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

EPA Registration Division contact: [Michael Goodis  -<PHONE_NUMBER>]

Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (d/b/a ADAMA)

[6F8538]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([6F8538]) from Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc (d/b/a ADAMA), 3120 Highwoods Blvd, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604 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

	By establishing a tolerance for residues of the nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities: fruit, pome, crop at 0.3 ppm, fruit, stone, group at 0.06 ppm, small fruit vine climbing subgroup at 0.5 ppm, grape, raisin at 0.8 ppm, nut, tree, group at 0.02 ppm, almond, hulls at 3.0 ppm, sugarcane at 0.03 ppm, sugarcane, and molasses at 0.2 ppm, AND

      By establishing inadvertent tolerance for residues of the nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities (10-month plant-back interval):  grain, cereal, group at 0.03 ppm, and forage, fodder and straw of cereal grains, group at 2 ppm AND

      By establishing inadvertent tolerance for residues of the nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities (90-day plant-back interval):  wheat, grain at 0.06 ppm, barley, grain at 0.06 ppm, buckwheat, grain at 0.06 ppm, oat, grain at 0.06 ppm, teosinte, grain at 0.06 ppm, wheat, bran at 0.10 ppm, barley, bran at 0.10 ppm, wheat, middlings at 0.07 ppm, wheat, shorts at 0.08 ppm, wheat, germ at 0.07 ppm, wheat, straw at 4 ppm, barley, straw at 4 ppm, oat, straw at 4 ppm, wheat, forage at 4 ppm, oat, forage at 4 ppm, wheat, hay at 8 ppm, barley hay at 8 ppm, and oat, hay at 8 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only its metabolite 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid.  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

      1. Plant metabolism.  Fluensulfone is supported by a complete plant metabolism data package based on the proposed uses on Crop Group 11 (Pome Fruit Group), Crop Group 12 (Stone Fruit Group), Crop Subgroup 13-07D (Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup), Crop Group 14 (Tree Nuts), Sugarcane, and Inadvertent Tolerances for Rotated Cereal Grains.  In all plant matrices, whether from a primary or rotational crop, a clear pattern was observed with TSA (M-3625) and BSA (M-3627) forming the majority of the residues following the cleavage of fluensulfone.  Neither compound has acute oral toxicity greater than parent fluensulfone or shows any genotoxic potential in a range of mutagenicity studies.  The residues definition for tolerances is BSA expressed as BSA, while the residues definition for risk assessment is fluensulfone.

	2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methods for determining fluensulfone in/on appropriate raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities have been developed and validated, including LC-MS/MS methods.  The analytical procedures have been successfully validated in terms of specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy and LOQ.

      The MRM study demonstrates that the FDA multiresidue methods (MRMs) are not suitable for detection and enforcement of fluensulfone residues as sulfonic acid metabolites in non-fatty matrices.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Fluensulfone is proposed for use on a variety of crop groupings. To support these uses an extensive residues package has been generated at field trial sites in the USA.  Fluensulfone and M-3627 (BSA) were sought in all samples. The LOQ is 0.01 mg/kg.

Adequate data are available to propose tolerances (MRLs) and there is no unacceptable risk to consumers from the consumption of crops treated with formulations containing fluensulfone.

B. Toxicological Profile

      1. Acute toxicity.  The acute oral LD50 is 671 mg/kg bw in rats.  The acute dermal LD50 of fluensulfone is >2000 mg/kg bw.  The acute inhalation LD50 in rats is >5.1 mg/L.  Fluensulfone displayed no eye irritation in rabbits.  Fluensulfone is not irritating to the skin and is a skin sensitizer.

      2. Genotoxicity. A complete data package of in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies is available for fluensulfone.  A full summary of the genotoxicity database is provided in the OECD Dossier.  On the basis of the robust in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity data, it is concluded that fluensulfone does not possess any genotoxic potential.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The reproductive toxicity of fluensulfone was evaluated in a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. Developmental toxicity was assessed in rats and rabbits.

      Reproductive toxicity.  A 2-generation reproduction study in rats was conducted at dose levels of 0, 30, 250 and 1800 ppm (2.0, 16.2, and 122.0 mg/kg/day in males and 2.8, 23.0 and 169.1 mg/kg/day in females).  Treatment with fluensulfone up to and including 1800 ppm, the highest tested dose level, showed no effects on reproductive function, including gonadal function, mating behavior, fertility, viability of offspring, breeding, conception, gestation and parturition.               Parental systemic toxicity was evident however, with effects on body weight development throughout the study observed at 1800 ppm (the LOAEL); hence the NOAEL was set at 250 ppm (equivalent to approximately 16.2 mg/kg/day in males and 23.0 mg/kg /day in females). A NOAEL for general toxicity in F1 and F2 pups was established at 250 ppm, based on reduced pup weight noted at 1800 ppm.              Developmental toxicity.  Fluensulfone was not teratogenic or fetotoxic either in rats or rabbits.               A pre-natal developmental study in rats included dose groups of 0, 7.7, 48.6, and 292.0 mg/kg/day.  Maternal toxicity, manifested as decreased body weight gain and food consumption in rats, resulted in a lower body weight of female pups; the maternal and developmental NOAEL was set at 48.6 mg/kg/day.              A pre-natal developmental study in rabbits included dose groups of 0, 2.5, 10 and 40 mg/kg/day.  Similarly, as with the study in rats, treatment of rabbits at 40 mg/kg/day resulted in slight maternal toxicity consisting of reduction in food consumption at the onset of the treatment and between days 18 and 24, and reduced mean body weight gain at the beginning of the treatment only. As the lower fetal weights recorded at this dose level were within the range of the historical control data, the NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was considered to be 40 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

      4. Subchronic toxicity. Repeated dose, oral (dietary) toxicity studies with fluensulfone are available for rats, mice and dogs.  The studies conducted include 28-day and 90-day studies in the rat, mouse, and dog.  In addition, a 1-year oral toxicity study in dogs and a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats were performed.

The rat 28-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 125, 500, and 2000 ppm (0, 10.4, 42.5, and 152 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 12.2, 37.2, and 165.9 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 125 ppm (10.4 and 12.2 mg/kg day in males and females respectively), based on results at the LOAEL of functional effects in the liver and kidney effects, which were considered adverse as a precaution but likely of no toxicological relevance.

The mouse 28-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 100, 500, and 2000 ppm (0, 30.33, 101.31, and 374.5 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 41.32, 155.12, and 353.0 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 100 ppm (30.33 and 41.32 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively), based on results at the LOAEL of decreased food consumption and liver toxicity (increased relative weight, histopathological findings).

