[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74697-74698]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26581]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: December 8, 2022, 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn, Savannah,
Historic District, 520 West Bryan Street, Savannah, GA 31401. The
meeting will also be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll) or (ii) 1-877-853-5247 (US
Toll Free) or 1-888-788-0099 (US Toll Free), Meeting ID: 925 0137 8101,
to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYod-irqTMrGtWn3MER5rpCqdX9CTXj791m.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Education and Training Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will
continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier
Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting
will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.

Ground Rules
    Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on agenda

IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Minutes from the September 15,
2022 Subcommittee Meeting--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee
Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    Draft minutes from the September 15, 2022, Subcommittee meeting via
teleconference will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action
to approve.

V. Roadside Enforcement Module Video Update:--UCR Education and
Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will provide a final update on the Roadside
Enforcement Module that describes the steps a roadside law enforcement
officer would use to enforce UCR.

VI. UCR Education and E-Certificate Strategy:--UCR Education and
Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will discuss the UCR E-Certificate and
review the assigned questions from the previous Subcommittee meeting.

VII. UCR Volunteer Training Module--UCR Chief of Staff

    The Subcommittee Chair and UCR Chief of Staff will discuss the UCR
Volunteer Training Module.

VIII. Other Business--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items Subcommittee
members would like to discuss.

IX. Adjournment--UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.

    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
November 30, 2022, at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of

Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2022-26581 Filed 12-2-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 62625-62626]
[DOCID:fr30no09-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61034; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE AMEX LLC Amending Rules
904 and 904C

November 19, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on November 5, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rules 904 and 904C
pertaining to Position Limits. The text of the proposed rule change is
attached as Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the
Exchange's principal office 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, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend NYSE Amex Rule
904 and Rule 904C to enable ATP Holders to rely on position limit
exemptions granted by other options exchanges under specified
circumstances. This proposed rule change is based on Chapter III,
Section 8 and Chapter XIV Section 8, of the Options Rules of the NASDAQ
Stock Market, LLC (``NOM'').
    NYSE Amex rules governing position limit exemptions for non-index
options are generally found in the Commentary section of Rule 904. NYSE
Amex rules governing position limit exemptions for stock index options
are generally found in the Commentary section of Rule 904C. These rules
include a number of position limit exemptions available to ATP Holders.
Rules 904 and 904C, however, do not have a provision that recognizes
position limit exemptions that are granted to ATP Holders by other
option exchanges, as provided for in NOM Rules in Chapter III, Section
8 for non-index options and Chapter XIV, Section 8 for index options.
In light of the desirability to have similar position limit standards,
the Exchange proposes to add a similar exemption to both Rules 904 and
904C.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add new Commentary to Rules
904 and 904C to address position limit exemptions granted by other
options exchanges. This proposed rule [sic] will provide that an ATP
Holder may rely upon any valid exemption from applicable position
limits that has been granted by another options exchange for any
options contract traded on NYSE Amex, provided that such ATP Holder
provides the Exchange either with a copy of any written exemption
issued by another options exchange or with a written description of any
exemption issued by another options exchange that is not in writing,
where such description contains sufficient detail for Exchange
regulatory staff to verify the validity of that exemption with the
issuing options exchange. In addition, such ATP Holder must fulfill all
conditions precedent for such exemption and comply at all times with
the requirements of such exemption with respect to trading on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that position limits tend to be similar across
options exchanges, which is desirable in light of cross option exchange
membership(s) and multiple listing and trading of similar product(s) on
different exchanges. Because ATP Holders frequently have membership
and/or trading privileges on other options exchanges, it is important
that ad hoc position limit exemptions granted by other options
exchanges (``exemption grants'') are available to ATP Holders to the
extent that such exemption grants are reduced to writing and verifiable
by Exchange regulatory staff.
    These new proposed rules do not give the Exchange the ability to
alter the scope of these exemptions but only to recognize the exemption
so that the position limit process would be the same across the
exchanges.
    For example, an ATP Holder may go to another options exchange of
which it is a member, such as the International Securities Exchange
(``ISE''), or NOM to request a position limit exemption (exemption
grant) for option contracts in the SPDRs (SPY). The other exchange
provides the exemption grant until expiration in the same month to this
particular firm for this particular issue (SPY). Should the same ATP
Holder want to trade SPY on NYSE Amex to the extent of the exemption
grant, the Exchange's proposed rule change would allow it to do so, but
only to the extent that the firm provides the Exchange with a copy of
the written exemption grant provided by the issuing exchange or, if the
exemption is not in writing, to the extent that said ATP Holder
provides the Exchange with sufficient detail for Exchange regulatory
staff to be able to verify the validity of the exemption grant with the
issuing options exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Additionally, the ATP Holder would have to fulfill all
conditions precedent for such exemption grant and comply with the
requirements of such exemption with respect to trading on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by adding uniformity and predictability
to the position limit process, the proposed rule change should be
beneficial to the Exchange, ATP Holders, and their customers. Moreover,
the proposed rule change should promote competition by allowing trades
across options exchanges that are similar in respect of position
limits.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that all reporting requirements, such as
Rule 906 and 906C (Reporting of Options Positions), remains in
force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing a minor revision [sic] the rule
numbering convention contained in the Commentary section of Rules 904
and 904C. This change is being made for technical purposes only in
order to provide clarity to rules governing position limit exemptions.
The renumbering of the Commentary has no material effect on the actual
meaning of the rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and

furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ in
particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, and to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
to protect investors and the public interest, by allowing the Exchange
to have uniform position limit procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the 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 prior to
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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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
Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
will bring uniformity and predictability to the position limit process.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEAmex-2009-80 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-80. 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,\15\ 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
NYSE Amex's principal office and on its Internet Web site at http://
www.nyse.com. 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-
NYSEAmex-2009-80 and should be submitted on or before December 21,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28519 Filed 11-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78509-78513]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26966]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0380; FRL-9953-87]

Fluxapyroxad; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluxapyroxad in or on banana, coffee green bean, mango, and papaya.
BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), to ensure that residues on these
commodities when imported into the United States would be in compliance
with the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 8, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 9, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0380, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0380 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 9, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-

2016-0380, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-
22), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition PP
5E8366 by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3528. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.666 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide fluxapyroxad, in or on banana at 3.0 parts per million
(ppm); coffee, green bean at 0.2 ppm; mango at 0.7 ppm; and papaya at
0.6 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for fluxapyroxad including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluxapyroxad follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The Agency recently published a tolerance rulemaking for
fluxapyroxad. See Federal Register of May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27019) (FRL-
9945-48). The toxicological profile and endpoints used for human risk
assessment have not changed since that time. Therefore, the Agency is
relying on that discussion of the toxicological profile and the
toxicological endpoints for this rulemaking as well. Please refer to
Unit III. B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of May
5, 2016 (81 FR 27019) (FRL-9945-48). In addition, specific information
on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
fluxapyroxad as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Human
Health Risk Assessment for Use of Fluxaproxad on Imported Banana,
Coffee, Mango, and Papaya.'' at pp. 12 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2016-0380.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluxapyroxad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fluxapyroxad tolerances in 40
CFR 180.666. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluxapyroxad in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for fluxapyroxad. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 food consumption data
NHANES/WWEIA. Tolerance level residues adjusted to account for the
metabolites of concern (M700F008) and 100% crop treated assumptions
were used for all plant commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a moderately refined
chronic dietary exposure analysis for the general U.S. population and
various population subgroups. Average field trial residues for parent
plus maximum metabolite residue were used for all plant commodities. An
assumption of 100% crop treated was also used for the chronic dietary
analysis. DEEM default and empirical processing factors were used.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluxapyroxad does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluxapyroxad in drinking water.

