1 EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database, A Compilation Of Monitoring Studies: 1971 7991 National Summary; Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division; Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch, Jacoby H.; Pesticide Monitoring Program Section, Hoheisel C, Karrie J, Lees S, Davies Hilliard L, Hannon P, Bringham R; Ground Water Technology Section, Behl E, Wells D, Waldman E.

2 J. D. Blomquist, J. M. Davis, J. L. Cowles, J. A. Hetrick, R. D. Jones, and N. B. Birchfield. 2001. Pesticides in Selected Water Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water,

1 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 101701 DP Barcodes: D281443, D281445 MEMORANDUM June 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Tier II Drinking Water Assessment to Support TRED for Pronamide (Propyzamide)

FROM: Lucy Shanaman, Chemist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division THROUGH: RDavid Jones, Senior Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division Betsy Behl, Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division TO: Robert McNally, PM 60 Cecelia Watson, PM team reviewer Special Review Branch Special Review Reregistration Division This memo presents the Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for pronamide (propyzamine) in surface water, calculated using PRZM/ EXAMS, and a Tier I Drinking Water Assessment in groundwater using SCIGROW, for use in the human health risk assessment. Pronamide detections have been found in monitoring data from both the USGS, NAWQA database, the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database 1 , and the pilot reservoir monitoring program 2 . Tier 1 and Tier 2 modeling 1999 2000: Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program. Open file Report 01 456. Baltimore, MD.

2 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd results of the most current drinking water exposures for use of pronamide on registered crops follows:

1. SURFACE WATER (output tables in Appendix I)

EFED's PRZM/ EXAMS model results (input parameters in table 1) for use of pronamide on registered crops (application rates of between 1.5  4.0 lb/ acre; Table 2) for drinking water derived from surface sources:

10.3 ug/ L (ppb)* for acute exposure from application to pears in Oregon (one in ten year peak value) 4.45 ug/ L (ppb)* for non cancer chronic exposure from application to alfalfa in California (one in ten year annual mean value) 4.30 ug/ L (ppb)* for cancer exposure from application to alfalfa in California (overall mean annual value from 36 years)

* Reported values adjusted for percent crop area by multiplying by a factor of 0.86, as dictated by EFED policy.

2. GROUND WATER (output in Appendix II)

EFED's SCI GROW model screening level results for pronamide groundwater screening concentration for an application to all crops at a rate of 4.0 lbs. of active ingredient per acre:

1.1 ug/ L (ppb) (for both acute and chronic exposures)

Monitoring Data Pronamide detections have been found in monitoring data from the USGS, NAWQA database, EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database, and the Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program. The USGS, NAWQA national database indicates that, out of almost 14 thousand samples, pronamide is detected in surface water in < 3% of the samples. The maximum recorded value is 0.365 ppb. Between 1984 and 1990, a total of 432 wells were sampled for the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database. No detections of pronamide were recorded for tested locations in California, Mississippi, or Oregon. A total of 12 sites were chosen for the Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program to represent locations that are particularly vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Only one reservoir out of the twelve, located in Oklahoma, recorded positive 3 http:// ca. water. usgs. gov/ pnsp/ use92/ pronmid. html 3 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd detections for pronamide of up to 0.044 ppb in 83% (34 of 41) of the raw water samples, and up to 0.012 ppb in 42 % (8 of 19) of the finished water samples. It is worth noting that only a cursory review of the monitoring data has been presented here. It can not be determined if this monitoring data is representative of pronamide use nation wide, based on this level of analysis. In none of these studies, were sites selected based on pronamide use patterns. A more extensive evaluation of the monitoring data could reveal what percentage of the samples reported were collected within a vulnerable time frame, and from locations where pronamide was actually being used.

The pesticide use map below, taken from the USGS, NAWQA program web site 3 , shows historical regional scale patterns in use intensity within the United States. The map is based on state level estimates of pesticide use rates compiled by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) for 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995, and on county based crop acreage data obtained from the 1992 Census of Agriculture, and indicates that the major current agricultural uses are for lettuce, alfalfa, grass and pears. The map depicts that the heaviest historical agricultural uses are in California, the Pacific Northwest, and in smaller scattered pockets use sites. It is interesting to note that the only site within the Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program reporting proanamide detections was in Oklahoma, where the above map indicates that proanamide does not have extensive agricultural use.

USGS, NAWQA Pesticide National Synthesis Project 4 soils and scenario data for the standard scenarios is located at: F:\ USER\ SHARE\ Models\ Aquatic Exposure\ PRZMEXAMS\ Scenarios\ STD_ SCEN\ Standard Scenario Documentation 4 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd Models Used The Tier 2 Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EEC's) for the major registered crop uses were calculated using two models: PRZM version 3.12 (Carsel et al., 1997), dated May 7, 1998 to simulate the transport of the pesticide off the field, and EXAMS 2.97.5 (Burns, 1997), dated June 13, 1997, to simulate the fate of the chemicals in the water body. Both models were launched from a shell (pe3) recently developed within EFED, and adopted for use on February 27, 2002.

SCIGROW (version 2.1; May 1, 2001) provides a Tier 1, groundwater screening exposure value to be used in determining the potential risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. While use of this version is provisional, it is expected to produce more accurate estimated values for compounds with longer half lives. In most cases, a large majority of the use area will have groundwater that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to drive the SCIGROW estimate.

Scenarios Several standard scenarios were chosen to model estimated environmental concentrations in surface water resulting from the proposed crop uses of pronamide, based on particularly vulnerable crop sites for registered uses. Meteorological data files were adjusted to reflect irrigation amounts required for wetting in of pronamide, as per label recommendation, by including the required additional water in with the recorded precipitation for each application date. Four standard, index reservoir scenarios were chosen as surrogates for estimating environmental concentrations in sites more vulnerable to the offsite movement of pesticide than most sites planted with their respective crops.

The standard Oregon apples scenario was used to represent application of pronamide to northwestern pear orchards. The apple scenario is an orchard in Marion County, Oregon, MLRA A2. The soil at the site is Cornelius silt loam, a fine silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Mollic Fragixeralfs. Data for the Cornelius silt loan was taken from the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey, Official Series Description 4 . Weather data was taken from wether station W24232, at Salem, Oregon. The weather data file is part of the PIRANHA shell, and is used to represent the weather for MLRA A2.

