[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34152-34154]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0069]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2013-0069 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Block, Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-
131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W46-499, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is
202-366-6401 and his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (I) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS)

    Type of Request--Reinstatement with change.
    OMB Clearance Number--2127-0645.
    Form Number--NHTSA 1020A and NHTSA 1020B.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--NHTSA proposes to conduct
the Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS) among a national
probability sample of 12,000 adults (age 16 and older). The MVOSS
focuses on issues related to seat belt and child restraint use, and has
been conducted on a periodic basis by NHTSA since 1994. This would be
the seventh administration of the MVOSS. Participation by respondents
would be voluntary.
    NHTSA's information needs require seat belt and child safety seat
sections too large to merge into a single survey instrument without
producing an inordinate burden on respondents. Rather than reduce these
sections, the proposed survey instrument is divided into two
questionnaires. Each questionnaire would be administered to one-half
the total number of respondents to be interviewed. The average amount
of time for respondents to complete either questionnaire is estimated
to be 15 minutes, a slight reduction from earlier years due to the
inclusion of fewer questions. Questionnaire 1 would focus on
seat belts and include smaller sections on air bags, on general driving
(including speed), and on drinking and driving because of the extensive
impact of alcohol on the highway safety problem. Questionnaire
2 would focus on child restraint use, accompanied by smaller
sections on Emergency Medical Services, and use of wireless phones.
Both questionnaires would contain sections on crash injury experience.
Some basic seat belt questions contained in Questionnaire 1
would be duplicated on Questionnaire 2.
    The survey would use a multi-mode approach that employs Web as the
primary response mode, with the on-line technology serving to reduce
length and minimize recording errors. Mail and telephone would serve as
alternative response modes for respondents that choose not to
participate on-line. The telephone interviewers would use computer-
assisted telephone interviewing. A Spanish-language translation of the
questionnaires, and bilingual interviewers to conduct the telephone
interviews, would be used to minimize language barriers to
participation.
    The multi-mode approach is a major change in methodology from
previous administrations of the MVOSS. Therefore, the full
administration of the survey would be preceded by a pilot test to
assess methods for each of the response modes used in the survey.
    The sample for the full administration of the survey would be drawn
from an address-based sampling frame. Contact with prospective
respondents would be conducted through the mail. The first contact
would ask that the sampled household member go to a designated Web site
to take the survey. Each respondent would be assigned a unique randomly
generated PIN (Personal Identification Number) that must be used to
access the questionnaire via computer. Follow up contacts would include
mail and telephone as alternative response modes. The personally
identifiable information used to contact respondents would be held
separately from the information provided by respondents to the survey
so that no connection can be made between the two. No personally
identifiable information would be collected during the interviews.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established to reduce the number of deaths,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on
the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is
authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of
motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    During the late 1960s and early 1970s, more than 50,000 persons
were killed each year in motor vehicle crashes in the United States.
Diverse approaches were taken to address the problem. Vehicle safety
designs and features were improved; restraint devices were improved;
safety behaviors were mandated in State legislation (including seat
belt use and child safety seat use); alcohol-related legislation was
enacted; this legislation was enforced; public information and
education activities were widely implemented; and roadways were
improved.
    As a result of these interventions and improvements, crash
fatalities dropped significantly. By 2011, total fatalities had fallen
to 32,367, representing a 36% decline from 1966. In addition, the
resident population and the number of vehicle miles traveled increased
greatly over those years. When fatality rates are computed per 100,000
population, the rate for 2011 (10.39) was about 60 percent lower than
the 1966 rate (25.89). In sum, heightened highway safety activity
conducted over the past several decades corresponds with major strides
in reducing traffic fatalities.
    Remaining barriers to safety will be more resistant to programmatic
influences now that the easy gains have

already been accomplished. Moreover, crash fatalities rose in 2012.
Thus significant effort will be needed just to preserve the gains that
already have been made. Up-to-date information is essential to plot the
direction of future activity that will achieve reductions in crash
injuries and fatalities in the coming years.
    As part of its collection of information used to develop and
implement effective countermeasures to improve highway traffic safety,
NHTSA conducted its first MVOSS in 1994. The survey included questions
related to seat belts, child safety seats, air bags, and Emergency
Medical Services. It also contained small segments on alcohol use and
on speeding. The survey has been repeated five times since then, with
the survey instrument updated prior to each survey administration to
incorporate emergent issues and items of increased interest. The most
recent MVOSS was fielded during the first quarter of calendar year
2007.
    The proposed survey is the seventh MVOSS. The survey would collect
data on topics included in the preceding surveys and would monitor
changes over time in the use of occupant protection devices and in
attitudes related to vehicle occupant safety. It is important that
NHTSA monitor these changes so that the Agency can determine the
effects of its efforts to promote the use of safety devices and to
identify areas where its efforts should be targeted and where new
strategies may be needed. As in earlier years, NHTSA proposes to make a
small number of revisions to the survey instrument to address new
information needs. If approved, the proposed survey would assist NHTSA
in addressing motor vehicle occupant safety and in formulating programs
and recommendations. The results of the proposed survey would be used
to: (a) Identify areas to target current programs and activities to
achieve the greatest benefit; (b) develop new programs and initiatives
aimed at increasing the use of occupant safety devices by the public;
and (c) provide informational support to States and localities in their
traffic safety efforts. The findings would also be used directly by
State and local highway safety and law enforcement agencies in the
development and implementation of effective countermeasures to prevent
injuries and fatalities to vehicle occupants.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
This proposed effort would involve cognitive testing of the
questionnaires, usability tests to identify any problems with self-
administration of the Web version of the questionnaires, a pilot test,
and final survey administration. Businesses are ineligible for the
sample and would not be interviewed. No more than one respondent would
be selected per household. Each member of the sample would complete one
interview.
    The cognitive testing would consist of one-on-one cognitive
interviews with each of nine persons selected from the general public
for each questionnaire, for a total of 18 cognitive interviews. All
would be drivers 18 and older. All cognitive interviews using the child
restraint use questionnaire would be conducted with parents of children
under the age of 9. A maximum of 100 licensed drivers 18 and older
would be recruited to participate in usability tests, with all tests of
the child restraint use questionnaire conducted with parents of young
children. For the pilot test, a maximum of 1,200 completed interviews
with people age 16 and older would be obtained. For the final survey,
12,000 completed interviews with randomly selected members of the
general public age 16 and older would be obtained, 6,000 per
questionnaire. The respondent sample would be selected from all 50
States plus the District of Columbia.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that the
respondents participating in the cognitive interviewing would average
\1/2\ hours to carry out that activity, for a total of 27 hours for the
18 cognitive interviews. NHTSA estimates that the respondents
participating in the usability testing would average 1 hour in carrying
out that activity. The number of usability testing respondents would
not exceed 100, leading to a maximum burden of 100 hours. The projected
1,200 maximum completed interviews for the pilot test, with an average
duration of 15 minutes, would produce a maximum burden of 300 hours.
The 12,000 final survey interviews, with an average duration of 15
minutes, would produce a burden of 3,000 hours. The maximum reporting
burden for the MVOSS would be 27 hours for the cognitive testing, 100
hours for the usability testing, 300 hours for the pilot test, and
3,000 hours for the final survey for a grand total of 3,427 hours.
    All interviewing would occur during a single calendar year. Thus
the annual reporting burden would be the entire 3,427 hours. The
respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information
collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: May 31, 2013.
Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-13416 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13611-13612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3013-000]