These simulation models take into account data on the physical,
chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fluxapyroxad. Further
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM/GW), the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluxapyroxad for
acute exposures are 127 ppb parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 203 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are 127 ppb for surface water and 188 ppb for ground
water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 203 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 188 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    There is no residential exposure associated with the proposed uses
of fluxapyroxad in this action; however, there are existing turf uses
that were previously assessed for fluxapyroxad. Although the Agency had
conducted a residential exposure assessment for previous fluxapyroxad
actions, the Agency completed an updated turf assessment to reflect an
update in the single maximum application rate from 2.47 lb active
ingredient (ai)/gallon to 0.005 lb ai/gallon. The present assessment
assumed the following exposure scenarios:
     Residential handler: The Agency assessed inhalation
exposures to adults from applications only because fluxapyroxad does
not pose a dermal risk. Residential handler exposure is expected to be
short-term in duration. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely
because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.
     Post-application exposures: Dermal exposures were not
assessed because there is no identified systemic dermal hazard for
fluxapyroxad. Post-application inhalation exposure while engaged in
activities on or around previously treated turf is generally not
quantitatively assessed. The combination of low vapor pressure for
chemicals typically used as active ingredients in outdoor residential
pesticide products and dilution in outdoor air is likely to result in
minimal inhalation exposure. Incidental oral exposure for children is
anticipated. The quantitative oral exposure/risk assessment for
residential post-application exposures is based on the incidental oral
scenario for children 1 to <2 years old.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found fluxapyroxad to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluxapyroxad does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluxapyroxad does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of quantitative
susceptibility was observed in a reproductive and developmental
toxicity study in rats or in developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits. Developmental toxicity data in rats showed decreased body
weight and body weight gain in the offspring at the same dose levels
that caused thyroid follicular hypertrophy/hyperplasia in parental
animals. Effects in rabbits were limited to paw hyperflexion, a
malformation that is not considered to result from a single exposure
and that usually reverses as the animal matures. Developmental effects
observed in both rats and rabbits occurred at the same doses as those
that caused adverse effects in maternal animals, indicating no
quantitative susceptibility. The Agency has low concern for
developmental toxicity because the observed effects were of low
severity, were likely secondary to maternal toxicity, and demonstrated
clear NOAELs. Further, the NOAELs for these effects were at dose levels
higher than the points of departure selected for risk assessment for
repeat-exposure scenarios. Therefore, based on the available data and
the selection of risk assessment endpoints that are protective of
developmental effects, there are no residual uncertainties with regard
to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluxapyroxad is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that fluxapyroxad is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Although an acute
neurotoxicity study showed decreased rearing and motor activity, this
occurred on the day of dosing only in the absence of histopathological
effects or alterations in brain weights. This indicated that any
neurotoxic effects of fluxapyroxad are likely to be transient and
reversible due to alterations in neuropharmacology and not from
neuronal damage. The Agency has low concern for neurotoxic effects of
fluxapyroxad at any life stage.
    iii. Based on the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies
discussed in Unit III.C.2., there are no residual uncertainties with
regard to prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The residue database is adequate. The dietary risk
assessment is conservative and will not underestimate dietary exposure
to fluxapyroxad. There are existing turf uses that were previously
assessed and approved for fluxapyroxad. The assessment will not
underestimate residential exposure via

handler for adults and incidental oral for children. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fluxapyroxad in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
There are residential uses proposed for fluxapyroxad and the assessment
will not underestimate residential exposure via handler for adults and
incidental oral for children.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fluxapyroxad will occupy 13% of the PAD for children 1 to 2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluxapyroxad from food and water will utilize 70% of the cPAD for
infants (<1 year old).
    There are no residential use patterns associated with the proposed
uses in this action; however, there are residential exposure from
existing turf uses that were previously assessed for fluxapyroxad. As a
result, aggregate risk is represented by chronic dietary (food and
water) and residential exposure. As reflected is these assessments,
there are no risk concerns.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fluxapyroxad
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to fluxapyroxad. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has
concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,139 for adults and 431 for
children. Because EPA's level of concern for fluxapyroxad is a MOE of
100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fluxapyroxad is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluxapyroxad.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has classified fluxapyroxad as ``Not likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on convincing evidence that carcinogenic
effects are not likely below a defined dose range. The Agency has
determined that the quantification of risk using the cPAD for
fluxapyroxad will adequately account for all chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to
fluxapyroxad. Because the Agency has determined fluxapyroxad will not
cause a chronic risk, the Agency concludes that fluxapyroxad will not
pose a cancer risk for the U.S. population.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluxapyroxad residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    There is a suitable residue analytical method available for
enforcement of fluxapyroxad tolerances for plants (BASF Methods L0137/
01) which has been radio validated and has undergone successful
validation by an independent laboratory. There are liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method and
monitors two ion transitions. The Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) for BASF
method L0137/01 is 0.01 ppm for various matrices.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for fluxapyroxad.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established without a U.S. registration
for residues of fluxapyroxad in or on banana at 3.0 parts per million
(ppm); coffee green bean at 0.2 ppm; mango at 0.7 ppm; and papaya at
0.6 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled

``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 24, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.666, add alphabetically the entries ``Banana'',
``Coffee, green bean'', ``Mango'', and ``Papaya'' to the table in
paragraph (a), and add footnote 1 to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.666   Fluxapyroxad; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Banana \1\..................................................         3.0

                                * * * * *
Coffee, green bean \1\......................................         0.2

                                * * * * *
Mango \1\...................................................         0.7

                                * * * * *
Papaya \1\..................................................         0.6

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for this commodity as of November 8,
  2016.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-26966 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18298-18302]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA 2012-0074]

Improvements to the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA)
Motor Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces planned improvements to the Carrier Safety
Measurement System (SMS) which was implemented in December 2010 as part
of the Agency's broader Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA)
initiative. A preview of these improvements will be available to motor
carriers and law enforcement on March 27, 2012. The system changes are
scheduled to be available to the public in July 2012. There will be
additional opportunity for public comment on the changes after the
preview period ends in July 2012.
    The improvements to SMS announced in this notice are based on
ongoing analysis and feedback from enforcement personnel, the motor
carrier industry, and other stakeholders. The changes more effectively
identify and prioritize high-risk and other unsafe motor carriers for
enforcement interventions designed to reduce commercial motor vehicle
crashes and hazardous materials incidents.
    Starting on March 27, 2012, FMCSA will provide motor carriers with
the ability to preview how the improvements impact their individual
safety data in SMS. These improvements include: (1) Changes to the SMS
methodology that identify higher risk carriers while addressing
industry biases; (2) better applications of SMS results for Agency
interventions by more accurately identifying safety sensitive carriers
(i.e., carriers transporting people and carriers hauling hazardous
materials (HM)), so that such firms can be selected for CSA
interventions at more stringent levels; and, (3) more specific fact-
based displays of SMS results on the SMS Web site.
    The data preview may be found at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/. During
the data preview period, the Agency requests comments on the impacts of
the changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2012-0074 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building,
Ground Floor, Room 12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All
submissions must include the Agency name and docket number for this
notice. See the ``Public Participation'' heading below for instructions
on submitting comments and additional information.
    Note that all comments received, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.
Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT Headquarters Building at
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
    Public Participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket,
and will be considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Price, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1300, Pittsburgh, PA
15222, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In December 2010, FMCSA implemented SMS to
identify high-risk motor carriers for on-site investigations consistent
with Section 4138 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act, and Public Law 109-59 (Aug.10, 2005)
(SAFETEA-LU).
    SMS is also used to identify and prioritize motor carriers for less
resource intensive interventions, such as automated warning letters,
and serves as a principal factor in roadside inspection software
designed to recommend motor carriers with known performance and
compliance problems for additional inspections. Furthermore, SMS now
provides motor carriers and other safety stakeholders with regularly
updated safety performance data available through the public Web site
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS.
    Select intervention efficiency and effectiveness concepts from the
intervention component of the CSA model were also implemented
nationally in December 2010. These concepts include:
    1. Automated Warning Letters;
    2. Focused Compliance Reviews;
    3. Direct Notices of Violation (NOV);
    4. Investigation of Red Flag Driver Violations during all
Compliance Reviews; and
    5. Selection of drivers for examination during carrier
investigations based on an internal selection system (the Driver Safety
Management System).
    Elements of the CSA model that remain to be implemented in future
phases include more comprehensive implementation of the full suite of
CSA interventions (e.g., off-site investigations and cooperative safety
plans (CSPs)) and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) recommending
an improved approach to safety fitness determinations of motor
carriers.
    The Agency also uses this notice to discuss its evaluation of crash
weighting in SMS. FMCSA is looking at various options within SMS to
identify carriers that have the greatest risk of future crashes. As
part of this effort, FMCSA has been looking at methods for determining
crash preventability and accountability, and how crashes would be
weighted in SMS. The increased weighting would identify carriers that
are causing crashes, and prioritize them for intervention. In
researching this issue, FMCSA identified several areas where additional
data and further study are needed before moving forward with a proposal
on the weighting of crashes in SMS. These areas include evaluating the
uniformity and consistency of police accident reports; determining a
process for assessing crashes in a uniform and consistent manner;
creating a process for accepting public input into the process; and
determining the actual effect on SMS's ability to identify carriers
that have a high risk of crashes. As a result, the Agency is conducting
additional research and analysis to determine the feasibility of
different weighting for crashes in SMS based on an objective set of
criteria.