The standard California alfalfa scenario was used to represent application of pronamide to alfalfa crops, in general. The alfalfa scenario is a field in the central valley of California, MLRA 17. The soil at the site is Sacramento clay, very fine, smectitic, thermic Cumulic Vertic Endoaquolls. Data for the Sacramento clay was taken from the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey, Official 5 soils and scenario data for the standard scenarios is located at: F:\ USER\ SHARE\ Models\ Aquatic Exposure\ PRZMEXAMS\ Scenarios\ STD_ SCEN\ Standard Scenario Documentation 6 soils and scenario data for the standard scenarios is located at: F:\ USER\ SHARE\ Models\ Aquatic Exposure\ PRZMEXAMS\ Scenarios\ STD_ SCEN\ Standard Scenario Documentation 7 soils and scenario data for the standard scenarios is located at: F:\ USER\ SHARE\ Models\ Aquatic Exposure\ PRZMEXAMS\ Scenarios\ STD_ SCEN\ Standard Scenario Documentation 5 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd Series Description 5 . Weather data was taken from weather station W23155, at Bakersfield, California. The weather data file is part of the PIRANHA shell, and is used to represent the weather for MLRA 17.

The standard Oregon seed grass scenario was chosen to represent application of pronamide to both field and seed grass sites. The seed grass scenario is a field in Portland, Oregon in MLRA 2. The soil at the site is Dayton silt loam, a fine, smectitic, mesic Vertic Albaqualfs. Data for the Dayton silt loam was taken from the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey, Official Series Description 6 . Weather data was taken from wether station W24232, at Salem, Oregon. The weather data file is part of the PIRANHA shell, and is used to represent the weather for MLRA 2.

The standard Florida cabbage scenario was chosen to represent application of pronamide to east coast lettuce crops. The Florida cabbage scenario is a field in Tampa, Florida in MLRA 156B. The soil at the site is Riviera sand,, loamy, siliceous, active, hyperthermic Arenic Glossaqualfs. Data for the Riviera sand was taken from the USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey, Official Series Description 7 . Weather data was taken from weather station W12844, at West Palm Beach, Florida. The weather data file is part of the PIRANHA shell, and is used to represent the weather for MLRA 156B.

The configuration of the water body represented by these standard scenario sites are a 172.8 hectare watershed draining into a 5.26 hectare lake, 2.74 m deep. The scenario known as the index reservoir, was developed to represent a watershed that was more vulnerable than most watersheds to pesticide contamination. It represents a real drinking water reservoir in Illinois, Shipman City Lake. The geometry of the index reservoir and its watersher are used with local weather and soils to represent vulnerable watersheds for different crops in different regions of the country. A detailed description of the index reservoir found in the guidance for using the index reservoir (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). 8 http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ models/ water/ index. htm 6 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd Modeling Inputs and Results Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the general input values used in the model runs for PRZM/ EXAMS and SCIGROW, respectively for pronamide, applied annually by ground spray, at rates between 1.5 and 4.0 pounds per acre applied to registered crops. Surface water modeling results appear in Table 3. PRZM/ EXAMS and SCIGROW output files have been appended to this document.

Table 1. Input Parameters for PRZM/ EXAMS (pe3 shell input)

Chemical pronamide Water Solubility (25 °C) 15 mg/ L Hydrolysis Half Life (pH7; MRID 00107980) stable Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life (MRID 41568901) 1176 days Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half Life 2352 days Photolysis Half Life (MRID 404203 01, 40320601) 41 days Organic Carbon Adsorption Coefficient (Koc; MRID 40211103, 40211104) 656 L/ kg Application Method ground spray, wetted in Application Rate 1.5 to 4.0 lb/ acre (one annual application)

The PRZM/ EXAMS input parameters for metabolism half lives were selected in accordance with US EPA OPP EFED water model parameter selection guidelines, Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II, February 28, 2002 8 . Only one submitted metabolism half life of 392 days was available for aerobic soil metabolism. That value was multiplied by three, as per guidance instructions. The resulting value of 1176 days was used for the aerobic metabolism half life for modeling. In the absence of anaerobic metabolism data, that value was multiplied by two, as outlined in the guidelines, to generate an anaerobic metabolism half life of 2352 days. The organic carbon adsorption coefficient (Koc) value of 656 was calculated, from submitted data, as the slope of the plot of the adsorption Kd value versus percent organic carbon of the specific soils. Submitted data included several test soils with either high or low percent organic matter values, and a wide variance in resulting values. While this is not the method recommended in the input guidance for calculating the absorption coefficient, this overall Koc value better predicts the mobility of pronamide in the environment. Weather data was adjusted to reflect the additional water needed for the recommended practice of "wetting in" the pesticide, by adjusting the recorded precipitation amount on the annual application date to include the required additional water. Application methods and rates for specific crops were obtained from submitted labels. 9 http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ models/ water/ index. htm 7 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd Table 2. Input Parameters for SCIGROW Chemical pronamide Organic Carbon Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) 701 L/ kg Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half Life 392 days Annual Application Rates 2  4 lbs. a. i./ acre The SCIGROW input parameters were selected in accordance with US EPA OPP EFED water model parameter selection guidelines, Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II, February 28, 2002 9 . Application rates were obtained from submitted labels.

Table 3. Modeling Results for Use on Representative Crops CROP Annual Application Rate (pounds / acre) Application Method Application Date PRZM/ EXAMS Values (ppb)*

Acute Exposure (one in 10 year peak value) Non Cancer Chronic Exposure (one in 10 year annual mean value) 36 Year Average (overall mean annual value for 36 years)

C Lettuce in FL 1.5 ground sprayer / wetted in 2" October 20 3.69 0.53 0.54 C Seed Grass in OR 1.5 ground sprayer / wetted in 1" September 15 4.19 1.94 1.86 C Pears in OR 4.0 ground sprayer / wetted in 1" November 21 10.3 4. 05 3. 92 C Alfalfa in CA 2.0 ground sprayer / wetted in 1" January 7 7. 13 4. 45 4. 30 * Reported values adjusted for percent crop area by multiplying by a factor of 0.86, as dictated by EFED policy. 8 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd Associated files for PRZM/ EXAMS modeling of Proanamide located on the F drive at F:\ USER\ LSHANAMA\ 101701PRONAMIDE\ : Caalfalfa. pzr Caalfalfa. out Caalfalf. zts Fllettuce. pzr Fllettuce. out Fllettuc. zts Ororchard. pzr Ororchard. out Ororchar. zts Orseedgrass. pzr Orseedgrass. out Orseedgr. zts MET156c1. MET MET17alf. MET MET2ap1. MET MET2gs1. MET setstfloEXAM. wpd 9 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd APPENDIX I OUTPUT TABLES OF DRINKING WATER MODELING RESULTS PRZM/ EXAMS Results for Pronamide Use on Florida Lettuce WATER COLUMN DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION (PPB)