The dog 28-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 50, 200, and 900 ppm (1.9, 7.3, and 30.9 mg/kg/day in males and 2.0, 7.9, and 29.7 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 200 ppm (7.3 and 7.9 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively), based on results at the LOAEL of slight changes in food consumption, body weight and organ weight (liver and thyroid) and on hepatic tissue enzyme activities.

The rat subchronic 90-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 60, 120, 500 and 2000 ppm (4.31, 8.26, 34.86, and 139.01 mg/kg/day in males and 4.85, 11.68, 53.10 and 148.73 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 120 ppm (8.3 and 11.7 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively), based on results at the LOAEL of decreased body weight/body weight gain in males, increased water consumption in males and increased triglycerides in females.

The mouse subchronic 90-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 60, 300, and 1500 ppm (11.06, 50.85, and 228.53 mg/kg/day in males and 18.33, 68.47 and 252.49 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 60 ppm (11.06 and 18.33 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), based on results at the LOAEL of decreased food consumption in females and marginal effects in liver and hematological findings in males.

The dog subchronic 90-day study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 5, 50, and 500 ppm (0.2, 1.6 and 17.1 mg/kg/day in males and 0.2, 1.8 and 18.0 mg/kg/day in females).  The NOAEL was 500 ppm (17.1 and 18.0 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), based on only slight and reversible liver effects at the top dose tested.

The rat 28-day dermal study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 80, 400, and 2000 mg/kg/day in males and females.  Only a minimal increase in the incidence of acanthosis/hyperkeratosis was observed at the limit dose of 2000 mg/kg/day.  However, because of the moderate degree recorded in comparison to the vehicle control, the finding was considered adaptive and likely to be reversible after cessation of treatment and on this basis not adverse. The NOAEL was 2000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested, based on no systemic or adverse dermal effects at the highest dose level tested.

In all species the liver appears to be the main target organ, although often the observed effects were limited to adaptive changes (e.g. hepatocyte hypertrophy concomitant to increased weight, induction of mainly phase II activities). Investigations on liver enzyme activities in all species revealed that fluensulfone administration does not result in significant induction of (activating) phase I cytochrome P450 subfamilies, but that the (conjugating) phase II enzymes were induced. Frank hepatotoxicity was observed only at very high doses, and only in mice.

The NOAEL for oral subchronic toxicity is 8.3 mg/kg bw/day based on decreased body weights in males (and supported by increased triglycerides in females at the same dietary dose) in the 90 day rat study. The NOAEL for dermal subchronic toxicity is 2000 mg/kg bw/day, based on absence of adverse effects at the highest test dose in the rat 28-day dermal toxicity study.

      5. Chronic toxicity. The long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity potential of fluensulfone was evaluated in dogs (one year study), rats (combined study for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity), and mice (carcinogenicity).         In a 1-year oral toxicity study in dogs, fluensulfone was administered in the diet at 0, 5, 50 100 and 500 ppm (0.1, 1.5, 3.1, and 19 mg/kg/day in males and 0.1, 1.5, 3.3, and 16.2 mg/kg/day in females) to purebred Beagle dogs for a period of 52 weeks with selected animals retained for an 8-week recovery period.  The NOAEL was considered to be 100 ppm (3.1 mg/kg bw/day in males and 3.3 mg/kg bw/day in females), based on decreased body weight and body weight gains, decreased hemoglobin, MCH, MCHC and increased kidney weights at 500 ppm (16.0 and 16.2 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively) in the diet. A combined chronic dietary toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats was conducted with 0, 30, 200, and 1200 ppm dose groups (1.6, 11 and 66.3 mg/kg/day after 52 weeks and 1.4, 9.6 and 57.7 mg/kg/day after 104 weeks in males; 1.9, 13.1 and 75.2 mg/kg/day after 52 weeks and 1.7, 11.6 and 69.3 mg/kg/day after 104 weeks in females). Fluensulfone showed no carcinogenic potential in this study, and the NOAEL for lifespan treatment (2-years) was set at 30 ppm (1.4 mg/kg/day in males and 1.7 mg/kg/day in females) on the basis of chronic interstitial inflammation in the lungs of females, decreased body weight and body weight gain in males, and decreased hemoglobin concentration and hemoglobin concentration distribution width in females receiving 200 ppm.        A 78-week dietary carcinogenicity study in mice was conducted with 0, 30, 200, and 1200 ppm dose groups (4.2, 27.6 and 152.3 mg/kg/day in males and 6.4, 39.0, and 188.4 in females).  The overall NOEL in mice following lifespan treatment was set at 30 ppm (4.2 and 6.4 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively). In mice, treatment with fluensulfone for 78 weeks resulted in an increased incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas in females receiving 200 and 1200 ppm. Mechanistic studies were carried out to determine the relevance for humans of this finding. Tumors were found to be a species-specific effect in mice due to activation of fluensulfone by mouse lung Clara cells, leading to local cytotoxicity, cell proliferation and finally formation of benign tumors.  Rats have lower metabolic activity in the lungs compared to mice (below the threshold needed to cause lung tumors upon lifetime exposure) and activity in humans is orders of magnitude lower than rats.  Fluensulfone was found to be extensively metabolized by mouse lung microsomes, whereas no metabolic activity was seen in human lung microsomes.    In accordance with the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) mode of action and human relevance framework, it is concluded that fluensulfone leads to species-specific tumors via a non-genotoxic threshold mode of action in the mouse lung, and that these tumors are not relevant to human hazard or risk.

The NOAEL for lifespan treatment was set at 1.4 mg/kg/day on the basis of decreased body weight and body weight gain in males (supported by chronic interstitial inflammation in the lungs and decreased hemoglobin concentration and hemoglobin concentration distribution width in females).

