[Federal Register: September 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 55638-55639]
[DOCID:fr22se05-63]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the
week of September 26, 2005:
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, September 29, 2005 at 3
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 29, 2005 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2005.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19030 Filed 9-20-05; 11:21 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


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

General Comment:The time period allowed to review the proposed regulations is insufficient. Please extend the time period to 180 days. Thank you


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 21644]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-0034]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Dobbins
Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0060
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo<PHONE_NUMBER> Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2016.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0060.
    Petitioner: The Dobbins Company.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.407 (a)(1); 91.405
(a); 91.151 (a)(1); 91.121; 91.119 (c); 91.7 (a); 61.113 (a); 61.23
(a)(1); 61.101 (e)(4)(5); 61.315 (a); 91.417 (a)(b); 91.409 (a)(1)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests to conduct
commercial UAS operations within 200 feet and under bridges.

[FR Doc. 2016-08313 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Memorandum

To:	Risk Assessment Document for Dichlobenil, Fluopicolide and BAM

From:	Mary Manibusan, Co-chair of ROCKS

Date:	May 12, 2008

RE:	Comparative Toxicity using Derek analysis for Dichlobenil,
Fluopicolide and BAM

DP#:	7E7172, DP 352656.

Dichlobenil and Fluopicolide are pesticides that share a common
metabolite BAM. BAM is a metabolite and/or environmental degradate of
both the fungicide fluopicolide and the herbicide dichlobenil.  Based on
the rat metabolic pathway, BAM is not formed in vivo or at very minimal
amounts (0.09% of the total administered dose in rats) therefore, it is
assumed that neither toxicological profiles for dichlobenil nor
fluopicolide would be reflective of the toxicity specific for BAM.  This
Derek  analysis is therefore focused on the structural similarities of
these compounds to determine whether the  relative toxicity predictions
would be different based on structural alerts.

Derek Analyses for Fluopicolide, Dichlobenil and BAM (2, 6
Dichlorobenzamide)

Comparative Toxicity

Overall, Derek is confirmatory of the animal data for fluopicolide and
dichlobenil, which forms the bases for the toxicity prediction for BAM.
Based on the available animal data and Derek analyses, BAM does not
appear to cause different organ specific toxicities compared to
fluopicolide and dichlobenil.  The kidney and liver toxicities are
common to all three compounds.  With respect to relative toxicity,
conclusions from the evaluation of the animal studies appear to confirm
that both fluopicolide and dichlobenil appear to be more or equally
toxic compared to BAM.  Based on the Derek evaluation, Derek did not
appear to distinguish fluopicolide toxicity compared to BAM based on
alerts issued only for the benzamide (BAM) portion of the structure,
indicating that the remaining pyridine structure would not contribute
significant biological activity.  Derek also confirms the liver toxicity
profile and slight to minimal kidney effects evident in the empirical
data for all three compounds.

Olfactory Toxicity

Based on dermal and inhalation exposures to dichlobenil and i.p.
administration of BAM, olfactory toxicity was determined to be a target
organ effect.  The BAM-mediated olfactory toxicity was observed only in
one study collected from open literature (Brittebo et al., 1991) at a
dose (100 mg/kg) eight times higher than that which caused the same
effect using dichlobenil (12 mg/kg i.p.).  No olfactory effects were
reported for Fluopicolide.

All three compounds are structurally similar based on sharing the
2,6-chlorinated benzene structure; the 2,6-positioning of chlorines in
combination with an electron-withdrawing group in the primary position
of the benzene ring is an arrangement that appears to facilitate
olfactory mucosa toxicity (Carlsson et. Al. 2005).  Based on this rule
based reasoning, the nitrile group on the dichlobenil is a better
electron withdrawing group than the amide group on BAM, which is equal
or less than the pyridine group on fluopicolide.  This ranking is
reflective of the potency of olfactory toxicity exhibited in the animal
studies (dichlobenil>BAM>Fluopicolide).