YEAR PEAK 96 HOUR 21 DAY 60 DAY 90 DAY YEARLY

1948 4.204 4.039 3.426 2.438 1.785 0.4442 1949 4.223 4.057 3.444 2.455 1.802 0.5995 1950 4.231 4.066 3.452 2.463 1.81 0.6101 1951 4.236 4.07 3.456 2.467 1.814 0.6154 1952 4.238 4.072 3.458 2.469 1.816 0.6166 1953 4.239 4.073 3.459 2.47 1.817 0.6196 1954 4.239 4.074 3.46 2.47 1.818 0.6203 1955 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6207 1956 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6193 1957 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.621 1958 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1959 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1960 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1961 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1962 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1963 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1964 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1965 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1966 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1967 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1968 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1969 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1970 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1971 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1972 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1973 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1974 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1975 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1976 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1977 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1978 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1979 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1980 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6195 1981 4.24 4.074 3.46 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1982 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 1983 4.24 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211 Upper Tenth 4.240* 4.074 3.461 2.471 1.818 0.6211* Percentile MEAN OF ANNUAL VALUES = 0.615* *Indicates drinking water assessment endpoints BEFORE correction for percent cropped area, as pre EFED policy. 10 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd PRZM/ EXAMS Results for Pronamide Use on Oregon Pears WATER COLUMN DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION (PPB)

YEAR PEAK 96 HOUR 21 DAY 60 DAY 90 DAY YEARLY        1948 10.47 10.31 9.668 6.136 4.091 1.021 1949 11.4 11.23 10.54 7.012 5.887 3.905 1950 11.65 11.48 10.79 7.258 6.532 4.322 1951 11.78 11.61 10.91 7.389 6.752 4.493 1952 11.84 11.67 10.98 7.509 6.869 4.577 1953 11.89 11.72 11.02 7.573 6.932 4.638 1954 11.91 11.74 11.05 7.614 6.973 4.67 1955 11.93 11.76 11.06 7.637 6.995 4.687 1956 11.93 11.76 11.06 7.649 7.007 4.688 1957 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.653 7.011 4.701 1958 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.66 7.017 4.706 1959 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.663 7.02 4.708 1960 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.664 7.022 4.699 1961 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.661 7.0 19.707 1962 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.022 4.709 1963 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1964 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.666 7.023 4.7 1965 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.662 7.03 4.708 1966 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1967 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71 1968 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.666 7.023 4.701 1969 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.662 7.02 4.708 1970 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1971 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71 1972 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.666 7.023 4.701 1973 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.662 7.02 4.708 1974 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1975 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71 1976 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.666 7.023 4.701 1977 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.662 7.02 4.708 1978 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1979 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71 1980 11.94 11.77 11.07 7.666 7.023 4.701 1981 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.662 7.02 4.708 1982 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.665 7.023 4.71 1983 11.94 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71 Upper Tenth 11.94* 11.77 11.08 7.666 7.023 4.71* Percentile MEAN OF ANNUAL VALUES = 4.558*

*Indicates drinking water assessment endpoints BEFORE correction for percent cropped area, as pre EFED policy. 11 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd PRZM/ EXAMS Results for Pronamide Use on Oregon Seedgrass WATER COLUMN DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION (PPB)

YEAR PEAK 96 HOUR 21 DAY 60 DAY 90 DAY YEARLY        1948 3.971 3.92 3.715 3.302 3.028 0.8523 1949 4.51 4.454 4.229 3.774 3.473 1.779 1950 4.674 4.618 4.389 3.928 3.622 1.994 1951 4.758 4.701 4.472 4.008 3.7 2.093 1952 4.804 4.747 4.517 4.052 3.743 2.145 1953 4.835 4.778 4.548 4.081 3.772 2.181 1954 4.852 4.795 4.565 4.098 3.788 2.201 1955 4.862 4.806 4.575 4.108 3.798 2.213 1956 4.865 4.808 4.578 4.111 3.801 2.216 1957 4.871 4.814 4.584 4.116 3.806 2.223 1958 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.118 3.808 2.226 1959 4.875 4.818 4.587 4.12 3.81 2.228 1960 4.873 4.816 4.585 4.118 3.808 2.224 1961 4.876 4.819 4.588 4.12 3.81 2.228 1962 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1963 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1964 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.119 3.809 2.225 1965 4.876 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1966 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1967 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23 1968 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.119 3.809 2.225 1969 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1970 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.23 1971 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23 1972 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.119 3.809 2.225 1973 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1974 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.23 1975 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23 1976 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.119 3.809 2.225 1977 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1978 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.23 1979 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23 1980 4.874 4.817 4.586 4.119 3.809 2.225 1981 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.229 1982 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.121 3.811 2.23 1983 4.877 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23 Upper Tenth 4.877* 4.82 4.589 4.122 3.811 2.23* Percentile MEAN OF ANNUAL VALUES = 2.162*

*Indicates drinking water assessment endpoints BEFORE correction for percent cropped area, as pre EFED policy. 12 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd PRZM/ EXAMS Results for Pronamide Use on California Alfalfa WATER COLUMN DISSOLVED CONCENTRATION (PPB)