Safety Measurement System

    SMS quantifies the safety performance of motor carriers using data
available in FMCSA's motor carrier database, the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS). This database includes
violations found during roadside inspections, traffic enforcement, and
the intervention process. SMS currently groups these data into seven
Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs): Unsafe
Driving, Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service), Driver Fitness,
Controlled Substances and Alcohol, Vehicle Maintenance, Cargo Related,
and Crash History. For further detailed information on the current
structure of SMS, see the SMS Methodology at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    SMS currently has sufficient data to assess the safety performance
of approximately 200,000 of the 525,000 active interstate and
intrastate HM motor carriers in FMCSA's census files (approximately 38
percent). FMCSA's analysis showed that the 200,000 carriers assessed in
the March 2011 run of SMS were involved in over 90% of the crashes
reported to FMCSA from April to June 2011. Of those 200,000 carriers,
over 50,000 exceeded the intervention threshold in at least one BASIC
and were identified for Agency interventions. Additionally, these
50,000 carriers (approximately 10 percent of the total active
population) were responsible for 45% percent of the recorded crashes.
FMCSA's analysis, therefore, found very strong associations between
future crash risk and high percentiles in the Unsafe Driving, Fatigued
Driving (Hours of Service), and Crash BASICs of SMS.
    Independent evaluation of SMS data by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) determined that crash rates
were higher for motor carriers identified with safety problems in SMS's
seven BASICs. In particular, UMTRI found that motor carriers falling
above FMCSA's intervention threshold in the Unsafe Driving BASIC had
crash rates that were more than three times greater than the crash rate
for motor carriers without any BASICs above FMCSA's intervention
threshold. Similarly, UMTRI found that the crash rate for motor
carriers above FMCSA's intervention threshold in the Fatigued Driving
(Hours of Service) BASIC was nearly three times greater than the crash
rate for motor carriers without any BASICs above FMCSA's intervention
threshold. Details on the full UMTRI report can be found at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/UMTRI.aspx.
    From the start of CSA, FMCSA expected to modify SMS as new data and
additional analyses became available. To date, FMCSA has made a number
of enhancements to SMS based on feedback from State partners, industry,
and safety advocates.
    Moving forward, FMCSA plans to apply a systematic approach to
making improvements to SMS, prioritizing and releasing packages of
improvements as needed, and providing an SMS preview period for law
enforcement and motor carriers prior to implementation. These
improvements are the Agency's response to findings from its ongoing
analyses of data, input from law enforcement, the motor carrier
industry, and other safety stakeholders. This package of SMS
enhancements includes:
    1. Strengthening the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC by moving cargo/load
securement violations from the Cargo-Related BASIC to the Vehicle
Maintenance BASIC;
    2. Simultaneously renaming the Cargo-Related BASIC the HM BASIC,
which will better identify HM-related safety problems and change how HM
carriers are classified to allow for increased intervention scrutiny;
    3. Better aligning SMS with Intermodal Equipment Provider (IEP)
regulations;
    4. Aligning violations that are included in SMS with the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection levels by eliminating the
vehicle violations derived from driver-