Coolidge Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Coolidge Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 28, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5751 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13265-13267]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57436; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-18]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to Delayed Start Option Series\TM\

March 5, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 25, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules pertaining to Delayed
Start Option Series\TM\ (``DSOs'') in order to: (i) Change the exercise
price increment parameters from the current maximum of one-eighth
(0.125) to one (1.00); and (ii) provide that the applicable market
model parameters (e.g., trading platform, eligible categories of
Market-Maker participants, allocation algorithms and other trading
parameters) for the DSOs of a given index options class may be
determined separate from the market model parameters applicable to the
non-DSOs of the same index options class, and that the applicable DSO
parameters may differ before and after the strike setting date. The
text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently received approval to list and trade a new
type of security index option product called DSOs.\5\ DSOs are
identical to other options series that currently trade except that,
instead of specifying a specific index value number for the exercise
price, the exercise price is specified in terms of a specific method
for fixing such a number. This method provides that the strike price is
fixed based on the closing value of the underlying index on a
predetermined date prior to their expiration (the ``strike setting
date''). The particular strike setting date and method for fixing the
exercise price is specified prior to the time the DSO is initially
opened for trading. In addition, the particular expiration date is also
specified prior to the time the DSO is initially opened for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56855 (November 28,
2007), 72 FR 68610 (December 5, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before the initiation of trading in DSOs, the Exchange wishes to
make certain changes to Rule 24.9(d) that will accommodate the
integration of DSOs into the Exchange's various market models and
systems. First, the Exchange is proposing to change the exercise price
increment parameters from the current maximum of one-eighth (0.125) to
one (1.00) (amounts greater than or equal to 0.50 would round up). By
way of background, on the strike setting date, the DSO is assigned an
at-the-money, in-the-money or out-of-the-money strike price. Under the
current rules, a DSO's exercise price is fixed based on the closing
value of the underlying index on the strike setting date and rounded to
the nearest 0.125 value or such smaller value as the Exchange may
designate at the time the DSO is listed, provided that