      6. Neurotoxicity. Acute and subchronic specific neurotoxicity studies (i.e. inclusive of neuropathology) were carried out, and functional observation batteries (FOBs) and motor activity assessments were included in the repeated dose/chronic studies with fluensulfone.  The FOBs and motor activity assessments conducted within the repeated dose/chronic toxicity studies revealed no effects.        In an acute oral neurotoxicity study in rats, groups of 10 male and 10 female Wistar rats were administered single oral doses of 0 (control), 100, 400 and 1200 mg/kg bw of fluensulfone by oral gavage and observed for 14 days.  No test item-related effects on absolute and relative brain weights were evident, and there were no findings in the nervous system during macroscopic and microscopic pathology examinations.  The LOAEL for general toxicity is 100 mg/kg bw in males and females, based on the general systemic toxicity due to the bolus dose.  The NOAEL for neurotoxicity is 100 mg/kg bw in males and females, based on reduced activity in the functional observation battery and decreased motor activity at 400 mg/kg in absence of any neuropathological finding at any dose level.        In a subchronic dietary neurotoxicity study, groups of 12 male and 12 female RccHan:WIST (SPF) rats received fluensulfone in their diet at concentrations of 0 (control), 100, 500 and 2500 ppm (0, 6, 31, and 153 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 7, 34, and 162 mg/kg/day in females) for at least 90 days.  Treatment-related effects were confined to lower food consumption, body weight and body weight gain in males and females at 2500 ppm. These treatment-related effects were attributed to systemic toxicity, and not to neurotoxicity.  No effects on functional parameters or neurohistopathology were observed. Therefore, the high dose level of 2500 ppm was the `no-observed-effect level' (NOEL) for neurotoxicity associated with dietary exposure, equivalent to 153 mg/kg bw/day in males and 162 mg/kg bw/ day in females.  The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm equivalent to 31 mg/kg bw/day for males and 34 mg/kg bw/day for females.         As developmental studies did not indicate that the offspring are more sensitive than the adult, and neuropathological effects were not observed in any of the performed neurotoxicity studies, a developmental neurotoxicity study was considered not necessary.

      7. Immunotoxicity.  Although immunotoxicity endpoints were already included in the 28-day dietary study in rats and mice, fluensulfone was tested also in mice in the 28-day sheep red blood cell assay, to evaluate its immunotoxicity potential. In addition, the entire available data set was examined to check immunotoxicity-related endpoints.  It is concluded that fluensulfone is not an immunotoxic substance.              8. Animal metabolism. Fluensulfone (labeled at the thiazole and the butene-moieties of the molecule) administered orally to rats at nominal single doses of either 5 mg/kg or 500 mg/kg is rapidly metabolized. The recovery of radioactivity was essentially complete for all groups of rats. The disposition and excretion of radiolabel for males and females were generally similar. There was no indication that the metabolic elimination processes were saturated by the 100-fold increase in dose level, as levels of radiolabel in urine, cage wash, feces, carcass, and gastro-intestinal (GI tract) were similar.

Urine was the major route of excretion and the only source of metabolites at >=5% of the applied radiolabel.  The cage wash contained relatively high levels of radiolabeled metabolites and analysis showed that those metabolites in cage wash and urine were similar.  Low amounts of thiazole sulfonic acid were found in feces, but no other fecal metabolites were >=5% of the applied dose.  Fluensulfone is not a significant residue in either urine or feces.

In addition to investigating metabolism after a single dose, the tissue distribution was studied when the dosing of radioactivity was preceded by 14 days administration of unlabelled material.  The results indicate that distribution is comparable in both cases.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The acute oral LD50 of fluensulfone metabolite M-3625 was greater than 2000 mg/kg(less than that of the parent fluensulfone).

Metabolite M-3625 was tested for its genotoxic potential in a bacterial reverse gene mutation assay, an in vitro chromosome aberration assay in mammalian cells, and an in vivo micronucleus assay in the bone marrow of rat. No genotoxic properties were identified.

      The acute oral LD50 of fluensulfone metabolite M-3627 (BSA) was greater than 2000 mg/kg bw (less than that of the parent fluensulfone).

Metabolite M-3627 was tested for its genotoxic potential in a bacterial reverse gene mutation assay, an in vitro chromosome aberration assay in mammalian cells, and an in vivo micronucleus assay in the bone marrow of rat. No genotoxic properties were identified.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Evidence from the large available toxicological data set demonstrates that fluensulfone does not exert any adverse effects on thyroid gland, reproductive system and related endocrine organs and adrenal glands.  Therefore, it is concluded that fluensulfone does not possess any endocrine disrupting potential.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary (food + water) exposures to fluensulfone have been estimated for the proposed new uses as well as existing uses. The recent drinking water modeling conducted by EPA (2016, DP Barcode D432134) is still relevant and results were incorporated into the assessment. It been determined that MMPE does not need to be included in the dietary exposure and risk assessment.  A Tier 1 acute dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated and default processing factors. Exposure was assessed using the acute and chronic toxicological endpoints determined by EPA (2016. DP Barcode D432134), which are an aPAD of 0.16 mg/kg bw/day derived from a NOAEL of 16.2 mg/kg bw/day from a 2-generation reproduction rat study and a cPAD of 0.10 mg/kg bw/day derived from a NOAEL of 9.6 mg/kg bw/day from a 2-year toxicity/carcinogenicity rat study.  EPA has determined that the level of concern for fluensulfone for acute and chronic exposures is 100 (EPA, 2016, DP Barcode D432134).

      Acute Dietary Exposure.  Acute dietary (food + water) exposures to fluensulfone, were calculated using DEEM- FCID version 4.02. The reported exposures correspond to the 95th percentile of the exposure distributions, as is appropriate for a Tier 1 acute dietary exposure assessment. The 95th percentile acute dietary (food + water) exposures are well below the aPAD (0.16 mg/kg/d). For all infants, the most highly exposed subpopulation, 95th percentile acute dietary exposures correspond to 9.90% of the aPAD. For the general U.S. Population, 95th percentile acute dietary exposures correspond to 3.04% of the aPAD. Acute dietary exposures below 100% of the aPAD are reasonably anticipated to result in no harm to exposed populations.              Chronic Dietary Exposure.  Chronic dietary exposures to fluensulfone were calculated using DEEM-FCID version 4.02.  The chronic dietary exposures are less than the cPAD (0.10 mg/kg/d). For infants, the most highly exposed subpopulation, chronic dietary exposures correspond to 5.1% of the cPAD.  For the general U.S. Population, chronic dietary exposures correspond to 1.4% of the cPAD. Chronic dietary exposures below 100% of the cPAD are reasonably anticipated to result in no harm to exposed populations.        	i. Food. Exposure to fluensulfone through food is included in the dietary assessment section above.

	ii. Drinking water. Exposure to fluensulfone through water is included in the dietary assessment section above.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. No new residential uses are being proposed.  The aggregate exposure incorporating the estimated dietary exposures from the currently registered and proposed crop uses and EPA's existing total residential exposures for the turf use do not result in unacceptable exposure or risk.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Fluensulfone is a member of a new chemical class of nematicides with a specific toxicological profile. It does not share a known toxicological mode of action with other pesticides. Thus, no cumulative effects are foreseen.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to fluensulfone from all proposed crop uses will be 3.04% of the aPAD and 1.4% of the cPAD for the overall US population.