only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections;
    5. Improving the identification of passenger carriers; and
    6. Modifying the SMS Web site display to:
    a. Change current terminology, including the terms ``Insufficient
Data'' and ``Inconclusive,'' to fact-based definitions that clarify the
carrier's status in each BASIC;
    b. Distinguish between crashes with injuries and crashes with
fatalities.
    Individual motor carriers will have an opportunity to preview their
performance data so that they can determine the impact of SMS
improvements on their company's information in advance of the public
release. The Agency also seeks comments on the impacts of these
changes. To view their company's data, motor carriers will have to
enter their Personal Identification Number (PIN). Motor carriers that
do not have a PIN, or those that have forgotten their PIN, can go to
the following web address for assistance: https://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov/LIVIEW/PKG_PIN_START.PRC_INTRO.
    Following the preview period, FMCSA may further refine the new
methodology before implementation and release of the revised SMS
results to the public. The Agency addresses each of these improvements
in turn below.

Incorporate Cargo/Load Securement Violations Into the Vehicle
Maintenance BASIC

    Motor carrier industry and enforcement stakeholders have noted that
motor carriers predominantly operating open deck trailers (e.g.,
flatbeds) have significantly higher Cargo-Related BASIC percentiles
than those for other groups of operators, because load securement
issues for these types of carriers are more readily apparent during
roadside inspections. Based on this potential bias, FMCSA has not made
the Cargo-Related BASIC performance data available to the public.
    While cargo/load securement violations comprise 82% of violations
recorded in the Cargo-Related BASIC, they comprise just 4% of
violations when included in the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC. FMCSA
compared the flatbed bias of the current Cargo-Related BASIC with a
modified Vehicle Maintenance BASIC. The analysis determined that while
the Cargo-Related BASIC identified 66% of flatbed carriers (as
identified by industry and FMCSA field staff) as above the intervention
threshold in that BASIC, the modified Vehicle Maintenance BASIC
identified only 21% of these carriers as above the intervention
threshold. FMCSA also examined the carriers identified above the
intervention threshold (i.e., those in the 80th percentile) in the
current Cargo-Related and Vehicle Maintenance BASICs and compared them
to carriers identified under the proposed new Vehicle Maintenance
BASIC. Carriers identified under the new Vehicle Maintenance BASIC had
over a 20% higher crash rate. The analysis showed that this approach
(1) identifies carriers with a higher crash risk for Agency
interventions and (2) effectively addresses the bias associated with
carriers that haul open trailers while still holding all carriers
accountable for all cargo securement violations.

Change the Cargo-Related BASIC to the HM BASIC and Change How HM
Carriers Are Identified

    The presence of HM can greatly exacerbate the consequences of
crashes and cargo spills. Because the current Cargo-Related BASIC
includes both HM violations and load securement violations, some motor
carriers with HM compliance issues do not rise above the FMCSA's
intervention threshold due to the relative weight of general cargo
securement violations.
    FMCSA consulted with enforcement subject matter experts to identify
and apply severity weightings to the 239 HM violations contained in the
Cargo-Related BASIC and 112 additional HM safety-based violations
attributable to the motor carrier. The Agency then conducted
effectiveness testing to compare the Cargo-Related BASIC with a new
BASIC for carriers transporting HM requiring placards to determine
which configuration better identified carriers with a high risk of
future HM safety violations. The analysis found that the new HM BASIC
better identified carriers that would commit future HM violations than
the current Cargo-Related BASIC.
    In addition, FMCSA plans to change how carriers are classified as
HM carriers to allow increased intervention scrutiny. In August 2011,
the criteria for identifying carriers subject to the more stringent HM
intervention thresholds were changed to any carrier with HM activity
(i.e., a placarded HM inspection, review, or permit) in the past two
years rather than identifying carriers based on the HM commodities
noted on the MCS-150 registration form. Under these criteria, it was
determined that some carriers inadvertently transport placarded HM
loads or that an extremely small percentage of their loads involved
placarded HM. FMCSA conducted an analysis to establish new criteria for
excluding carriers that transport HM as a minimal part of their
business. These criteria took two forms: (1) requiring HM activity
within the last 24 months, excluding carriers that have not transported
HM in over a year, and (2) requiring that placardable HM inspections
constitute a sizable proportion of the carrier's total inspections.
This change resulted in exclusion of approximately 11,500 of the 24,000
carriers currently subject to HM thresholds, while still encompassing
94% of the placardable HM inspections recorded in the past 24 months.
    FMCSA is applying the new criteria to focus intervention resources
on carriers involved in the transportation of HM requiring placards.
For a carrier to be subject to the HM threshold, that carrier must have
at least two inspections on a vehicle transporting HM requiring
placards, within the past 24 months, with one inspection occurring
within the past 12 months, and making up at least five percent of the
motor carrier's total inspections. In addition, any motor carrier that
has an FMCSA HM safety permit or that has been identified as a carrier
of placarded quantities of HM from an investigation in the last 24
months will be subject to the increased intervention scrutiny.
    The methodology applies a more stringent intervention threshold for
these carriers transporting HM. The Agency created a new HM BASIC that
includes only HM-related violations and inspections on carriers
involved in the transportation of HM requiring placards. This change
allows the Agency to better identify HM-related safety issues for CSA
interventions.