YEAR PEAK 96 HOUR 21 DAY 60 DAY 90 DAY YEARLY        1948 5.236 5.217 5.135 4.842 4.58 2.873 1949 6.66 6.638 6.549 6.205 5.892 3.843 1950 7.277 7.257 7.169 6.816 6.487 4.324 1951 7.632 7.611 7.527 7.171 6.835 4.616 1952 7.858 7.838 7.755 7.398 7.059 4.799 1953 7.999 7.98 7.899 7.541 7.2 4.925 1954 8.102 8.083 8.003 7.644 7.301 5.01 1955 8.168 8.149 8.07 7.71 7.366 5.066 1956 8.212 8.193 8.114 7.754 7.409 5.096 1957 8.234 8.215 8.136 7.777 7.432 5.122 1958 8.257 8.238 8.16 7.8 7.455 5.141 1959 8.271 8.252 8.174 7.814 7.468 5.152 1960 8.28 8.261 8.183 7.823 7.477 5.154 1961 8.279 8.26 8.182 7.823 7.477 5.16 1962 8.287 8.269 8.19 7.831 7.484 5.166 1963 8.291 8.272 8.194 7.834 7.488 5.169 1964 8.293 8.275 8.196 7.836 7.49 5.165 1965 8.288 8.269 8.191 7.831 7.485 5.168 1966 8.293 8.274 8.196 7.836 7.49 5.171 1967 8.295 8.276 8.198 7.838 7.492 5.172 1968 8.296 8.277 8.199 7.839 7.493 5.167 1969 8.289 8.271 8.193 7.833 7.487 5.169 1970 8.294 8.276 8.197 7.838 7.491 5.172 1971 8.296 8.277 8.199 7.839 7.492 5.173 1972 8.296 8.278 8.199 7.84 7.493 5.167 1973 8.29 8.271 8.193 7.833 7.487 5.169 1974 8.295 8.276 8.197 7.838 7.491 5.172 1975 8.296 8.277 8.199 7.839 7.493 5.173 1976 8.296 8.278 8.199 7.84 7.493 5.168 1977 8.29 8.271 8.193 7.833 7.487 5.169 1978 8.295 8.276 8.198 7.838 7.491 5.172 1979 8.296 8.277 8.199 7.839 7.493 5.173 1980 8.296 8.278 8.199 7.84 7.493 5.168 1981 8.29 8.271 8.193 7.834 7.487 5.169 1982 8.295 8.276 8.198 7.838 7.491 5.172 1983 8.296 8.277 8.199 7.839 7.493 5.173 Upper Tenth 8.296* 8.2773 8.199 7.8393 7.493 5.173* Percentile MEAN OF ANNUAL VALUES = 5.001*

*Indicates drinking water assessment endpoints BEFORE correction for percent cropped area, as pre EFED policy. 13 Final Water Assessment PronamideTIER2.wpd APPENDIX II SCIGROW Ground Water Results for Pronamide SCIGROW VERSION 2.1 MAY 1, 2001 RUN No. 1 FOR pronamide ** INPUT VALUES **  APP RATE APPS/ TOTAL/ SOIL AEROBIC SOIL METAB (LBS/ AC) YEAR SEASON KOC HALFLIFE (DAYS)  4.000 1 4.000 701.0 392.00 GROUND WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATION (IN PPB)  1.0966

SCIGROW VERSION 2.1 MAY 1, 2001 RUN No. 2 FOR proanamide ** INPUT VALUES **  APP RATE APPS/ TOTAL/ SOIL AEROBIC SOIL METAB (LBS/ AC) YEAR SEASON KOC HALFLIFE (DAYS)  2.000 1 2.000 701.0 392.00 GROUND WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATION (IN PPB)  .5483


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48580-48582]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19862]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67624; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-040]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Related
to Permanent Approval of Its Pilot on FLEX Minimum Value Sizes

August 8, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On April 25, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to permanent approval of
its pilot program eliminating Flexible Exchange Option (``FLEX
Option'') minimum value sizes. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. The Exchange consented to an
extension of the time period for the Commission to approve the proposed
rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
disapproved, to August 9, 2012. CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, in order to transmit a pilot report, on August 6,
2012.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66934 (May 7, 2012),
77 FR 27822 (May 11, 2012) (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, CBOE submitted as Exhibit 3 to its
proposal an annual report summarizing pilot data collected for the
year 2011, the most recent complete year of the pilot program
(``Pilot Report''). Specifically, the Pilot Report summarizes the
open interest and trading volume in FLEX Option transactions opened
during the year 2011 with a size below the minimum value thresholds
in force before the pilot, as well as the types of customers
initiating such transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FLEX Options, unlike traditional standardized options, allow
investors to customize basic option terms, including size, expiration
date, exercise style, and certain exercise style prices within certain
parameters as set forth in CBOE's rules.\5\ CBOE currently has in place
a pilot program under which there is no minimum value size requirement
for FLEX Option transactions (``Pilot Program'') which, practically,
allows FLEX Option trades to be initiated at levels as low as one
contract.\6\ CBOE is proposing to make the Pilot Program permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3; see also CBOE Rules 24A.1(d) and
24B.1(d).
    \6\ See CBOE Rules 24A.4.01(b), 24B.4.01(b); Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 61439 (January 28, 2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4,
2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-087) (approving establishment of pilot program);
61676 (March 9, 2010), 75 FR 13191 (March 18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-
026) (technical rule change to include original pilots' conclusion
date of March 28, 2011 in the rule text); 64110 (March 24, 2011), 76
FR 17463 (March 29, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-024) (extending the pilots
through March 30, 2012); and 66701 (March 30, 2012), 77 FR 20673
(April 5, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-027) (extending the pilots through the
earlier of November 2, 2012 or the date on which the respective
pilot program is approved on a permanent basis). There is also a
CBOE pilot program currently in place that eliminates certain
restrictions on the exercise settlement values for FLEX index
options. Although that exercise settlement value pilot was
originally approved along with the Pilot Program, it is not part of
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the Pilot Program, the minimum value size for an opening
transaction in any FLEX series without open interest was: (1) For FLEX
Equity Options,\7\ the lesser of 250 contracts or the number of
contracts overlying $1 million in the underlying securities; \8\ and
(2) for FLEX Index Options,\9\ $10 million Underlying Equivalent
Value.\10\ Additionally, the minimum value size for a transaction in
any currently-opened FLEX series was: (1) For FLEX Equity Options, the
lesser of 100 contracts or the number of contracts overlying $1 million
in the underlying securities, and 25 contracts in the case of closing
transactions; (2) for FLEX Index Options, $1 million Underlying
Equivalent Value in the case of both opening and closing transactions;
or (3) in either case, the remaining underlying size or Underlying
Equivalent Value on a closing transaction, whichever is less.\11\ There
were also, prior to the Pilot Program, minimum value size requirements
applicable to FLEX Quotes \12\ responsive to a Request for Quotes,\13\
including certain minimum