2. Infants and children. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that the total acute food and drinking water exposure to fluensulfone from all proposed crop uses will be 9.90% (all infants), 4.92% (children 1-2 yrs), 4.12% (children 3-5 yrs), and 2.84% (6-12 yrs) of the aPAD. It can be concluded that the total chronic food and drinking water exposure to fluensulfone from all proposed crop uses will be 5.1% (all infants), 2.4% (children 1-2 yrs), 1.9% (children 3-5 yrs), and 1.3% (children 6-12 yrs) of the cPAD.

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for the proposed uses.


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38242-38244]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60380; File No. SR-OCC-2009-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Clearing Cash-Settled Foreign Currency Index Options

July 23, 2009.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 12, 2009, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by
OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \3\ thereunder so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would clarify that index options cleared
by OCC may include options on foreign currency indexes, including
options on the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Leveraged
USD Basket Index.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    ISE has proposed for trading cash-settled foreign currency index
options (``Currency Index Options'') on the ISE USD Leveraged Basket
Index (``ISE FX Index''). In its rule filing, ISE states that the ISE
FX Index, which is a foreign currency index, tracks two times the
performance, relative to the U.S. Dollar, of a basket of the official
currencies associated with the other ``Group of 10'' countries (``G-
10'').\5\ The ISE FX Index was created by ISE and will be maintained
and calculated by an index calculation agent based on a methodology
developed by ISE. The ISE FX Index is intended as a benchmark for
investors interested in the performance of the US Dollar versus the
currencies of other G-10 countries. OCC may clear options on other
foreign currency indexes in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although there are eleven countries in the G-10, because
several of these countries are members of the European Union and use
the Euro as their currency. As a result, there are only seven
currencies associated with the G-10: US Dollar, Euro, Japanese Yen,
British Pound, Canadian Dollar, Swiss Franc and Swedish Krona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currency Index Options are similar to other index options cleared
by OCC. Therefore, OCC believes that the provisions of its By-Laws and
Rules governing index options, as they are currently in effect, are
sufficient to support the clearance and settlement of Currency Index
Options. The purpose of this rule change is to make a purely technical
amendment to the definition of ``index component'' in Article XVII of
the By-Laws to make it more transparent that index options cleared by
OCC may include options on foreign currency indexes.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the purposes and
requirements of Section 17A of the Act because it is designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
transactions in, including exercises of, foreign currency index
options, and to foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in the clearance and settlement of such transactions, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such transactions, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change accomplishes this purpose by applying the same rules and
procedures to these transactions as OCC applies to transactions in
other index options. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with
the existing rules of OCC, including any rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \7\ promulgated
thereunder because the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. However, OCC will
not begin to clear and settle foreign currency index options until
distribution of a supplement to the options disclosure document,
Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, addressing such
options. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2009-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2009-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2009-12 and should be
submitted on or before August 21, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18273 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 63919]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 13305-002]

Whitestone Power and Communications; Notice of Technical
Teleconference To Discuss Information and Monitoring Needs for a
License Application for a Pilot Project

    a. Type of Application: Draft License Application for Pilot
Project.
    b. Project No.: 13305-002.
    c. Applicant: Whitestone Power and Communications (Whitestone).
    d. Name of Project: Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream
Energy Conversion Power Project (also known as the Whitestone Poncelet
RISEC Project).
    e. Location: On the Tanana River near Delta Junction, Alaska.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    g. Applicant Contact: Steven M. Selvaggio, Whitestone Power and
Communications, P.O. Box 1630, Delta Junction, Alaska 99737; (907) 895-
4938.
    h. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Project Description: The proposed Microturbine Hydrokinetic
River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Power Project would consist of: (1) A
12-foot-wide, 16-foot-diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel; (2) a
34-foot-long, 19- to 24-foot-wide aluminum-frame floatation platform
mounted on a 34-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter high-density- polyethylene
(HDPE) pontoon and a 34-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter HDPE pontoon; (3) a
100-kilowatt turbine/generator unit; (4) a 33-foot-long, 3.5-foot-wide
gangway from the shore to the floating pontoon; (5) three anchoring
cables to secure the flotation platform to the shore, including a 30-
foot-long primary safety tether, a 117-foot-long primary cable, and a
100-foot-long secondary cable; (6) an approximately 900-foot-long
transmission cable from the floatation platform to an existing Golden
Valley Electric Association distribution line; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. The project is anticipated to operate from April until
October, with an estimated annual generation of 200 megawatt-hours.
    j. Meeting Purpose and Schedule: On August 22, 2011, Whitestone
filed (1) A notice of intent to file an application for an original
license for a hydrokinetic pilot project and a draft license
application; (2) a request for waivers of the integrated licensing
process regulations necessary for expedited processing of a
hydrokinetic pilot project license application; (3) a proposed process
plan and schedule; (4) a request to be designated as the non-federal
representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
consultation; and (5) a request to be designated as the non-Federal
representative for section 106 consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    Commission staff will hold a technical teleconference with
Whitestone to discuss the project proposal, pilot licensing process,
and additional information and monitoring needs for the license
application. During the teleconference, Commission staff will focus the
discussion on the information gaps that need to be addressed to ensure
that sufficient information exists for the Commission to make a
determination on whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a
pilot project and for processing a license application for a pilot
project once it is filed with the Commission.
    All local, state, and Federal agencies, Native Alaskan tribal
entities, and other interested parties are invited to participate by
phone. The date and time of the teleconference are as follows:
    Monday, November 7, 2011, starting at 1 p.m. and ending no later
than 4 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
    Please call Dianne Rodman by October 31, 2011, to RSVP and to
receive specific instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: October 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26597 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26962-26965]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007; FRL-8912-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Callaway & Son Drum
Services Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Callaway & Son Drum
Services Superfund Site, located in Lake Alfred, Polk County, Florida
from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Florida, through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion
does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective August 4, 2009 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by July 6, 2009. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0007, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
     Hand delivery: 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2000-0007. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. EPA Record Center, attn: Ms. Debbie Jourdan, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Phone:
(404) 562-8862. Hours: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. By
Appointment Only.
Lake Alfred Public Library, 195 East Pomelo Street, Lake Alfred,
Florida 33850, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., Saturday closed, Sunday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Galo Jackson, Remedial Project
Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 4WD-SRB, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Callaway & Son Drum Services Superfund Site, from the NPL. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of 1980, as amended.
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e) (3) of
the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective August 4, 2009 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by July 6, 2009. Along with this direct final
Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If adverse
comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this
deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Callaway & Son Drum Services
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121 (c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Florida prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co- published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State of Florida 30 working days for
review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior
to their publication today, and the State, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, has concurred on the deletion
of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Lakeland Ledger. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Callaway & Son Drum Services (CSDS) Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID
FLD094590916) is located in Lake Alfred, Polk County, Florida. The
approximately nine and a half acre Site is located 55 miles east of
Tampa and 43 miles west of Orlando, Florida. The Site lies between the
Seaboard System Railroad tracks on the north and U.S. Highway 17-92 on
the south. The City of Lake Alfred Wastewater Treatment Plant is
located adjacent to and west of the Site. The Redwoods Apartments are
located adjacent to and east of the Site. A garden nursery borders the
property to the southwest.
    CSDS was a family business, which operated from mid-1977 through
early 1991 as a re-furbisher and reseller of used 55-gallon oil,
solvent and citrus products drums. About 20 spent oil drums were
cleaned, sandblasted and painted on an average day. During the citrus
season, approximately 500 open-top drums were sandblasted and, if
needed, painted every day.
    At the operation's height, the facility once was estimated to have
60,000 drums present on the Site. Approximately 71 of the drums left
abandoned on the uplands were removed and disposed of during a 1995
removal action conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). The remaining drums and drum carcasses, estimated to
be between two-to-three thousand, were removed and disposed of in
December 2001 by contractors to EPA.
    The CSDS Site first came to the attention of the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (FDER, now FDEP) in October 1982, through
the owner's application to construct/operate an industrial wastewater
treatment and disposal system for the rinse water. Analyses of the
rinse water discharge collected in December 1982 detected oil and
grease and several inorganic analytes, including chromium, iron, and
lead.
    In early March 1984, members of the FDER Groundwater Section
Operation Response Team conducted a site inspection of the CSDS Site.
As a result of that inspection, FDER issued a warning notice to the
owner for unauthorized discharge of organic solvents into surface and
groundwater and for failure to provide a groundwater monitoring plan. A
monitoring plan was subsequently submitted in January 1985. The plan
proposed the installation of three monitoring wells. In July 1985, FDER
completed a Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment for
the CSDS Site. The assessment recommended that the Site be given a low
priority of inspection at the time, due to the then recent sampling
conducted by FDER and the January 1985 submittal of a groundwater
monitoring plan.
    In June 1994, the FDER filed a Notice of Violation and Order for
Corrective Action against the owner. The Notice of Violation was based
upon the results of the Site Investigation, which revealed improper
drum disposal and storage, as well as onsite soil and groundwater
contamination. The owner was given the opportunity to petition the FDER
for a hearing to address the Notice of Violation. The owner did not
file for a petition and in October 1994, FDER filed a final Order
against him.
    The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL on February 4, 2000 through
publication in the Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 24). The Site
was finalized on the NPL through publication in the Federal Register on
May 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 92).