the value cannot be smaller than 0.01.\6\ For example, using a one-
eighth interval, if the particular index underlying a DSO closes at
1004.12 on the strike setting date, an at-the-money DSO would be
assigned a strike price of 1004.125.\7\ In order to accommodate current
system limitations relating to the rounding of strike prices for DSOs,
the Exchange is proposing to revise the exercise price parameter from a
maximum increment of 0.125 to 1.00. Under this revision, the DSO in the
example above would be assigned a strike price of 1004.00. The Exchange
is currently working on system changes that would accommodate a smaller
strike price increment, and the Exchange intends to move to smaller
increments once those changes are complete. As indicated in the current
rule text, should the system functionality permit it in the future, the
Exchange may determine to round a DSO to a value smaller that 1.00,
provided that in all cases the increment would be designated at the
time a DSO is listed and would not change thereafter, and that it would
not be any smaller than 0.01.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Because of system limitations related to the rounding of
strike prices for DSOs, the Exchange had previously planned to round
DSO exercise prices to the nearest 0.125. However, should the system
functionality permit it in the future, the Exchange built the
flexibility into its rules to be able to determine to round DSO
exercise prices to a smaller value provided that the particular
increment would be designated at the time the DSO is listed and that
it would not be any smaller than 0.01. See Rule 24.9(d)(2)(ii).
    \7\ In-the-money and out-of-the-money DSOs trade in the exact
same manner as at-the-money DSOs with the exception that the strike
price would be set to a predetermined level either in-or out-of-the-
money on strike setting date (e.g., 5% in-the-money, 5% out-of-the-
money). For example, hypothetically, if the Exchange determines to
list a 5% out-of-the-money DSO on the XYZ index and XYZ closes at
1000 on the strike setting date, the strike price would be
established at 1050.
    \8\ See note 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a provision regarding
the applicable market model (e.g., trading platform, eligible Market-
Maker participants, allocation algorithms and other trading parameters)
for DSOs. Under the existing rules, the particular market model
parameters are generally determined on a class-by-class basis and, once
established, CBOE also has the authority to make changes to the
applicable market model parameters for a given class.\9\ The proposed
provision would provide that the Exchange may separately determine the
appropriate market model (and changes thereto) for DSOs. This will
provide the Exchange with more flexibility to formulate market models
particular to the DSOs overlying a given index. Under this provision,
the Exchange would be able to determine to use trading platforms (e.g.,
the CBOE Hybrid Trading System, Hybrid 2.0 Platform and Hybrid 3.0
Platform), eligible categories of Market-Maker participants (e.g.,
Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs''), Lead Market-Makers
(``LMMs''), Market-Makers and Remote Market-Makers (``RMMs'')),
allocation algorithms (e.g., UMA, price-time, or pro-rata priority with
public customer, participation entitlement and market turner overlays)
and other trading parameters for the DSOs of a given index options
class that differ from the non-DSOs of the same class, and that differ
for the periods before and after the DSO strike setting date. As
indicated above, CBOE currently has the authority to change market
model parameters now for standardized options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Rules 6.2B, 6.13, 6.13A, 6.14, 6.45B, 6.53C,
6.74, 6.74A and 8.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, hypothetically, the non-DSOs of an options class
overlying the XYZ index might trade on the Hybrid 3.0 Platform with an
LMM market model. For the DSOs overlying the same XYZ index, the
Exchange might determine to use the Hybrid Trading Platform with an LMM
market model for the period from the initial listing to the strike
setting date and then use the Hybrid 3.0 Platform with an LMM market
model for the period from the strike setting date to expiration.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Thus, an LMM might be appointed to the XYZ DSOs from the
initial listing to the strike setting date and another LMM appointed
to the XYZ DSOs from the strike setting date to expiration.
Alternatively, a DPM might be appointed to the XYZ DSOs during
either period. These configurations would differ from the existing
rules, which generally provide for the appointment of a DPM on a
class basis or the appointment of an LMM(s) for a particular zone
within a class on a monthly basis. See, e.g., Rules 8.14, 8.15A and
8.83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent the Exchange would determine to trade the DSOs of a
given index option class on a trading platform that differs from the
other series of that class, the Exchange is also proposing that a
Market-Maker participant with an appointment in the overall index class
may (but would not be required to) seek an appointment to those DSOs.
Using the example above, a Market-Maker with an appointment in the XYZ
index options may (but would not be required to) seek an appointment
for the XYZ DSOs for the period from initial listing to the strike
setting date.\11\ To the extent that a Market-Maker participant does
seek an appointment to trade DSOs on a trading platform that differs
from the other series of a class, there would be no additional seat
``appointment cost'' applicable to that DSO appointment under Rules 8.3
and 8.4.\12\ Lastly, the applicable continuous electronic quoting
obligations would apply to only those series that the Market-Maker
participant is able to quote electronically.\13\ Using the same
example, the Market-Maker would be required to provide continuous
electronic quotes for 60% of the DSOs allocated to it in accordance
with Rule 8.7 while those DSOs trade on the Hybrid Trading Platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In this particular scenario, a market-making appointment in
the DSOs would be optional. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to not require a Market-Maker participant's appointment (and related
market-making obligations) in an index class to apply to the related
DSOs to the extent the DSOs are traded on a different platform.
    \12\ A seat appointment cost applies to each options class
traded on the Exchange. The applicable costs can vary based on,
among other things, whether the class is traded on the Hybrid
Trading System, Hybrid 2.0 Platform or Hybrid 3.0 Platform. See
Rules 8.3(c) and 8.4(d).
    \13\ For options trading on the Hybrid Trading System, Market-
Makers and DPMs or LMMs, as applicable, are able to quote
electronically. For options trading on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform,
Market-Makers, RMMs and DPMs, e-DPMs or LMMs, as applicable, are
able to quote electronically. For options trading on the Hybrid 3.0
Platform, only a single DPM or LMM, as applicable, is able to quote
electronically. See, e.g., Rules 1.1(aaa) and 8.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied the
five-day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-18 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-18. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-18 and should be
submitted on or before April 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4837 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18802-18805]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06825]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0646; FRL-9908-72-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; PSD Rules for PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to Michigan's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Program rules and definitions, including revisions to Parts 1 and 18 of
Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules into Michigan's State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revised rules address the Federal
requirements for significant emission levels, and definitions for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted these revisions to EPA on August
9, 2013, and September 19, 2013.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 3, 2014, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 5, 2014. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0646, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0646. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Constantine Blathras, Environmental

Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. Background

    On August 9, 2013, MDEQ submitted revisions to Michigan rules R
336.2801, Definitions; R 336.2803, Ambient air increments; and R
336.2816, Sources impacting Federal Class I areas, additional
requirements, which reflect changes to Federal rules on
PM2.5 and ozone precursors. MDEQ also submitted various
revisions to Michigan rule R 336.2809 to allow for the exemption from
permitting requirements of minimal air quality impacts from new
sources; however, MDEQ has requested that EPA not act on subsection R
336.2809(5)(a)(iii), which creates a significant monitoring
concentration (SMC) for PM2.5. Michigan had promulgated this
subsection before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated the Federal PM2.5 SMC on January
22, 2013. On September 19, 2013, MDEQ submitted revisions to
definitions in Michigan rules R 336.1116, R 336.1119, and R 336.1122 to
address additional changes to Federal rules. The revisions to rules R
336.1116 and R 336.1119 add significance levels and definitions for
PM2.5 and account for PM2.5 and PM10
condensables in applicability determinations and in establishing
emissions limits. The revision to R 336.1122(f) updates the definition
of volatile organic compounds to exclude additional compounds with
negligible reactivity in the formation of ozone that have been approved
by EPA. However, MDEQ has asked EPA not to act on the revision to the
definition of ``significant'' in rule R 336.1119 at this time. Michigan
will resubmit revisions to that definition at a later date.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the submitted revisions to Michigan's Part 1
definitions, with the exception of the definition of ``significant'' in
rule R 336.1119. EPA has determined that the revised rules comply with
the revisions to the Federal requirements found in 40 CFR 51.100,
51.165, and 51.166, pertaining to new definitions and provisions for
PM2.5.
    EPA is approving the submitted revisions to Michigan's Part 18 PSD
rules into the Michigan SIP, with the exception of R
336.2809(5)(a)(iii), on which we are taking no action. EPA has
determined that the revised rules comply with the revisions to the
Federal definitions and provisions pertaining to PM2.5 found
at 40 CFR 51.100, 51.165, and 51.166.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 3, 2014
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 5, 2014. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. We then will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule that may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of the adverse comment. If we do not
receive any adverse comments, this action will be effective June 3,
2014.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 3, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 17, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
i. Revising the entries in ``Part 1. General Provisions'' for R
336.1116 and R 336.1122; and
0
ii. Revising the entries in ``Part 18. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality'' for R 336.2801, R 336.2803, R 336.2809,
and R 336.2816.