value size requirements that specifically applied to FLEX Appointed
Market Makers and FLEX Index Appointed Market Makers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Rules 24A.1(e) and 24B.1(f) (defining ``FLEX Equity
Option'').
    \8\ Under a different pilot program, superseded by the pilot
that CBOE now seeks to make permanent, the 250-contract minimum for
Flex Equity Options was reduced to 150 contracts. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57429 (March 4, 2008), 73 FR 13058 (March
11, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-2006-36).
    \9\ See CBOE Rules 24A.1(f) and 24B.1(g) (defining ``FLEX Index
Option'').
    \10\ See CBOE Rules 24A.4(a)(4)(ii) and 24B.4(a)(5)(ii); see
also CBOE Rules 24A.1(q) and 24B.1(z) (defining ``Underlying
Equivalent Value'').
    \11\ See CBOE Rules 24A.4(a)(4)(iii) and 24B.4(a)(5)(iii).
    \12\ See CBOE Rules 24A.1(h) and 24B.1(k) (defining ``FLEX
Quote'').
    \13\ See CBOE Rules 24A.1(n) and 24B.1(r) (defining ``Request
for Quotes'').
    \14\ See CBOE Rules 24A.4(a)(4)(iv) and 24B.4(a)(5)(iv); see
also CBOE Rules 24A.9 and 24B.9 (defining and describing FLEX
Qualified Market Makers and FLEX Appointed Market Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE's proposal will make permanent the Pilot Program eliminating
these minimum value sizes by deleting CBOE Rules 24A.4(a)(4),
24A.4.01(b), 24B.4(a)(5), and 24B.4.01(b), as well as by deleting
cross-references in Rules 24A.9(b) and 24B.9(c) that applied the
minimum value size requirements in Rules 24A.4(a)(4)(iv) and
24B.4(a)(5)(iv) to FLEX Quotes entered by FLEX Appointed Market Makers
or FLEX Qualified Market Makers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As a technical change, CBOE also proposes to relocate
certain language from the provisions that would be deleted by its
proposal. Specifically, CBOE proposes to move from Rules
24A.4(a)(4)(i) and 24B.4(a)(5)(i) to Rules 24A.4(a)(2)(iv) and
24B.4(a)(2)(iv), respectively, language setting an expiration date
maximum term of fifteen years for FLEX Requests for Quotes, FLEX
Orders and FLEX Option contracts. CBOE also proposes to move from
Rule 24B.4(a)(5)(iv) to Rule 24B.9(c) language regarding the minimum
percentage of Requests for Quotes in response to which FLEX
Appointed Market Makers must provide a FLEX Quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FLEX Options were originally designed for use by institutional and
high net worth customers, rather than retail investors.\18\ In
approving the Pilot Program, while the Commission noted that it had
received several comment letters stating that the proposal would assist
institutional customers, it also noted that the elimination of the
minimum value size requirements raised the possibility that retail
customers would access the FLEX Options market.\19\ One of the risks to
retail investors outlined in the ODD\20\ is that, because of the
customized nature of FLEX Options and lack of continuous quotes,
trading in FLEX Options is often less deep and liquid than trading in
standardized options on the same underlying interest.\21\ Additionally,
the Commission observed, in approving the Pilot Program, that reducing
the minimum value size for opening FLEX Option transactions increases
the potential for the FLEX Options market to act as a surrogate for the
standardized options market, and expressed its concern in this regard
because the standardized market contains certain protections for
investors not present in the FLEX Options market.\22\ The Commission
stated that, in the event the Exchange proposed making the Pilot
Program permanent, information regarding the types of customers
initiating opening FLEX Options transactions during the Pilot Program,
to be compiled and submitted to the Commission by CBOE as part of its
monitoring of the Pilot Program, would enable the Commission to
evaluate how market participants have responded to the Pilot Program
and what types of customers are using the FLEX Options market.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 31920 (February
24, 1993), 58 FR 12280 (March 3, 1993) (order approving SR-CBOE-92-
17); 57429 (March 4, 2008), 73 FR 13058 (March 11, 2008) (order
approving SR-CBOE-2006-36). As noted in the Options Disclosure
Document (``ODD''), which explains the characteristics and risks of
exchange-traded options, flexibly structured options may be useful
to sophisticated investors seeking to manage particular portfolio
and trading risks. Rule 9b-1 under the Act requires that broker-
dealers furnish the ODD to a customer before accepting an order from
the customer to purchase or sell an option contract relating to an
options class that is the subject of the ODD, or approving the
customer's account for the trading of such option. See 17 CFR
240.9b-1(d).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61439 (January 28,
2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-087) (``Pilot
Approval Order'').
    \20\ See supra note 18.
    \21\ In particular, the ODD states that because many of the
terms of FLEX Options are not standardized, it is less likely that
there will be an active secondary market in which holders and
writers of such options will be able to close out their positions by
offsetting sales and purchases. Also, the ODD states that certain
margin requirements for positions in flexibly structured options may
be significantly greater than the margin requirements applicable to
similar positions in other options on the same underlying interest.
    \22\ See Pilot Approval Order, supra note 19. In particular, the
Commission noted that continuous quotes may not always be available
in the FLEX Options market and that FLEX Options do not have trading
rotations at either the opening or closing of trading. Id.
    \23\ Id. CBOE has submitted the Pilot Report as well as other,
confidential reports of data collected during the Pilot Program. See
Notice, supra note 3; see also Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Pilot Report that CBOE provided to the Commission, the
significant majority of FLEX Option transactions with small value sizes
have been initiated by institutional customers, while, at the same
time, retail investor participation in such transactions has remained
extremely low.\24\ For example, the Pilot Report states that of the 551
FLEX Option transactions for non-broker-dealer customers that were
initiated below the pre-pilot minimum value size requirement, 550 were
initiated for the accounts of institutional customers.\25\ Based on
this usage, CBOE has stated that it believes that there is sufficient
investor interest and demand to make the Pilot Program permanent.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Pilot Report, supra note 4.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On balance, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Act to make the Pilot Program permanent. Given the current level of
retail usage, the potential concerns regarding exposing less
sophisticated investors to the FLEX Options market are minimized. The
protections noted below, including heightened options suitability
requirements, should help to address any concerns about the potential
for increased retail participation in the FLEX Options market.
Moreover, the Commission is not aware of data or analysis suggesting
that the trading of FLEX Options has acted as a surrogate for the
trading of standardized options on CBOE as a result of the Pilot
Program.
    Existing safeguards--such as position reporting requirements and
margin requirements--will continue to apply to FLEX Options.\27\
Further, as noted above, under Rule 9b-1 under the Act,\28\ all
customers of a broker-dealer with options accounts approved to trade
FLEX Options must receive the ODD, which contains specific disclosures
about the characteristics and special risks of trading FLEX
Options.\29\ In addition, similar to other options, FLEX Options are
subject to Trading Permit Holder supervision and suitability