Remedial Investigation (RI)

    EPA initially conducted RI filed activities from February 2002
through August 2003. The following summarizes the scope of the RI for
the CSDS Site:
     Determined the nature and extent of groundwater, soil,
sediment, and surface water contamination relative to local background
conditions that were attributable to the Site;
     Determined the extent of human contact with potentially
contaminated media;
     Collected and evaluated the data necessary to develop a
human health risk assessment; and
     Collected and evaluated the data necessary to develop an
ecological risk assessment.
    The 2002 surface and subsurface soil semivolatile organic compound
(SVOCs) results reported a significant number of tentatively identified
and/or unidentified compounds. At that time, EPA consulted with FDEP
(prior to issuing a Proposed Plan) on the remedy, which consisted of a
deed notice to notify prospective buyers of the presence of the
unidentified and tentatively identified compounds, as well as
groundwater monitoring for a limited period of time. In the event that
the monitoring did not indicate contaminant concentrations of concern,
groundwater monitoring was to be discontinued. FDEP did not concur with
that proposed remedy as a final remedy. As a result, EPA conducted
additional studies between 2004 and 2006 to determine the identity,
concentration and toxicities of the tentatively identified and
unidentified semivolatile compounds.
    The question of the risks posed by tentatively identified and
unidentified semivolatile organic compounds to

human health were evaluated with the assistance of the EPA Office of
Research and Development and the Superfund Health Risk Technical
Support Center. Uncertainties related to non-cancer effects pertaining
to the risks posed by the semivolatile organic contaminants identified
in surface and subsurface soil were reduced, though not entirely
eliminated. The evaluation concluded that an overwhelming majority of
the compounds analyzed were not detected. Those SVOCs that were present
in surface and subsurface soil were found below preliminary remediation
goals and a hazard index of 1.0. In addition, two rounds of groundwater
sampling conducted during 2007 showed that the tentatively and
unidentified semivolatile organic compounds are not present in the
Site's groundwater.

Selected Remedy

    EPA, in consultation with FDEP, selected a No Action Record of
Decision (ROD) at the CSDS Site on September 12, 2007. As discussed
above, this decision was based principally on the outcome of both human
health and ecological risk assessments. The estimates of human risks
under the various exposure scenarios found that cancer and non-cancer
risks posed by the Site's media were well within the ranges found
acceptable by EPA.

Five-Year Review

    Although hazardous substances are not known to be present onsite
above levels allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a
discretionary five year review will be conducted by EPA within five
years of the signing of the 2007 ROD. The purpose of this review is to
revisit the issue related to the presence of tentatively identified and
unidentified semivolatile organic compounds believed to be present in
the Site's soil.

Community Involvement

    Community relations involvement efforts for the CSDS Site began in
August 2000 when the Florida Department of Health, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry and EPA publicized and held a public
availability session, for the purpose of communicating the results of
the health consultation and to inform the community of the Site's
status. In mid-2002, EPA finalized the Site's Community Involvement
Plan. Area residents were contacted as part of the community
involvement work. An information repository was established at the Lake
Alfred Public Library. Documents supporting both the removal action and
the 2007 ROD were made available to the public at the Site's
information repository, prior to the issuance of this ROD. On July 6,
2007, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Plan Public Comment Period and
offered a public meeting. Only one comment was received during the
comment period. No requests for a Public Meeting or extension of the
comment period were received. Information which EPA has relied on or
considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public
to review at the information repositories identified above.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    All of the completion requirements for this Site have been met, as
described in the December 2007 Final Close-Out Report. The State of
Florida has concurred with the proposed deletion of this Site from the
NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if, ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.''
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA with the concurrence of the State of
Florida, through the FDEP, believes that this criterion for deletion
has been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Florida through the FDEP, has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than five-year reviews have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting
the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective August 4, 2009 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
July 6, 2009. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent
to delete and the comments already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: May 19, 2009.
J. Scott Gordon,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Callaway
& Son Drum Service'', ``Lake Alfred, Florida.''