    The revised text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
         Michigan citation                  Title          effective date             EPA approval date                           Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                               Part 1. General Provisions

                                                                      * * * * * * *
R 336.1116........................  Definitions; P.......      11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE
                                                                            DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
R 336.1122........................  Definitions; V.......      11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE
                                                                            DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                             Part 18. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
R 336.2801........................  Definitions..........      11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE
                                                                            DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
R 336.2803........................  Ambient Air                11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE
                                     Increments.                            DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
R 336.2809........................  Exemptions...........      11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE   All except for section (5)(a)(iii)
                                                                            DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
R 336.2816........................  Sources impacting          11/30/2012  4/4/14, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE THE
                                     federal class I                        DOCUMENT BEGINS].
                                     areas; additional
                                     requirements.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-06825 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

January 31, 2002

MEMORANDUM

FROM:	Kathryn Boyle, CoChair IIFG

and

Kerry Leifer, CoChair IIFG

TO:		Robert Forrest, Chief

Minor Use, Inerts, and Emergency Response Branch

SUBJECT:	November 13, 2001 and December 18, 2001 Meeting of the IIFG

Decision Memo

Please find attached the Inert Ingredient Focus Group recommendations
for the inert

ingredients associated with the “weathered materials” grouping.

	INERT INGREDIENT FOCUS  GROUP  MEETING

	November 13, 2001 and December 18, 2001

Chemical Name: 		Several, see below.

Category: 			Weathered materials.

CAS Reg. No.:		Several, see below.

PC Code:			Several, see below.

Introduction:

There were two meetings of the Inert Ingredient Focus Group to discuss
the “weathered materials” grouping.  The first was held on November
13, 2001, and the second on December 18, 2001.  Focus Group members in
attendance at both meetings were:  Kathryn Boyle (RD), Kerry Leifer
(RD), Michael Doherty (HED), Pauline Wagner (HED), Diana Locke (HED),
Sid Abel (EFED), and Mark Perry (SRRD).   Robert Forrest (RD), Tom
Brennan (HED), Henry Craven (EFED),and Larry Schnaubelt (SRRD) were
present for the November 13 meeting only.  Kelly O’Rourke (HED)
attended only the December 18 meeting. The presenters were: Kathryn
Boyle (RD) and Sid Abel (EFED).  The Executive Secretary for the
November 13 meeting was Linda Gerber (RD).  Also in attendance at the
November 13 meeting were: John Redden (RD), Jeanie McAndrew (RD),
Christina Jarvis (RD), and Carol Christensen (HED).  Jeanie McAndrew
also attended the December 18 meeting.

At both meetings the available information on various weathered
materials were discussed to determine if sufficient information were
available to make tolerance reassessment decisions assessment on the
various materials and to make the determination as to whether the
various materials should be classified as List 4A or List 4B substances.
 The available information consisted of information retrieved from
various websites, such as,

EPA (www.epa.gov),

CDC (www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/),

NIOSH, (www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0000.html) and
(www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html)

TOXNET ( www.toxnet.nlm.nih.gov.),

NTP (ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov.),

Firstgov (www.firstgov.gov/),

IARC (www.iarc.fr/)

Additional information included parts of the FDA GRAS assessment of
sodium silicoaluminate..  Also, SAR (structure-activity-relationship)
assessments as performed by OPPT were available for some of the oxides
and silicates.

Three handouts were provided at the meeting on the 13th: (1) a listing
of the substances for which there are existing tolerance exemptions; (2)
a short summary dividing the substances into 15 groups for discussion
purposes; and (3) the following description/explanation of weathered
materials.

Description of Weathered Materials

Weathered materials is the term that the Agency is using to describe a
group of substances that could also be referred to as rocks and
minerals.  Generally, weathered materials are decayed or weathered rocks
that are mostly unrefined, i.e., not altered or manufactured by man.
When referring to weathered materials as mostly unrefined, the Agency is
including the mechanical grinding of larger rocks into smaller pieces
that are essentially the same, but not the chemical or physical
alteration of the rock into a different substance.

A mineral is a naturally-occurring, inorganic solid substance
characterized by a definite chemical composition or a range of chemical
compositions and by a specific, regular architecture of the atoms that
make it up. Simply put, minerals are chemicals arranged in an orderly
regular pattern to form a substance that cannot be separated
mechanically, i.e., by crushing, into different substances.  Quartz, a
very common mineral, is made of the basic elements silicon and oxygen.
By simply crushing the quartz, silicon and oxygen cannot be separated;
but crushed finely, quartz is a major component of the sand  found at
the beach or in the soil around our homes.  Some minerals can be seen
with the naked eye especially in coarse grain rocks, but others need
magnifying glasses or powerful microscopes to be seen. There are several
thousand minerals, each with characteristic chemical and physical
properties.

Minerals are the building blocks of rocks.  Minerals can be combined,
aggregated, in a great variety of patterns just as bricks may make up a
walkway in an infinite array of schemes.  Rocks are not as uniquely
defined by their properties as minerals because of the immense number of
ways the thousands of minerals can be combined. The major divisions of
rocks are igneous (formed from cooling magmas), sedimentary (formed from
the settling, cementing and compacting of eroding igneous and
metamorphic rock), and metamorphic (igneous or sedimentary rock that has
undergone change due to heat and pressure).  Weathered materials are
derived from these major groups.

Rocks are “weathered” by a twofold process, mechanical weathering
(the physical breakdown, grinding, of the rocks into smaller pieces),
and chemical weathering (the breaking of the chemical bonds between
elements).  Both processes operate together, each assisting the other in
the slow progress of decomposing the rock to materials such as sands and
clays or dissolving the rock altogether as happens when water flows over
limestone.  The smaller the rock pieces, the greater the surface area,
the faster the breakdown.  Over great periods of time, the weathering of
rocks may become the great deposits of weathered minerals that are mined
or become part of the soils in the gardens that are around our homes.

The conditions (climate) under which this weathering occurs can
determine the minerals formed. Feldspar of granite (an igneous rock) may
decay to form kaolinite, a common mineral and in its pure form, a raw
material for everyday pottery and china.  Under certain climatic
conditions, kaolinite will dissolve leaving a solid residue called
gibbsite.  Gibbsite makes up the great deposits of bauxite, the earthy
ore known as the major source of extractable aluminum.  Phosphate rocks
(marine shale and limestones enriched in phosphate – both sedimentary
rocks) are the major raw materials of the fertilizer industry, but are
also components of the natural soils along the coastal plain of the
major continents.

The remnants of rock are all around us in our daily life: they are the
materials in and of the earth.   We are exposed to them in a variety of
ways every day. It is the decay and weathering of rocks that give us the
soils in which we grow our food and the ore deposits that provide the
materials of everyday life.