While the olfactory effects are relevant for i.p., inhalation and
dermal, these effects may not be directly relevant for the oral route.
No oral studies, to date, have reported olfactory toxicity for these
compounds.  For example, a chronic dietary dog study on dichlobenil that
assayed for olfactory histopathology did not observe effects on the
nasal epithelium from long term exposure.  Therefore, based on the
different routes of exposure and the negative long term oral study in
the dog, these data indicate that olfactory effects may only occur when
by-passing the liver metabolism.

Neurotoxicity

Evidence of potential neurotoxicity in reduced muscle tone were reported
in the 90 day rat study at day 4 in males and days  91 and 92 in females
at a dose of 49 mg BAM /kg/day and this was used to establish the
incidental oral  short and intermediate term endpoint.  Lethargy and
ataxia were observed in a dose-range finding pilot study in mice, but
effects were resolved after 24 hours.  In addition, a two week dietary
study reported clinical signs of neurotoxicity in mice at 375 mg/kg/day,
a dose much higher than that established in the 90 day rat study.
Furthermore, fluopicolide was tested in both acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies and no neurotoxicity findings were reported.

Based on the totality of the data supporting the potential olfactory and
potential neurotoxic effects for BAM,  the composite uncertainty factor
appears to be more than adequate.

References:

Brittebo EB, Erkisson C, Feil V, Bakke J, Brandt I. 1991. Toxicidty of
2,6-dichlorothiobenzamide and 2,6-dichlorobenzamide in the olfactory
nasal mucosa of mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 17(1):92-102.

Carlsson C., Harju M, Bahrami F, Cantillana T, Tysklind M, Brandt I.
2004. Olfactory mucosal toxicity screening and multivariate QSAR
modeling for chlorinated benzene derivatives. Arch Toxicol.
78(12):706-15


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10242-10243]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903; FRL-8533-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Requirements and Exemptions for
Specific RCRA Wastes (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1597.08, OMB Control
Number 2050-0145

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2007-0903, to (1) EPA, either online using http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB, by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tab Tesnau, Office of Solid Waste
(mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53562), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during
the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-0903, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Requirements and Exemptions for Specific RCRA Wastes
(Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1597.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0145.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 29, 2008.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR revises and consolidates the burden contained in
two existing approved ICRs: ``Requirements and Exemptions for Specific
RCRA Wastes,'' ICR number 1597.06 (OMB Control Number 2050-0145), and
the ``Used Oil Management Standards Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements,'' ICR number 1286.07 (OMB Control Number 2050-0124).
    In 1995, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 273 that govern
the collection and management of widely-generated hazardous wastes
known as ``Universal Wastes.'' Universal Wastes are wastes that are
generated in non-industrial settings by a vast community, and are
present in non-hazardous waste management systems. Examples of
Universal Wastes include certain batteries, pesticides, mercury-
containing lamps and thermostats. The part 273 regulations are designed
to separate Universal Waste from the municipal waste stream by
encouraging individuals and organizations to collect these wastes and
to manage them in an appropriate hazardous waste management system. EPA
distinguishes two types of handlers of Universal Wastes: Small quantity
handlers of Universal Waste (SQHUW) and large quantity handlers of
Universal Waste (LQHUW). SQHUWs do not accumulate more than 5,000 kg of
any one category of Universal Waste at one time, while LQHUWs may
accumulate quantities at or above this threshold. More stringent
requirements are imposed on LQHUWs because of greater potential
environmental risks.
    In 2001, EPA promulgated regulations in 40 CFR part 266 that
provide increased flexibility to facilities managing wastes commonly
known as ``Mixed Waste.'' Mixed Waste are low-level mixed waste (LLMW),
and naturally occurring and/or accelerator-produced radioactive
material (NARM) containing hazardous waste. These wastes are also
regulated by the Atomic Energy Act. As long as specified eligibility
criteria and conditions are met, LLMW and NARM are exempt from the
definition of hazardous waste as defined in Part 261. Although these
eligible wastes are exempted from RCRA manifest, transportation, and
disposal requirements, they must still comply with the manifest,
transportation, and