[FR Doc. E9-13165 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                  !

  "      #

           $

          % $ 	 	  &          '

   ( ) ) * November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 2 Overview of Potential Overview of Potential Issue Areas Issue Areas ° The High Production Volume Challenge Program ( Q1a f)

° Risk Assessment/ Risk Management of Existing Chemicals ( Q2)

° New Chemicals Program ( Q3)

° Pollution Prevention ( Q4)

° Partnerships with States/ Tribes ( Q5)

° Future Directions for OPPT ( Q6)

November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 3 HPV Challenge Program HPV Challenge Program ( Q1)

( Q1)

° History   1997 1998 data availability studies   1998 EPA   43% of HPVs w/ o hazard data publicly available ° Prompted HPV Challenge Program   Challenged industry to come forward with existing data or generate the data November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 4 HPV Challenge Program HPV Challenge Program ( Q1)

( Q1)

° HPV Chemicals Sponsored ( October, 2003)

  334 companies, 98 consortia and 2,167 chemicals committed   249 submissions ( 1,081 chemicals) posted on EPA website ° Content of a Submission   Test Plan and/ or Robust Summaries   Single Chemicals or Category November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 5 HPV Challenge Program HPV Challenge Program ( Q1)

( Q1)

° Basic data consists of the Screening Information Data Set ( SIDS):

  Physicochemical properties   Environmental fate   Ecotoxicity   Human health effects ( based on animal studies)

° Non SIDS information, if available, is also included in an HPV submission November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 6 HPV Challenge Program HPV Challenge Program ( Q1)

( Q1)

Six subquestions:

a. Prioritizing the data b. How to obtain additional data if needed c. Making the data available and useful to technical audiences d. Communicating data and data evaluation results to the public e. Evaluating the category approach used in the Program f. HPV chemicals not in the Challenge Program November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 7 Prioritizing the HPV Prioritizing the HPV Hazard Data ( Q1a)

Hazard Data ( Q1a)

We are seeking advice on the key elements to be considered in the development, piloting, and implementation of a screening process for prioritizing chemicals for further action, including tools or models that could be used November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 8 Obtaining Additional Obtaining Additional Needed Data ( Q1b)

Needed Data ( Q1b)

We are seeking advice on the best ways to obtain additional hazard data and use and exposure information on those HPV chemicals identified as a priority November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 9 Making HPV Data Making HPV Data Available and Useable Available and Useable ( Q1c)

( Q1c)

We are seeking advice on ways to make HPV data more accessible and usable to technical audiences:

° HPV database ° Characteristics of a " toolbox" November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 10 Communicating Data and Communicating Data and Evaluation Results ( Q1d)

Evaluation Results ( Q1d)

We are seeking advice on how we

° interpret the hazard data   and any available use and exposure information  to provide an integrated assessment of potential risks ° make the hazard/ risk information meaningful to the lay public ° best communicate pollution prevention and risk mitigation options November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 11 Evaluating the Category Evaluating the Category Approach ( Q1e)

Approach ( Q1e)

We are seeking your advice on currently used approaches and other potential approaches that could enhance the application of categories in the HPV Program   86% of the HPV submissions to date are part of a category   The approach has been useful for:

 Minimizing animal testing and  Reducing economic burden to industry November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 12 HPV Chemicals Beyond HPV Chemicals Beyond the Challenge Program the Challenge Program ( Q1f)

( Q1f)

We are seeking advice on how HPV chemicals not covered under the HPV Challenge should be addressed ° HPV Challenge is based on 1990 IUR data   Chemicals not sponsored   HPVs from 1994, 1998, or 2002 IUR reporting cycles November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 13 OPPT OPPT Priority HPV Questions Priority HPV Questions OPPT views the following three HPV questions priorities for input from the NPPTAC in the near term   Prioritizing the HPV data ( Q1a)

  Making the data available and useable to technical audiences ( Q1c)

  Communicating data and data evaluation results to the public ( Q1d) November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 14 Risk Assessment/ Risk Risk Assessment/ Risk Management of Existing Management of Existing Chemicals ( Q2)

Chemicals ( Q2)

We are seeking advice on:

° How to identify and implement the best mix of regulatory and voluntary options to achieve sufficient and timely risk assessment and risk management actions for existing chemicals?

° What opportunities exist for partnership with industry, non governmental organizations, States,

Tribes and others?

November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 15 Risk Assessment/ Risk Risk Assessment/ Risk Management of Existing Management of Existing Chemicals ( Q2)

Chemicals ( Q2)

Risk Assessment Actions ° Regulatory authority   TSCA Section 4 ( test rules and ECAs)

  TSCA Section 8 ° Voluntary submissions ( HPV Challenge Program/ VCCEP) November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 16 Risk Assessment/ Risk Risk Assessment/ Risk Management of Existing Management of Existing Chemicals ( Q2)

Chemicals ( Q2)

Risk Management Actions ° PCBs, asbestos, lead through statute [ TSCA § 6, TSCA Titles II and IV]

° Other TSCA § 6 regulatory actions   Initiated nine actions, completed six ° Significant new uses rules [ TSCA § 5 ( a) ( 2)]

° Other chemicals of national concern ( dioxin, mercury)

° Voluntary actions ( PFOS/ PFOA) November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 17 New Chemicals Program New Chemicals Program ( Q3)

( Q3)

We are seeking advice on how the U. S. can enhance its new chemical assessment and management scheme based on national and international experience. November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 18 New Chemicals Program New Chemicals Program ( Q3)

( Q3)

° Premanufacture notice ° EPA review based largely on structure activity relationships ( SARs) and proposed use, production, and exposure/ release information ° EPA determines if need to prohibit or limit manufacturing,

importing, processing or use pending development of needed information ° After EPA review, if manufacturing or importing commences, EPA is notified (~ 50% of PMNs)

November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 19 New Chemicals Program New Chemicals Program ( Q3)

( Q3)

° Consideration of international new chemical regulatory processes are key since chemicals are a global business ° There are various approaches at play around the world to address new chemicals ° Objective of the OECD New Chemicals Task Force is to increase cooperation and efficiency of new chemical notification and assessment systems in the global market. November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 20 Pollution Prevention ( P2)

Pollution Prevention ( P2)

( Q4)

( Q4)

We are seeking advice on how to increase the use of pollution prevention in managing risks of chemicals November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 21 Pollution Prevention ( P2)

Pollution Prevention ( P2)

( Q4)

( Q4)

° Use of TSCA authority ( e. g., TSCA § 5 ( a) ( 2)   significant new use rules)

° Enhancement of environmental stewardship in designing new chemicals and in making choices among existing chemicals ° Better integration of existing tools and approaches ° Incentives ° Product stewardship program November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 22 Partnerships with States Partnerships with States and Tribes ( Q5)

and Tribes ( Q5)

We are seeking advice on .