Ecotoxicity, and Environmental Fate and Effects:

This presentation was performed by Sid Abel.

EFED’s hazard characterization was based on the fact that all of these
substances are naturally occurring.  Since these are naturally occurring
substances, no adverse environmental effects are anticipated.

Toxicology Data

This presentation was performed by Kathryn Boyle (RD) based on the
information contained in the previously mentioned websites. A brief
summation of the available information(see below) was given for each of
the groups. If available, the CAS Reg. No. is given in parenthesis.
Comments made during the discussion that pertained only to a specific
group are in italics below.  Current List classification is also in
(italics).

Calcium carbonate (471-34-1) (4A):  The weathered materials would be:
chalk, marble, calcite (13397-26-7), limestone (1317-65-3)(4A),
magnesium-lime, and could even include oyster shells and calcareous
shale.  Also includes dolomite (16389-88-1)(4A) which is calcium
magnesium carbonate.

- No concerns identified

Carbon in various forms:  Includes carbon, graphite (7782-42-5)(4A), and
activated charcoal (7440-44-0).

-  Activated charcoal is not pure carbon.  It is not absorbed, but can
adsorb other drugs and chemicals on its surface

-  Carbon RED 1991 examined carbon and graphite, but did not include
activated charcoal.

Gypsum also referred to as natural calcium sulfate (13397-24-5) (4A),
plaster of paris which is hydrated calcium sulfate (26499-65-0), and
calcium sulfate (7778-18-9) (10101-41-4)(4B):

-  Ingestion of plaster of paris per se with little water may result in
obstruction with resultant surgical removal It was determined that this
type of ingestion is probably not a concern for pesticide products.

-  Irritant

- Calcium sulfate is the most common of the naturally occurring sulfates
and is FDA GRAS

- Gypsum is used to treat alkali soils

Plaster of Paris (total dust), calcium sulfate (total dust), and gypsum
(total dust) Chemical Sampling Information Cards described the threshold
limit value for all three chemicals as particulate matter containing no
asbestos and less than 1% crystalline silica.

Lime (12001-27-3)(4A), which is calcium oxide (1305-78-8)(4B):

-  Dust is irritating to nose and throat

-  Some inhalation concerns

- CaO is a food additive (GRAS with no limitations)

Can be purchased for non-pesticidal home use

Vermiculite (hydrated laminar magnesium-aluminum-iron-silicate)
(1318-00-9)(4A) There can be asbestos contamination:

Discussion focused on ways to define asbestos-free vermiculite.

After the first meeting, information was obtained from the Schindler
Company website (www.schundler.com) and the Agency’s
Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite Fact Sheet.  Vermiculite (a hydrated
laminar magnesium-aluminum-iron-silicate), like most other
naturally-occurring materials, often contain a range of other minerals
including, in some cases, asbestos.  However, it is known that only a
few vermiculite deposits contain more than trace amounts of asbestos.
(Example: Libby) EPA has tested samples of vermiculite to determine the
amounts of asbestos present.  Most samples were non-detect (no
detectable levels of asbestos) using a quantifiable level of 0.1 percent
by weight.  The vermiculite industry has also tested various vermiculite
ores with similar results.

Bentonite (1302-78-9)(4A) or Montmorillonite Clay (1318-93-0)(4A):

-  Practically non-toxic

-  Biologically inert when ingested

-  Some lung irritation (not silicosis) after years of exposure

-  aka Fuller’s earth (8031-18-3) (claylike material composed
primarily of montmorillonite); low/moderate concern (SAR)

Attapulgite-clay (12174-11-7)(4A) (complex metallic (magnesium
aluminum) silicate), also known as palygorskite:

-  Long fibers are carcinogenic (> 5 um) when inhaled

-  Short fibers are not carcinogenic (< 5 um)

-  Medical Uses (activated attapulgite)

-  Absorbent in pet litter

-  Not absorbed from GI tract

- has colloidal and sorptive properties

Discussion focused on ways to check the fiber size

Kaolin (1332-58-7)(4A) which are aluminum silicates.

-  Inert after oral administration

-  Medicinal uses

-  Some inhalation concerns, kaolinosis

-  Kaolin RED

Kaolin Chemical Sampling Information Card described kaolin as not
classifiable as to carcinogenicity, with the comment for particulate
matter containing no asbestos and less than 1% crystalline silica
(respirable fraction).

Silicon dioxide: includes crystalline forms: silica/quartz (14808-60-7),
cristobalite (14464-46-1)(3), tridymite (15468-32-3), tripoli
(1317-95-9); includes amorphous silica (112926-00-8, 76313-69-5,
7631-86-9), sand (3), diatomaceous earth (61790-53-2)(4B), granite,
vitreous silica (60676-86-0)(4B) and silica gel (63231-67-4,
112926-00-8)(4B).

-  Considered to be inert when ingested

-  Crystalline forms are carcinogenic when inhaled from occupational
sources

-  Cristobalite is moderate concern (SAR)

-  Silicosis occurs by prolonged and extensive exposure to respirable
free crystalline silica.

-  Food additive/feed additive

Information was also obtained from the 9th Report on Carcinogens
(revised January 2001): “Inhalation of excessive levels of crystalline
silica is best known as a cause of pneumoconiosis, an occupational lung
disease.  It is unclear whether the carcinogenic risk of crystalline
silica is because it is a traditional carcinogen that interacts with
nuclear macromolecules or because of an epigenetic process associated
with cell damage and healing.“

Talc (14807-96-6)(3) is a finely powdered magnesium silicate hydroxide,
also known as steatite:

-  The nonasbestiform cosmetic grade was determined to be carcinogenic.

-  Talc pneumoconiosis

-  Soapstone (1343-90-4)(4A) is a granular form of talc.