requirements, such as in CBOE Rules 9.8 and 9.9.\30\ The Commission
believes that these safeguards are reasonably designed to help mitigate
potential risks for retail and other investors of investing in FLEX
Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Certain FLEX Options such as, for example, narrow-based
index FLEX options, have exercise and position limits, but other
FLEX Options do not. See CBOE Rules 24A.7, 24A.8, 24B.7 and 24B.8.
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \29\ See supra note 18.
    \30\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE also believes that permanently removing the minimum value size
requirements for FLEX Options will give investors a more viable,
exchange-traded alternative to customized options in the OTC market,
which are not subject to minimum value size requirements.\31\
Furthermore, CBOE has represented that broker-dealers have indicated to
CBOE that the minimum value size requirements have prevented them from
bringing transactions on the Exchange that are already taking place in
the OTC market.\32\ Therefore, it appears possible that permanent
approval of the Pilot Program could further incent trading interest in
customized options to move from the OTC market to CBOE. To the extent
investors choose to trade FLEX Options on CBOE in lieu of the OTC
market as a result of the permanent removal of the minimum value size
requirements, such action should benefit investors. As the Commission
has previously noted, there are certain benefits to trading on an
exchange, such as enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out
positions, increased market transparency, and heightened contra-party
creditworthiness due to the role of the Options Clearing Corporation as
issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57429 (March 4,
2008), 73 FR 13058 (March 11, 2008) (order approving SR-CBOE-2006-
36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    In summary, the Commission believes, for the reasons noted above,
that the proposed rule change to permanently approve the Pilot Program
is consistent with the Act and Section 6(b)(5) thereunder in
particular, and should be approved. The Commission expects CBOE to
continue to monitor the usage of FLEX Options and review whether
changes need to be made to its rules or the ODD to address any changes
in retail FLEX Option participation or any other issues that may occur
as a result of the elimination of the minimum value sizes on a
permanent basis.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2012-040) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19862 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NWF Comments:
Dear Christopher-

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into EPA's literature review on jatropha. While I do not have any comments related specifically to lifecycle GHG emissions of jatropha, I do have two comments on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation:

   1.       NWF is very concerned about the potential for jatropha (and other feedstocks) to become invasive and cause economic and ecological damage While jatropha is not necessarily invasive, and certainly not necessarily invasive everywhere  -  we believe that there is enough in the literature on the potential for jatropha to become invasive to warrant further investigation, including through a literature review and a weed risk assessment. We urge EPA to include this vital assessment as part of the RFS pathway approval process. Under Executive Order 13112, (issued Feb 3, 1999), a federal agency cannot take action that causes or promotes the spread of invasive species unless the agency has publicly determined that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm. Therefore, we believe that EPA must evaluate the invasive potential of jatropha. To that end, I've included a list of publications that would be useful in evaluating the invasive potential of jatropha. Additionally, I am attaching a letter signed by over 200 scientists from 41 states calling on federal agencies to comply with the E.O. 13112 and do an assessment of the invasion risk of bioenergy feedstocks before they are eligible for federal incentives that pave the way for their cultivation.

   2.       The use of the term "jatropha" as a common name is vague and therefore problematic. Jatropha refers to a genus, not a species. There are around 170 species included in the genus jatropha, each with different characteristics- and likely a different GHG profile. NWF strongly believes that full scientific taxonomy  -  including genus and species, as well as subspecies, cultivar, hybrid, or variety when applicable -- should be used in RFS feedstock pathway rulemaking in order to be as specific as possible and prevent problems down the line.

Thank you for your consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions or to come in and discuss these issues with you further.

Regards,

Aviva Glaser

Suggested literature on jatropha invasive potential
Chimera, C, CE Buddenhagen, and PM Clifford. 2010. Biofuels: the risks and dangers of introducing invasive species. Biofuels 1(5): 785-796.
Csurhes, SM. 1999. Bellyache bush (Jatropha gossypiifolia) in Queensland. Pest Status Review Series. Queensland, Australia.
Gordon, DR, KJ Tancig, DA Onderdonk, and CA Gantz. 2011. Assessing the invasive potential of biofuel species proposed for Florida and the United States using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(1): 74-79.
Heard, TA, RR Chan, and R Segura. 2002. Prospects for the biological control of bellyache bush, Jatropha gossypiifolia. Thirteenth Australian Weeds Conference. http://www.caws.org.au/awc/2002/awc200213661.pdf.
Henderson, L. 20007. Invasive, naturalized, and casual alien plants in southern Africa: a summary based on the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas (SAPIA). Bothalia 27(2): 215-248.
Low, T and C Booth. 2007. The Weedy Truth about biofuels. Published by the Invasive Species Council. http://www.lifeofthelandhawaii.org/Bio_Documents/2007.0346/LOL_EXH_7_Weedy_Truth.pdf
Prentis, PJ, DP Sigg, S Raghu, K Dhileepan, A Pavasovic, and AJ Lowe. 2009. Understanding invasion history: genetic structure and diversity of two globally invasive plants and implications for their management. Diversity and Distributions 15(5): 822-830.
Sahoo, NK, A Kumar, S Sharma, and SN Naik. 2009. Interaction of Jatropha Plantation with Ecosystem.  Proceedings of International Conference on Energy and Environment ISSN: 2070-3740.

------------------------------------
Aviva Glaser
Legislative Representative, Agriculture Policy
National Wildlife Federation
901 E St. NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20004
202-797-6616
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74197-74199]
[DOCID:fr05de08-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0051]

The Cadmium in Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the information collection requirements contained in the
Cadmium in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1127).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0051,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of
Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45
p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the information collection request (OSHA-2008-0051).
All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on
submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Jamaa Hill at the
address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing efforts to
reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the Cadmium in
Construction Standard protect employees from the adverse health effects
that may result from their exposure to cadmium. The major information
collection requirements in the Standard include conducting employee
exposure monitoring, notifying employees of their cadmium exposures,
implementing a written compliance program, implementing medical
surveillance of employees, providing examining physicians with specific
information, ensuring that employees receive a copy of their medical
surveillance results, maintaining employees' exposure monitoring and
medical surveillance records for specific periods, and providing access
to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, the employee who is the subject of the records, the
employee's representative, and other designated parties.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Cadmium in Construction
Standard (29 CFR 1926.1127). The Agency is proposing to retain its
previous estimate of 39,331 burden hours; however, it is proposing to
increase the currently approved capital costs from $1,657,460 to
$1,775,457, a total increase of $117,997. The increase is due to the
Agency increasing the cost to perform medical surveillance and exposure
monitoring.
    The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Cadmium in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1127).
    OMB Number: 1218-0186.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Frequency: On occasion; quarterly; semi-annually; annually.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from two minutes (.03 hour) for a
secretary to compile and maintain training records to 1.5 hours to
administer employee medical examinations.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 39,331.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $1,775,457

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0051). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of November 2008.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-28787 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70420-70421]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24660]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-OW-2016-0586; FRL-9954-03-Region 7]

Notice of Approval of the Primacy Application for National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the State of Nebraska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for a public
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving
notice that the State of Nebraska is revising its approved Public Water
Supply Supervision Program under the Nebraska Department of Health and
Human Services. The EPA has determined that these revisions are no less
stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, the
EPA intends to approve these program revisions.

