepared comments on this proposed regulation.

Thank you very much for your time and attention, and for considering my request.  I would also be happy to discuss this issue with you further at any time.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 53142]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2437-003.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Supplement to December 22, 2015 Triennial Market Power
Update [SIL Study] of Arizona Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2437-007.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Arizona
Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 8/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160804-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2437-008.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Arizona Public Service
Company.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-958-005.
    Applicants: Transource Kansas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Transource Kansas Compliance Filing
to be effective 4/3/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1934-000.
    Applicants: Drift Marketplace, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to June 15, 2016 Drift Marketplace, Inc.
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2378-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service
Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Att. F of ISO-
NE OATT to Comply with Normalization Requirements to be effective 6/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2379-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Peach Solar Energy 3 (Project 2)
SGIA Termination Filing to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2380-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Duke Energy Renewables Solar SGIA
Termination Filing to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2381-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Infigen Energy US Development
(Georgia Solar III) LGIA Termination Filing to be effective 8/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2382-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Sierra Pacific-
Edison Sliver Peak 55kV Interconnection Agreement to be effective 8/6/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2383-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Under Order No
828 to be effective 10/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2384-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Revised Section 29
(control area requirement) to be effective 10/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2385-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Eight Letter Agreements ACES
Projects to be effective 8/8/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2386-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Schedule 21-CMP
of ISO-NE OATT to Comply with Normalization Req. to be effective 6/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 8/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160805-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19071 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 48175]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0015]
RIN 1660-AA79

Notice of Adjustment of Legitimate Amount in Dispute for the
Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance Appeals

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an increase of the legitimate amount in
dispute for the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance
Appeals for disasters declared on or after October 30, 2012.

DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Public Assistance
Division Director, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, Phone: (202) 646-
3834 or Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013,
Public Law 113-2, 127 Stat. 43 (Jan. 29, 2013), 42 U.S.C. 5189a note,
prescribes that the Administrator shall annually adjust the legitimate
amount in dispute under the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor. See 44 CFR 206.210(c)(1).
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the legitimate amount in
dispute under the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public
Assistance Appeals to $1,015,000 for all disasters declared on or after
October 30, 2012.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers provided by The Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The 2013 annual average
percent change from the previous year used in the adjustment is 1.5
percent.

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18645 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42034-42036]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0227]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around
each of five locations where the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) wind
turbine generator (WTG) foundations will be constructed in the
navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI. These safety zones are
intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with
construction of the BIWF WTG foundations. Vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these
safety zones while construction vessels and associated equipment are
present, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP),
Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 16, 2015
until September 30, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from Wednesday, July 1, 2015, to July 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0227. To view documents mentioned in the preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, please contact Ms. Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

BIWF Block Island Wind Farm
FR Federal Register
NTM Notice To Mariners
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 21, 2015, we published a NPRM entitled ``Safety Zone,
Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI'' in the Federal
Register (80 FR 22144). We received no comments on the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. This provision authorizes an
agency to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register when the agency for good cause finds that delaying
the effective period for 30 days or more is ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this
rule effective less than

30 days after publication in the Federal Register because construction
of the Block Island Wind Farm is scheduled to begin in early July, the
environmental window within which construction can be conducted is
short, and no comments opposing the safety zone were received in
response to the NPRM. Therefore, it is impracticable to make this rule
effective 30 days or more after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
establish safety zones.
    This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and
navigation, for both workers and the boating public, within the
vicinity of the BIWF in Rhode Island Sound, RI.

Background

    The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around each
of five locations where the BIWF WTG foundations will be constructed in
the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from July 1 to
September 30, 2015. Locations of these platforms are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Platform                 Latitude                Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTG 1.................  41[deg]7.544' N........  71[deg]30.454' W.
WTG 2.................  41[deg]7.196' N........  71[deg]30.837' W.
WTG 3.................  41[deg]6.886' N........  71[deg]31.268' W.
WTG 4.................  41[deg]6.612' N........  71[deg]31.747' W.
WTG 5.................  41[deg]6.383' N........  71[deg]32.259' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the
hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG foundations.
Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through,
mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction
vessels and associated equipment are present unless authorized by the
COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No comments were received and no changes were made to the language
contained in the NPRM.

C. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 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 adverse economic impact of this rule to be minimal.
Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public,
the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons:
Vessels will only be restricted from the safety zones during periods of
actual construction activity from July 1 to September 30, 2015; and the
BIWF is located approximately three miles offshore from Block Island
and the safety zones are only 500-yards in radius centered on the five
BIWF WTG foundation locations, allowing plenty of room for vessels to
pass without having to divert a long distance around the construction
areas.
    Notification of the BIWF construction activity and the effective
enforcement periods of the associated safety zones will be made to
mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, and local and
broadcast NTMs.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit, moor, or anchor within 500 yards of the five BIWF WTG
foundation construction locations.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone. A final categorical exclusion document and environmental
checklist are located in the docket for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-227 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-227  Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island
Sound, RI.

    (a) Location. Areas within a 500-yard radius of the following five
positions are safety zones:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Platform                 Latitude                Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTG 1.................  41[deg]7.544' N........  71[deg]30.454' W.
WTG 2.................  41[deg]7.196' N........  71[deg]30.837' W.
WTG 3.................  41[deg]6.886' N........  71[deg]31.268' W.
WTG 4.................  41[deg]6.612' N........  71[deg]31.747' W.
WTG 5.................  41[deg]6.383' N........  71[deg]32.259' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Enforcement period. From July 1 to September 30, 2015, vessels
will be prohibited from entering into any of these safety zones, when
enforced, during construction activity of five Block Island Wind Farm
(BIWF) wind turbine generators (WTG) located in the positions listed in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast
Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zones
established in conjunction with the construction of the Block Island
Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI. These regulations may be enforced
for the duration of construction.
    (2) Vessels may not enter into, transit through, moor, or anchor in
these safety zones during periods of enforcement unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's
designated representative. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at
a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger construction
vessels or associated equipment.
    (3) Failure to comply with a lawful direction from the Captain of
the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated
representative may result in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: June 10, 2015.
J.T. Kondratowicz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2015-17484 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P