-  Pyrophyllite (12269-78-2)(4B) is a hydrous aluminum silicate with a
structure similar to that of talc; it is a color additive mixture for
drugs and cosmetics exempt from certification

Both forms of talc (asbestiform and non-asbestiform) have been proposed
for review for listing in the 10th Report on Carcinogens.  Additional
information was found on the NIOSH Sampling Guide which described talc
as “containing no asbestos and less than 1% quartz”. OSHA Chemical
Sampling Information Cards have two descriptions of talc “containing
asbestos” and “containing no asbestos”.  While the CAS Reg. Nos.
are the same, the descriptors are different, with the first being
described as carcinogenic, and the second being described as not
classifiable as to carcinogenicity, with the comment for particulate
matter containing no asbestos and less than 1% crystalline silica
(respirable fraction).  The International Chemical Safety Card refers to
“Talc (exempt de silice et de fibres)”

Mica (12003-38-2)(4A) (hydrated potassium aluminum silicate) and
feldspar (potassium aluminum silicate)(68476-25-5), low/moderate concern
(SAR)

- Pneumconiosis

The OSHA Chemical Sampling Information Card referred to a value for
particulate matter containing no asbestos and less than 1% crystalline
silica (respirable fraction).  Also, a different CAS Reg. No. was
referenced: 12001-26-2

Zeolites (3)

Zeolites are crystalline alumino-silicate minerals with cage-like
crystal structures. This is probably the most extensive family of
minerals in the earth’s crust.  (1318-02-1, 12173-10-3, 12271-42-0,
67240-23-7, 12173-98-7, 12445-20-4, 66732-10-3, 68652-75-5, 12174-18-4,
61027-84-7, 66733-09-3, 68989-22-0, 68989-23-1, and 79982-98-2) There
are both naturally-occurring and synthetic versions of zeolites.  Both
can be fibrous or non-fibrous.  Terms used to describe zeolites include
clinoptilolite, mordenite, and phillipsite. The SAR assessment performed
by OPPT indicated moderate concern for the 68989-22-0 form of zeolite.

One form, erionite (66733-21-9), was determined to be carcinogenic, by
IARC (8th Annual Report on Carcinogens).  Erionite consists of crystals,
and is not know to occur in other than fibrous form.  When administered
by inhalation erionite induces plural mesotheliomas.  Natural erionite
has been replaced by synthetic non-fibrous zeolites.  Erionite is not
known to be currently in use in the US.

Refined silicates

Refined silicates (both hydrous and anhydrous forms) are not the
naturally occurring forms of silicate, but the more refined chemicals
that are either derived from the naturally occurring forms or
manufactured specifically through the reaction of other chemicals for
selling in commerce.  According to information in the FDA’s GRAS
assessment of silicates, there are at least 30 to 40 silicate compounds
that could be consumed by humans. Most silicon compounds (except
potassium and sodium) are insoluble or only slightly soluble in water:

-  Sodium (1344-09-8, 6834-92-0, and 10213-79-3)(4B) forms a gelatinous
(very alkaline) mixture in water, corrosive, extreme eye irritant; also
a sodium metasilicate (10213-79-3, 13870-28-5, and 15593-82-5) which is
more caustic than sodium

-  Calcium (1344-95-2)(4B) is GRAS with limitations, in pharmaceuticals;
also a tricalcium form which is used in cement; occurs naturally as
wollastonite (13983-17-0) moderate concern (SAR)

-  Magnesium (14987-04-3, 1343-88-0, 13776-74-4, and 1343-90-4)(4B) is
classified as practically non-toxic; low/moderate concern (SAR)

-  Sodium aluminum (12003-51-9 and 1344-00-9) has low ecotoxicity,
negative for mutagenicity, silicon excreted in rats; it was the
predominate silicate added to foods in the US in 1979; low/moderate
concern (SAR)

-  Potassium aluminum (1327-44-2) is moderate concern (SAR)

-  Potassium (1312-76-1)(3)

-  Sodium potassium aluminum (12736-96-8, 37244-96-5)(3)

-  Aluminum (1327-36-2) is low/moderate concern (SAR); hydrated
(1335-30-4)(3)

-  Aluminum calcium silicate

- Aluminum magnesium silicate (1327-43-1)(3)

-  Perlite (93763-70-3) (a naturally occurring polysilicate/glass)

Refined Oxides:

-  Metal fume fever: produced by inhalation of metal ions at high
temperatures from occupational exposures such as cutting and welding
Fumes are only produced at high temperatures. Therefore, should not be a
concern when used in a pesticide product.

-  Zinc (1314-13-2)(4B) is also known as C.I. pigment white 4; no
concerns identified in SAR; used in sunscreen products and calamine
lotion; positive mutagenicity results were reported in two studies;  no
evidence of carcinogenicity was found in feeding zinc oxide at 34.4 mg
zinc per day to rats for 29 weeks; in rats growth is retarded at 1% zinc
oxide and developmental impacts occurred at 4000 ppm; used as an animal
feed nutritional supplement; Zinc Salts RED indicated that people are
usually not exposed to such large amounts of zinc through the diet

-  Aluminum (1344-28-1)(4B) is low/moderate (SAR) for health, high for
ecotoxicity (this was the only 3)

-  Magnesium (1309-48-4)(4B) is low concern (SAR), mutagenicity studies
were negative

-  Iron also known as rust (1345-25-1, 1309-37-1, 1317-61-9 and
12259-21-1)(4B)  is low concern (SAR); inhalation if iron oxide can
cause siderosis which is a benign condition (takes 6 to10 years to get
and can be slowly cleared from rat lungs; IARC monograph - not
classifiable (Group 3)

- Iron magnesium oxide (12068-86-9)(3)

- Zinc iron oxide (12063-19-3)(3)

Sulfur (7704-34-9) (3):

-  Used as a fertilizer or soil amendment

-  1991 RED - low toxicity

-  EPA designation under 40 CFR 180.2

-  MSDS indicates airborne exposure limits have not been established.

Discussion

By consensus, the group determined that these materials are generally,
with some exceptions, low toxicity substances. There would be no
concerns for ecotoxicity, or for most dietary or dermal human exposure.
All existing tolerance exemptions can be reassessed.