DATES: This determination to approve the Nebraska program revision is
made pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d) (3). This determination shall become
final and effective on November 14, 2016, unless (1) a timely and
appropriate request for a public hearing is received or (2) the
Regional Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on his own
motion. Any interested person, other than Federal Agencies, may request
a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted to
the Regional Administrator at the address shown below by November 14,
2016. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made within the
requested thirty-day time frame, a public hearing will be held and a
notice will be given in the Federal Register and a newspaper of general
circulation. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be
denied by the Regional Administrator. If no timely and appropriate
request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does
not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination will
become effective on November 14, 2016. All interested parties may
request a public hearing on the approval to the Regional Administrator
at the EPA Region 7 address shown below.

ADDRESSES: Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the

Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement on
information that the requesting person intends to submit at such
hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request or, if
the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity. Requests for Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    All documents relating to this determination are available for
inspection between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the following offices: Nebraska Department of Health and
Human Services, 301 Centennial Mall South, 3rd Floor, Lincoln, Nebraska
68509-5007. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Water Wetlands
and Pesticides Division, Drinking Water Management Branch, 11201 Renner
Blvd, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth L. Deason, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, Drinking Water Management Branch, (913)
551-7585, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has
determined to approve an application by the Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services to incorporate the following EPA National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: (1) Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (January 5, 2006, 71 FR 654); (2) Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (January 4, 2006, 71 FR
388, Vol. 71, No. 2); (3) Ground Water Rule (November 8, 2006), 71 FR
65574); (4) for Lead and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and
Clarifications (October 10, 2007, 72 FR 57782). The application
demonstrates that Nebraska has adopted drinking water regulations which
satisfy the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The EPA has
determined that Nebraska's regulations are no less stringent than the
corresponding Federal regulations and that Nebraska continues to meet
all requirements for primary enforcement responsibility as specified in
40 CFR 142.10.

    (Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.12(d) and 142.13)

    Dated: September 28, 2016.
Mike Brincks,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2016-24660 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19491]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0626]

Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Postponed

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee
(PADAC) scheduled for April 21, 2020, is postponed. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), like other government agencies, is taking the
necessary steps to ensure the Agency is prepared to continue our vital
public health mission in the event that our day-to-day operations are
impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency. Therefore, we are
canceling or postponing all non-essential meetings through the month of
April. We will reassess on an ongoing basis for future months.
Therefore, this meeting is being postponed. The meeting was announced
in the Federal Register on February 20, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area), and follow the prompts to the desired center or
product area. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting, which was announced in the Federal
Register of February 20, 2020 (85 FR 9780).

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-07262 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12370-12371]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP18-441-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Initiation of
Section 5 Proceeding

    On March 15, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
RP18-441-000, pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.
717d (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of Midwestern Gas Transmission Company's (Midwestern)
currently effective tariff rates. The Commission's order directs
Midwestern to file a full cost and revenue study within 75 days of the
issuance of the order. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, 162 FERC
61,219 (2018).
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. RP18-441-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 30
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05678 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 8, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 97-2909

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROSERVICIOS de NUEVO LEON, S.A. de C.V.
       Date Filed:  December 3, 2001

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

Applicant representative(s):  Julio Gonzalez Santos, 011-52-81-8319-7784

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 21, 2000, in
this Docket.

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
      Action date:  January 8, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  January 8, 2002, through January
8, 2003.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this
docu敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ
瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75370-75372]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0090; Notice 2]

Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that
certain replacement windshield glass panes manufactured by Central
Glass Co., Ltd., outsourced to Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass Co.,
Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement parts for use in certain Nissan
motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Nissan filed a
noncompliance report dated June 29, 2020. Nissan subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on July 29, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces grant of Nissan's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
(202) 366-0661, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Nissan has determined that certain replacement windshield glass
panes manufactured by Central Glass Co., Ltd., outsourced to Japan
Tempered & Laminated Glass Co., Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement
parts for use in certain Nissan motor vehicles do not fully comply with
the requirements of paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials
(49 CFR 571.205). Nissan filed a noncompliance report dated June 29,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Nissan subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
July 29, 2020, for an exemption from the

notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Nissan's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 13, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 19319). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0090.''

II. Windshields Involved

    Approximately 1,934 replacement windshield glass panes sold as
replacement service parts, manufactured between April 1, 2000, and
April 30, 2012, are potentially involved. These replacement windshield
glass panes were manufactured by Central Glass Co., Ltd., who
subsequently outsourced to a subsidiary company, Japan Tempered &
Laminated Glass Co., Ltd., and sold to Nissan as replacement parts for
Nissan motor vehicles.

III. Noncompliance

    Nissan stated that the glass manufacturer, Central Glass Co., Ltd.,
outsourced glass production to a subsidiary company, Japan Tempered &
Laminated Glass Co., Ltd. (JTLG), in April 2000. Instead of using its
own certification mark ``166,'' JTLG used the certification mark
``44,'' which is assigned to its parent company, Central Glass Co.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 includes the requirements that a
prime glazing manufacturer add a manufacturer's code mark, that NHTSA
assigns to the manufacturer, to its glazing.