° What opportunities exist for States and Tribes to assume a greater partnership role in furthering the goals of the national program?

° What roles would be optimal for States and Tribes?

° Are there more effective ways to share chemical data with the States and Tribes?

November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 23 Partnerships with States Partnerships with States and Tribes ( Q5)

and Tribes ( Q5)

OPPT coordination with States and Tribes occurs primarily through ° FOSTTA partnership ° P2 Grant Program ° Lead Program November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 24 Future Directions for OPPT Future Directions for OPPT ( Q6)

( Q6)

We are seeking advice on ° What challenges and opportunities face OPPT in managing and reducing chemical risks over the next 20 years? How can we best prepare over the next 5 10 years?

° How might the increased international interest and activities of governments, industry, and NGOs in chemicals management impact domestic approaches for reducing and preventing chemical risk? November 4, 2003 Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics ( OPPT) 25 OPPT Proposes the OPPT Proposes the Following Issues as Initial Following Issues as Initial Priorities for NPPTAC Priorities for NPPTAC Consideration Consideration ° HPV Program Issues ( Q1)

  Prioritizing the HPV data ( Q1a)

  Making the data available and useable to technical audiences ( Q1c)

  Communicating data and data evaluation results to the public ( Q1d)

° Pollution Prevention ( P2) Issue ( Q4)

° Partnerships with States/ Tribes ( Q5)


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, OECA, Manufacturing, Energy, and Trans. Div. 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0050 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart OOO  Nonmetallic Mineral Processing 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1084.06 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air Pollution 10. Abstract This NSPS affects owners and operators of nonmetallic minerals processing plants. Owners and operators must conduct initial performance tests and comply with an opacity and mass particulate standards. In addition, each owner or operator must comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the NSPS.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 4305 b. Total annual responses 2320 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically % c. Total annual hours requested 31746 d. Current OMB inventory 6586 e. Difference 25160 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment + 25160 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initial performance 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Gregory Fried Phone: ( 202) 564 7016 OMB 83 I 12/ 99


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34946-34949]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 541

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0070]
RIN 2127-AK68

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Final Listing of
2011 Light Duty Truck Lines Subject to the Requirements of This
Standard and Exempted Vehicle Lines for Model Year 2011

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule announces NHTSA's determination that there are
no new model year (MY) 2011 light duty truck lines subject to the
parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft
prevention standard because they have been determined by the agency to
be high-theft or because they have a majority of interchangeable parts
with those of a passenger motor vehicle line. This final rule also
identifies those vehicle lines that have been granted an exemption from
the parts-marking requirements because the vehicles are equipped with
antitheft devices determined to meet certain statutory criteria.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendment made by this final rule is
effective June 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Consumer
Standards Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and
Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
(NVS-131, Room W43-302) Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The theft prevention standard applies to (1)
all passenger car lines; (2) all multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)
lines with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or
less; (3) low-theft light-duty truck (LDT) lines with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or less that have major parts that are interchangeable with a
majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or MPV lines; and
(4) high-theft light-duty truck lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or
less.
    The purpose of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) is
to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the
tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks
to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification
numbers (VINs), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed on
major component vehicle parts. The theft prevention standard requires
motor vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or affix VINs onto covered
original equipment major component parts, and to inscribe or affix a
symbol identifying the manufacturer and a common symbol identifying the
replacement component parts for those original equipment parts, on all
vehicle lines subject to the requirements of the standard.
    Section 33104(d) provides that once a line has become subject to
the theft prevention standard, the line remains subject to the
requirements of the standard unless it is exempted under Sec.  33106.
Section 33106 provides that a manufacturer may petition annually to
have one vehicle line exempted from the requirements of Sec.  33104, if
the line is equipped with an antitheft device meeting certain
conditions as standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA
determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the theft prevention standard in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle thefts.
    The agency annually publishes the names of those LDT lines that
have been determined to be high theft pursuant to 49 CFR Part 541,
those LDT lines that have been determined to have major

parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major
parts of passenger car or MPV lines and those vehicle lines that are
exempted from the theft prevention standard under section 33104.
Appendix A to Part 541 identifies those LDT lines that are or will be
subject to the theft prevention standard beginning in a given model
year. Appendix A-I to Part 541 identifies those vehicle lines that are
or have been exempted from the theft prevention standard.
    For MY 2011, there are no new LDT lines that will be subject to the
theft prevention standard in accordance with the procedures published
in 49 CFR Part 542. Therefore, Appendix A does not need to be amended.
    For MY 2011, the list of lines that have been exempted by the
agency from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 is amended to
include twelve vehicle lines newly exempted in full. The twelve
exempted vehicle lines are the Cadillac CTS, Ford Explorer, Hyundai VI,
Jeep Patriot, Mazda2, Mercedes-Benz SL-Class Chassis Line, Mitsubishi
Outlander, Nissan Cube, Saab 9-5, Subaru Legacy, Toyota Camry and
Volkswagen Tiguan.
    Subsequent to publishing the MY 2009 and 2010 list of exempted
lines, the agency also granted Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center,
Inc., a full exemption from the parts-marking requirement of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Kia Amanti vehicle line beginning with MY
2009. After considering the available information in the specific
context of eligibility for parts-marking exemptions, the agency
concluded that there was sufficient separation between Hyundai and Kia
operations to treat them as two separate manufacturers.
    We note that the agency removes from the list being published in
the Federal Register each year certain vehicles lines that have been
discontinued more than 5 years ago. Therefore, the Infiniti Q45 and
Jaguar XK have been removed from the Appendix A-I listing. The agency
will continue to maintain a comprehensive database of all exemptions on
our Web site. However, we believe that re-publishing a list containing
vehicle lines that have not been in production for a considerable
period of time is unnecessary.
    The vehicle lines listed as being exempt from the standard have
previously been exempted in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR
Part 543 and 49 U.S.C. 33106. Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause
that notice and opportunity for comment on these listings are
unnecessary. Further, public comment on the listing of selections and
exemptions is not contemplated by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331. For the same
reasons, since this revised listing only informs the public of previous
agency actions and does not impose additional obligations on any party,
NHTSA finds for good cause that the amendment made by this notice
should be effective as soon as it is published in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Impacts

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is
not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. It will not impose any new burdens on vehicle
manufacturers. This document informs the public of previously granted
exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final rule is to inform the
public of previous actions taken by the agency no new costs are burdens
will result.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their rules on
small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions. I have considered the effects of this rulemaking action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certify that it would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As noted above, the effect of this final rule is only to
inform the public of agency's previous actions.

C. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is
required.

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that it does not have sufficient Federal implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
($120.7 million as adjusted annually for inflation with base year of
1995). The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is
here.
    This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or
Tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their suppliers
of more than $120.7 million annually. This document informs the public
of previously granted exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final
rule is to inform the public of previous actions taken by the agency,
no new costs or burdens will result.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'',\1\ the
agency has considered whether this final rule has any retroactive
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. In
accordance with Sec.  33118 when the Theft Prevention Standard is in
effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may not have a
different motor vehicle theft prevention standard for a motor vehicle
or major replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial
review of

this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909. Section 32909
does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department of Transportation has not submitted an information
collection request to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule
does not impose any new information collection requirements on
manufacturers.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 541

    Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 541 is amended as
follows:

PART 541--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 541 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104, 33105 and
33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. In Part 541, Appendix A-I is revised to read as follows:

    Appendix A-I to Part 541--Lines With Antitheft Devices Which Are
 Exempted From the Parts-Marking Requirements of This Standard Pursuant
                           to 49 CFR Part 543
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Manufacturer                         Subject lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMW...................................  MINI.
                                        X5.
                                        Z4.
                                        1 Car Line.
                                        3 Car Line.
                                        5 Car Line.
                                        6 Car Line.
                                        7 Car Line.
Chrysler..............................  300C.
                                        Jeep Grand Cherokee.
                                        Jeep Patriot.\1\
                                        Jeep Wrangler.
                                        Town and Country MPV.
                                        Dodge Charger.
                                        Dodge Challenger.
                                        Dodge Journey.
                                        Dodge Magnum (2008).
Ford Motor Co.........................  Escape.
                                        Explorer.\1\
                                        Ford Five-Hundred (2007).
                                        Ford Focus.
                                        Lincoln Town Car.
                                        Mustang.
                                        Mercury Mariner.
                                        Mercury Grand Marquis.
                                        Mercury Sable.
                                        Taurus.
                                        Taurus X.
General Motors........................  Buick Lucerne.
                                        Buick LeSabre.
                                        Buick LaCrosse/Century.
                                        Buick Park Avenue (1992-2005).
                                        Buick Regal/Century.
                                        Cadillac CTS.\1\
                                        Cadillac DTS/Deville.
                                        Chevrolet Camaro.
                                        Chevrolet Cavalier (1997-2005).
                                        Chevrolet Classic.
                                        Chevrolet Cobalt.\2\
                                        Chevrolet Corvette.
                                        Chevrolet Cruze.
                                        Chevrolet Equinox.
                                        Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo.
                                        Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx.
                                        GMC Terrain.
                                        Oldsmobile Alero.
                                        Oldsmobile Aurora.
                                        Pontiac Bonneville.
                                        Pontiac G6.
                                        Pontiac Grand Am.
                                        Pontiac Grand Prix.
                                        Pontiac Sunfire.
                                        Saturn Aura.
Honda.................................  Acura CL.
                                        Acura NSX.
                                        Acura RL.
                                        Acura TL.
Hyundai...............................  Azera.
                                        Genesis.
                                        VI.\1\
Isuzu.................................  Axiom.
Jaguar................................  XK.
Kia...................................  Amanti.
Mazda.................................  2.\1\
                                        3.
                                        5.
                                        6.
                                        CX-7.
                                        CX-9.
                                        MX-5 Miata.
                                        Millenia.
Mercedes-Benz.........................  smart USA fortwo.
                                        SL-Class \1\ (the models within
                                         this line are):
                                        SL550.
                                        SL600.
                                        SL55.
                                        SL 63/AMG.
                                        SL 65/AMG.
                                        S-Class/CL-Class (the models
                                         within this line are):
                                        S450.
                                        S500.
                                        S550.
                                        S600.
                                        S55.
                                        S65.
                                        CL500.
                                        CL600.
                                        CL55.
                                        CL65.
                                        C-Class/CLK-Class (the models
                                         within this line are):
                                        C240.
                                        C300.
                                        C350.
                                        CLK 350.
                                        CLK 550.
                                        CLK 63AMG.
                                        E-Class/CLS Class (the models
                                         within this line are):
                                        E320/E320DT CDi.
                                        E350/E500/E55.
                                        CLS500/CLS55.
Mitsubishi............................  Eclipse.
                                        Endeavor.
                                        Galant.
                                        Lancer.
                                        Outlander.\1\
Nissan................................  Altima.
                                        Cube.\1\
                                        Maxima.
                                        Murano.
                                        Pathfinder.
                                        Quest.
                                        Rogue.
                                        Sentra.
                                        Versa.
                                        Infiniti G.\2\
                                        Infiniti M.\3\
Porsche...............................  911.
                                        Boxster/Cayman.
                                        Panamera.
Saab..................................  9-3.
                                        9-5.\1\
Subaru................................  Forester.
                                        Impreza.
                                        Legacy.\1\
                                        B9 Tribeca.
                                        Outback.
Suzuki................................  XL-7.
Toyota................................  Camry.\1\
                                        Lexus ES.
                                        Lexus GS.
                                        Lexus LS.
                                        Lexus SC.
Volkswagen............................  Audi 5000S.
                                        Audi A3.
                                        Audi A4.
                                        Audi Allroad.
                                        Audi A6.
                                        Audi Q5.
                                        New Beetle.
                                        Golf/Rabbit/GTI/R32.
                                        Jetta.
                                        Passat.
                                        Tiguan.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements beginning
  with MY 2011.

\2\ Infiniti G models include the G35 and G37 models.
\3\ Infiniti M models include the M35, M37, M45 and M56 models.

    Issued on: June 14, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-14840 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 51548]
[DOCID:fr03se08-141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R, E&D)
Advisory Committee.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Name: Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee.
    Time and Date: September 24, 2008--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW.--Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591
    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the
Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in
the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human
factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the
interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the
meeting or obtain information should contact Gloria Dunderman at (202)
267-8937 or gloria.dundermanfaa.gov. Attendees will have to present
picture ID at the security desk and be escorted to the Round Room.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2008.
Barry Scott,
Director, Research & Technology Development.
[FR Doc. E8-20314 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M