However, there are inhalation concerns  for some of these substances.
Several of these substances have suspected or documented chronic
inhalation exposure/risk issues including carcinogenicity, silicosis or
pneumoconiosis. At the November 13 meeting, the IIFG did not come to a
complete conclusion for these inhalation concerns.  In response to these
concerns, Tom Brennan (HED) researched how these inhalation
exposure/risk concerns, that are of concern in industrial settings,
might translate to exposure/risk concerns of these same materials used
as an inert ingredients in pesticides.  His analysis is summarized in
the paragraph below:

Generally mining, processing, packaging and transporting weathered
materials are full time industrial occupations that may lead to daily
exposures over the course of many years.  These industrial activities
will create exposures to the raw (extracted) product as well as more
refined products.  It is very likely that routine worker activities will
create the possibility of routine exposure to respirable-sized
particles. By contrast, mixing/loading and applying granular or dust
pesticide products that have these same weathered materials will not
have the same level or types of exposures.  The first major difference
is the time and duration of exposure. For most cases the pesticide
applicators will not be exposed on a daily basis.  In fact, it is much
more likely that pesticide applicators, both professional operators and
homeowners, will have only short-term exposures (i.e., those occurring
for 1 day to a month – over a year’s time).   Additionally, the
applicator’s exposure to the inert ingredient is in a formulated
product – not the raw weathered material.

Classification of an inert ingredient to List 4A means that the inert
can be used in 25(b) deregulated products, without the need for acute
end-product toxicity testing for the Agency to determine the appropriate
labeling language.  Thus, List 4A reclassification  requires
consideration of other routes of exposure for the pesticide product. The
List 4A classification would depend not only on the dietary exposure,
but also on the likelihood of dermal and/or inhalation concerns.

There is various information from OSHA/NIOSH (Occupational Safety and
Health Administration/National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health), such as that on a Chemical Sampling Information Card or an
International Safety Card.  A threshold limit value (TLV)s is a limit on
inhalation exposure in the workplace (40 years, usually 8 hours per
day).  Generally a level of 10 mg/m3 is considered to be a nuisance
level dust standard, which implies for inhalation concerns, that the
chemical is non-toxic, not irritating.  TLVs are developed exclusively
for occupational settings, assuming healthy workers.  It is possible
that the general public could be more susceptible.  IIFG believes that
TLVs are sufficient for use as benchmarks.

TLVs and other endpoints such as NIOSH RELs (recommended exposure
limits) or OSHA PELs (permissible exposure limits) were obtained from
various sources such as the Chemical Sampling Information Cards.  All
units are mg/m3.  The TWA (time-weighted average) is usually for 8
hours. If information were available for both the total dust and the
respirable dust, then the total dust was used. (See below)

attapulgite 			not established

bentonite			10		OSHA PEL: 15

calcium carbonate		10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 10 (TWA)

calcium oxide 		2		NIOSH REL: 2

calcium silicate		NIOSH REL: 10 (TWA)

calcium sulfate 		10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 10

graphite, natural		2 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 2.5 (TWA)

graphite, synthetic		15 (TWA)

gypsum			10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 10 (TWA)

iron oxide 			not established

kaolin 				10 (TWA)

limestone			10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 10 (TWA)

magnesium oxide 		10 (TWA fume)

marble			10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 10 (TWA)

mica 				3 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 3 (TWA)

montmorillonite		not established

perlite				10 (TWA)

sand 				0.05 (TWA)

silica, amorphous 		10

silica, amorphous, 		NIOSH REL:  6 (TWA)

diatomaceous earth

silica,  amorphous,		NIOSH REL:  6 (TWA)

precipitated and gel

silica, crystalline cristobalite	0.05 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  0.05 (TWA)

silica, crystalline quartz	0.1 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  0.05 (TWA)

silica, crystalline tripoli	0.1 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  0.05 (TWA)

silica, crystalline tridymite	0.05 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  0.05 (TWA)

silica, fused			0.1 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  0.05 (TWA)

silica, quartz			NIOSH REL: 0.05 (TWA)

soapstone			6 (TWA)	NIOSH REL: 6 (TWA)

sodium metasilicate		none listed

sulfur 				none listed

talc (asbestos free)		2 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  2 (TWA)

talc 				0.1 fiber/cc (100 min TWA)

vermiculite			not established

zinc oxide 			10 (TWA)	NIOSH REL:  5 (TWA)

At the December 18 meeting the group discussed using information such
as TLVs to perform a screen level inhalation assessment.  Kelly
O’Rourke (HED) developed such an inhalation screen for residential
exposures for comparison with TLVs.  Weathered materials are oftentimes
used as solid carriers or diluents.  Therefore, for these screening
level exposure assessments it was assumed the product was a granular
formulation and that the weathered material comprised 100% of the
formulation. Two scenarios were considered: broadcast treatment of half
an acre taking approximately 1 hour, and spot treatment of 1000 square
feet taking approximately half an hour.  The point estimate for
broadcast treatment is 0.18 mg/m3 and for spot treatment is 0.6 mg/m3.
It was necessary to convert these point estimates to a time weighted
average over 8 hours for comparison to time weighted averages such as
TLVs.  The weighted average is 0.023 mg/m3 for broadcast and 0.038 mg/m3
for spot treatment.  For most of the substances the estimated weighted
averages are less than the TLVs by at least two orders of magnitude.
However, for some substances for which there was already information
indicative of inhalation concerns, the lowest TLVs (0.05 mg/m3 and 0.01
mg/m3 for sand and various crystalline silicas) are in the range of the
estimated weighted averages.  Such substances would not be considered
for List 4A classification.

There was also a concern for the use of aluminum oxide due to aquatic
ecotoxicty. According to the OPPT Chemical Categories Report, soluble
salts of aluminum are known to be highly toxic to green algae and
moderately toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. A screening level
assessment was performed to determine the maximum application rate for
aluminum oxide to avoid exceeding estimated toxicity endpoints for
aquatic organisms.  This assessment assumed the direct application of a
pesticide containing aluminum oxide to either a farm pond or to a
shallow waterbody or wetland.  The lowest application rate that would
not exceed a level of concern was 2.1 pounds of aluminum oxide per acre.
 Aluminum oxide will be classified as List 4B.