V. Summary of Nissan's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Nissan's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Nissan and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Nissan describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Nissan offers the following reasoning:
    1. Nissan states that although the manufacturer's code mark is
incorrect, the certification mark affixed to the subject parts features
the correct AS Item number and model number. In addition, the
windshield glass panes were fabricated in full compliance with the
technical requirements of 49 CFR 571.205 applicable to laminated glass
for use in motor vehicles.
    2. Nissan says that many of the 1,934 windshield glass components
that may contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark are located in
non-U.S. markets. For this reason, Nissan believes the actual number of
subject parts is substantially lower than the 1,934 possible windshield
glass panes because only a small number of potentially affected
windshield glass panes were shipped to the U.S. market for use as
service parts between April 1, 2000, and April 30, 2012.
    3. Nissan also states that the part number remains accurate,
despite the manufacturer's code mark discrepancy. The subject
noncompliance, accordingly, is unlikely to result in the use of an
incorrect replacement part in an OEM application because the part would
be ordered using Nissan's unique part number and not the ``DOT''
number. In Nissan's ordering system, parts with the incorrect
manufacturer's code mark are indistinguishable from parts with the
correct code. In fact, the parts are traceable to Central Glass Co.,
Ltd., since the incorrect code used by their subsidiary, JLTG, is the
code for the parent company, Central Glass Co., Ltd.
    4. Nissan believes that there is a low likelihood of a vehicle
requiring this replacement part because the average age of potentially
affected vehicles (MY 1991-1999) is 25+ years old. Currently, only one
replacement windshield glass service part (727120M010) is in stock and
available. However, Nissan instructed the Sagamihara Part Center in
Japan to suspend shipment for this part. Even so, if a vehicle
previously received or were to receive a subject replacement part, the
part fully complies with the technical requirements of 49 CFR 571.205.
In no way is the actual safety aspect of the windshield glass
compromised by the misprinted manufacturer's code mark.
    5. Nissan contends that in similar situations, NHTSA has granted
the applications of other petitioners. For example, 80 FR 3737 (January
23, 2015) Petition by Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky
Corporation. Nissan cited NHTSA, saying ``NHTSA believes that the
subject labeling errors are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
because the marking of glazing as `Tempered' or `Laminated' is not
required by FMVSS No. 205, the probability of anyone in the United
States obtaining the subject incorrectly marked glazing as replacement
glazing is very unlikely since the affected glazing is specifically
designed for use in mining vehicles manufactured by Atlas Copco in
Australia. In addition, there is no concern that the wrong model number
on the subject glazing would result in an incorrect replacement part
being used because replacement parts are ordered by referring to the
glazing part number or by identifying the vehicle for which the
replacement glazing is intended.''
    Nissan concludes by again contending that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

1. General Principles

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\1\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant or a
consumer who is exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\2\
These considerations are also relevant when considering whether a
defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \2\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).

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

2. Response to the Arguments From Nissan

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires a prime glazing
manufacturer to mark its glazing with a manufacturer's code mark that
NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.
    Nissan pointed out that many of the subject 1,934 windshield glass
components that may contain an incorrect manufacturer's code mark are
located in non-U.S. markets. As previously stated, NHTSA does not
consider arguments that the noncompliance involves only a small number
of items of motor vehicle equipment when determining whether the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Instead,
NHTSA considers the consequences of the noncompliance and how that may
impact a consumer exposed to it. For purposes of this petition, NHTSA
considered whether the noncompliance impacted the functional safety of
the impacted windshield and also whether the noncompliance would impact
any potential future recalls.
    First, as part of NHTSA's consideration of Nissan's petition, NHTSA
reviewed information submitted by Nissan in support of its statements
that the subject windshields met all of the applicable performance
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 205. Based on its review of the
test data submitted by Nissan, NHTSA believes that Nissan's
certifications of the safety performance of the subject windshields
were made based on reasonable bases. Accordingly, NHTSA has no reason
to believe that the windshields are otherwise noncompliant with the
performance requirements in FMVSS No. 205.
    Second, NHTSA considered whether the noncompliance could impact the
efficiency of a recall if the affected windshields were subject to one.
Based on the information presented, NHTSA believes that if the affected
windshields were subject to a future recall, Nissan or consumers would
be able to identify the affected windshields in order to have the
recall completed. This is because, while the marking does not identify
the fabricating manufacturer, it does identify the parent company and
the correct model number and would, therefore, be traceable to an
entity who would accept responsibility for conducting a recall. Based
on the foregoing reasons, NHTSA does not believe the noncompliance
poses a consequential risk to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA also requested that Nissan provide information about what
Nissan, Central Glass Co., Ltd., and Japan Tempered & Laminated Glass
Co., Ltd. (JTLG) are doing to ensure this type of noncompliance does
not happen again. Nissan responded that Central Glass Co. has informed
Nissan that in the time since this issue took place, change management
policies have been implemented, with all new changes to products now
being reviewed by the Central Glass HQ quality assurance department for
approval. Additionally, JTLG also reviewed U.S. certification and
marking requirements and made updates to their own processes, where
appropriate, to ensure future compliance. Nissan states that any future
manufacturing process changes would be detected and corrected prior to
production.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Nissan has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 205 noncompliance
in the affected windshield glass panes is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Nissan's petition is hereby granted and
Nissan is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles and equipment that Nissan no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve
vehicle and equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on
the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles and replacement
windshield glass panes under their control after Nissan notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-24140 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 104 (Thursday, June 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 25298]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0009; OMB No. 1660-0062]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-
3100, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or, Kathleen Smith, Chief, Planning and Safety
Branch; Planning, Safety and Building Science Division; Risk Management
Directorate; Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration; FEMA
(202) 646-4372.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection previously
published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2017 at 82 FR 12823 with
a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose
of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0062.
    Form Titles and Numbers: Not applicable.
    Abstract: In order to be eligible for certain types of Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) non-emergency assistance, State,
local, and Indian Tribal governments are required to have a current
FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan that meets the criteria
established in 44 CFR part 201.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 227,366 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $11,279,627. The estimated annual capital start-up cost
to respondents is $11,901,120. The estimated annual operations and
maintenance cost to respondents is $16,540,260. The estimated annual
non-labor cost to respondents is $2,756,710. The estimated cost to the
Federal Government is $1,705,242.

    Dated: May 22, 2017.
Richard Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-11087 Filed 5-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36431-36432]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0717]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Waterview Loft Fireworks I, Detroit River, Detroit,
MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 350-foot radius of a portion of the Detroit
River, Detroit, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and
vessels from potential hazards associated with the Waterview Loft
Fireworks I.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. through 10
p.m. on August 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0717 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Detroit
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display
in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an
NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment
period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with
this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that
potential hazard associated with fireworks from 9:30 p.m. through 10
p.m. on August 14, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a
350-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. through 10 p.m.
on August 14, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, within a 350-foot radius of
position 42[deg]19.529' N 083[deg]02.436' W (NAD 83). No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 9:30 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on August 14, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will
issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The

Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a 30 minute safety zone that will prohibit entry into a designated
area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0717 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0717  Safety Zone; Waterview Loft Fireworks I, Detroit
River, Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S.
navigable waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI, within a 350-foot
radius of position 42[deg]19.529' N 083[deg]02.436' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 14, 2018.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor
within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the
safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with
all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-16208 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P