disposal requirements under the NRC (or NRC-Agreement State)
regulations.
    And finally, in 1992, EPA finalized management standards for used
oils destined for recycling. The Agency codified the used oil
management standards in part 279 of 40 CFR. The regulations at 40 CFR
part 279 establish, among other things, streamlined procedures for
notification, testing, labeling, and recordkeeping. They also establish
a flexible self-implementing approach for tracking off-site shipments
that allow used oil handlers to use standard business practices (e.g.,
invoices, bill of lading). In addition, part 279 sets standards for the
prevention and cleanup of releases to the environment during storage
and transit. EPA believes these requirements will minimize potential
mismanagement of used oils, while not discouraging recycling.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 4.9 hours per
response. The total public recordkeeping burden for the Universal Waste
requirements is estimated to average 0.2 hours per response.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Private Sector and State, Local, or
Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 123,330.
    Frequency of Response: Biennially, On Occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 651,135.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $30,746,047 which includes $10,004,415
annualized capital and O&M costs and $20,741,632 annualized labor
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 457,901 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens, and an increase of $10,000,415 in annualized
capital/start-up and operations and maintenance costs. This increase is
due to the consolidation of this ICR with the Used Oil Management
Standards Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ICR. In addition,
the 2005 final rule on Mercury-Containing Equipment also increased the
burden for the Universal Waste portion of this ICR.

    Dated: February 20, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-3611 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48509-48510]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2018-0070]

Notice and Request for Comments

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on August 8, 2017. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alrik L. Svenson, Office of Vehicle
Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify the relevant collection
of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Field Study of Newer Generation Heavy Vehicle Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems.
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Type of Request: New Information Collection.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is assessing the benefits of crash avoidance technologies for
heavy trucks that include Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) to prevent
fatalities, injuries, and property damage in crashes involving heavy
vehicles. Previous studies have investigated crash problem size,
economic cost, and preliminary safety benefits concerning these
systems. The underlying methods of these studies have included test
track evaluations, objective test procedures, technology field
demonstrations, and ``naturalistic'' studies. As both of the major AEB
system suppliers have released new products in the second half of 2017,
NHTSA is interested in the real world performance of these new systems,
which are designed to address the shortcomings of the previous
generation of AEB systems. These systems have been designed to offer
improved threat detection and new features such as stationary object
braking. Additionally, a new product called Detroit Assurance\TM\ was
released in 2016 for Freightliner trucks by Detroit Diesel Corporation.
This system shares many features with the OnGuard and Wingman[supreg]
products including advanced emergency braking (AEB), forward collision
warnings (FCW), and adaptive cruise control (ACC).
    Affected Public: Commercial vehicle drivers who are assigned a
single, specific commercial vehicle that is equipped with the eligible
technologies. Trucking fleets (approximately 7-10) will be contacted
first to see if they have trucks equipped with the technologies and
would be willing to have their drivers participate in the study.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 175, after compensating for
potential drop-outs.
    Frequency: Twice at the start of participation (demographic and
initial CAS technology surveys), once at the completion of
participation approximately 3 months later.
    Number of Responses: Full participation in the study will include 3
responses for a total of 92 questions per participant, plus a consent
form that will be reviewed prior to participation.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 110 minutes per respondent,
including consent (204 hours total).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated         Total           Total
                                                             Number of     Frequency of      Number of      individual       estimated    annualize cost
                       Instrument                           respondents      responses       questions        burden       burden hours   to respondents
                                                                \1\                                          (minutes)        (hours)           \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Informed Consent Form...................................             175               1             N/A              10              29         $584.64
Demographic questionnaire...............................             175               1              14              10              29          584.64
Initial CAS Technology Survey...........................             175               1              33              25              73         1471.68
Final CAS Technology Survey.............................             150               1              34              25            62.5         1260.00
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           193.5       $ 3900.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of respondents in this table includes drop-out rates.
\2\ Estimated based on the mean hourly rate nationwide for Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers of $20.16 as reported in the May 2014 Occupational
  Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#35-0000.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

 Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2018-20753 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P