IIFG Recommendations

By consensus there were no objections to the following:

All existing tolerance exemptions can be reassessed.  In 40 CFR 180.2
lime and sulfur.  In 40 CFR 180.1001(c): aluminum oxide ,
attapulgite-type clay; bentonite; calcareous shale; calcite; calcium
carbonate; calcium oxide; calcium silicate; charcoal, activated;
diatomite (diatomaceous earth); dolomite, granite, graphite, gypsum,
iron oxide; kaolinite-type clay; magnesium lime; magnesium oxide;
magnesium silicate; mica; montmorillonite-type clay; potassium aluminum
silicate; pyrophyllite; sand; silica, hydrated; soapstone; sodium
aluminum silicate; sodium metasilicate;  sodium silicate; talc;
vermiculite; zeolite (hydrated alkali aluminum silicate); and zinc
oxide.  In 40 CFR 180.1001(d): graphite.  In 40 CFR 180.1001(e):
attapulgite-type clay; calcium carbonate; calcium silicate, hydrated
calcium silicate; calcium sulfate; diatomite (diatomaceous earth);
graphite; iron oxide; kaolinite-type clay; magnesium silicate, hydrated
magnesium silicate; montmorillonite-type clay; silica, hydrated silica;
silica aerogel (finely powdered microcellular silica foam having a
minimum silica content of 89.5 %); soapstone; sulfur; talc; and zinc
oxide.  Also 40 CFR 180.1017.

Tolerance exemptions maybe established for those chemicals evaluated
for which there is not currently an existing exemption.

By consensus the following List classifications have been determined:

Calcium carbonate, chalk, marble, calcite, limestone, magnesium lime,
and dolomite: List 4A based on the fact that no concerns were
identified.

Activated charcoal:  List 4B given its adsorptive properties.

Carbon and graphite:  List 4A given the properties of and lack of
toxicity of carbon.

Gypsum, plaster of paris, and calcium sulfate: List 4A with the
following specification: (no asbestos, less than 1% crystalline silica).

Lime: List 4A since agricultural lime is prepared by calcining materials
consisting largely of calcium carbonate such as limestone, or oyster,
clam or fossil shells.  Carbon dioxide is driven off.  Thus,
agricultural lime contains the original impurities in the starting
materials.  This material is openly available for purchase in lawn and
garden centers.

Calcium oxide: List 4B given the liberation of heat and dehydration of
tissues possible from this more refined material.

Vermiculite: List 4A with the following specification: no asbestos, less
than 1% crystalline silica

Bentonite, Montmorillonite clay, and Fuller’s earth : List 4A based on
the fact that no concerns were identified.

Attapulgite clay: Reclassified to List 4B based on carcinogenic concerns
for fibers greater in length than 5 um.

Kaolin: List 4A based on the RED, with the following specification: (no
asbestos, less than 1% crystalline silica ( respirable fraction))

Crystalline forms of silica/quartz including cristobalite, tridymite,
and tripoli: List 4B based on concerns for carcinogenicity when inhaled.

Granite: List 4B based on the fact that it contains 25 to 30% quartz.

Silica sand and flours: List 4B based on the many forms and varieties
available which contain crystalline quartz in various amounts

Amorphous silica, vitreous silica, and silica gel: List 4A given that
there are no carcinogenic concerns for non-crystalline forms of
silica/quartz.

Diatomaceous earth: List 4A when specified as silica, amorphous,
diatomaceous earth (less than 1% crystalline silica)

Talc: List 4B based on concerns for carcinogenicity in the NTP study
which was performed with non asbestiform cosmetic grade talc, with the
following specification (no asbestos, less than 1% crystalline silica (
respirable fraction))

Soapstone: List 4A given that it is a granular form of talc.

Pyrophillite: List 4B given its similarities to talc, and the lack of
information on its carcinogenicity.

Mica: List  4A with the following specification (no asbestos, less than
1% crystalline silica ( respirable fraction)).

Natural and synthetic zeolites: List 4A with an exclusion for erionite
due to concerns for carcinogenicity.

Sodium silicate and sodium metasilicate: List 4B given the corrosive,
caustic nature of the chemical.

Potassium silicate: List 4B given its similarities to sodium silicate.

Calcium silicate:  List 4A given the SAR assessment, the low
ecotoxicity, and the role of calcium in bone-formation.

Magnesium silicate: List 4A given the SAR assessment, the low
ecotoxicity, and that magnesium is an essential nutrient.

Aluminum silicate: List 4A given the SAR assessment and the low
ecotoxicity.

Sodium aluminum silicate: List 4A given its low ecotoxicity and the SAR
assessment.

Potassium aluminum silicate: List 4A given the SAR assessment and its
similarities to sodium aluminum silicate.

Sodium potassium aluminum silicate: List 4A given the above assessments.

Aluminum calcium silicate: List 4A based on the assessments for aluminum
and calcium.

Aluminum magnesium silicate: List 4A based on the assessments for
aluminum and magnesium.

Perlite: List 4A with the following specification: (no asbestos, less
than 1% crystalline silica ( respirable fraction)).

	Zinc oxide: List 4A given the SAR assessment, the RED, and that zinc is
an essential nutrient.

Aluminum oxide: List 4B given that the SAR assessment is low/moderate
for health and high for ecotoxicity (this was the only 3)

Magnesium oxide: List 4A given the SAR assessment and that magnesium is
an essential nutrient

Iron oxide: List 4A given the low concern in the SAR assessment

Iron magnesium oxide: List 4A based on the assessments for iron oxide
and magnesium oxide.

Zinc iron oxide: List 4A based on the assessments for iron oxide and
zinc oxide.

Sulfur:  List 4A based on the low toxicity, the fact that it is
metabolized in the body, and the RED.


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 29, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-11441

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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).

Applicants: Air Alps Aviation GmbH and Northwest Airlines, Inc.		Date
Filed:  December 10 and 29, 2003, respectively

Relief requested:

Air Alps Aviation GmbH--Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
permit Air Alps Aviation to display the airline designator code of
Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“NW”) on flights operated by Air Alps
between Amsterdam, Netherlands, and points in Austria.

Northwest Airlines, Inc.—Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41101 to
engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and
mail from points behind the United States via the United States and
intermediate points to a point or points in Austria and beyond.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 25, 2002, in
this docket

Applicant representatives:  Charles F. Donley<PHONE_NUMBER> (Air Alps)
& Megan Rae Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER> (Northwest)

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  January 29, 2004

Effective dates of the exemption authority granted Air Alps:  January
29, 2004-January 29, 2006

Effective dates of the exemption authority granted Northwest:  January
29, 2004-January 29, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Services Agreement between the United States and Austria

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

X  Standard exemption conditions (attached) and the otherwise applicable
conditions imposed on Air Alps and Northwest in the Notice of Action
Taken, dated February 25, 2002, in this docket.

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) the applicants were qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (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 seven (7) 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 document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

										Attachment A

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

			Attachment B

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.