Apply Carrier-Based Violations on Intermodal Equipment Provider (IEP)
Trailers to the Vehicle BASIC

    Currently, SMS does not include any roadside violations on an
intermodal chassis when there is an associated IEP. FMCSA chose not to
include these violations in the first versions of SMS because FMCSA was
still in the process of identifying those violations attributable to
the motor carrier and those attributable to the IEP. Section 390.44 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, states that an IEP will not be
held responsible for such violations because a motor carrier indicated
pursuant to 49 CFR 392.7(b) that the chassis components, parts, or
accessories had no safety defects at the time of the pre-trip
inspection. Because of this, some of the violations found during a
roadside inspection will be the

responsibility of the motor carrier. For example, when an IEP
interchanges a chassis with a motor carrier, the driver is required
under 49 CFR 392.7(b) to conduct a pre-trip inspection to determine if
that chassis is in good working order. If defects are found during the
pre-trip inspection, the driver has the opportunity to alert the IEP of
such defects. The IEP, in turn, is required to either repair the defect
or replace the equipment prior to the driver's departure. Violations
that should have been detected during a pre-trip inspection but are
later found during a roadside inspection become the responsibility of
the motor carrier and thus should be applied in SMS.
    FMCSA worked collaboratively with law enforcement officials and
industry personnel, both on the motor carrier and IEP sides, to
identify the violations that could reasonably be found during a pre-
trip inspection of an IEP chassis. A copy of the violation attribution
decision process and associated violations can be found on our web site
at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/rulesregs/IEP/Visio-Violation-Attribution-07182011_508.pdf.
    In cases where (1) the driver conducted a pre-trip inspection, and
(2) the violation is considered pre-trip detectable, the violation is
attributed to the motor carrier. FMCSA applied this rule to the past 24
months of roadside inspections, resulting in approximately 22,000
violations included in the SMS Vehicle Maintenance BASIC.

Eliminate Vehicle Violations From ``Driver-Only'' Inspections and
Driver Violations From ``Vehicle-Only'' Inspections

    Currently, SMS includes Level 3 (Driver-Only) inspections in the
Vehicle Maintenance BASIC only when vehicle violations are noted on the
inspection report. Industry and enforcement personnel expressed concern
that many vehicle violations fall outside the scope of the inspection
and could bias the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC data. This bias is created
by the fact that driver-only inspections count against the Vehicle
BASIC assessments when vehicle violations are documented but do not
count as a clean inspection toward the Vehicle BASIC when vehicle
violations are not noted. Moreover, CVSA policy is that items not
indicated in the inspection procedure for a particular level
inspection, for example, a Level 3 (Driver-Only) inspection, should not
be included on the inspection report.
    FMCSA is therefore removing vehicle violations found during driver-
only inspections and driver violations found during vehicle-only
inspections to bring SMS into alignment with existing CVSA policies
regarding protocol for different inspection levels.
    FMCSA evaluated the extent to which inspectors are citing vehicle
violations during driver-only inspections to confirm that this problem
merits the attention that stakeholders have suggested. Approximately
139,000 violations, or 2.6 percent of all vehicle violations used in
SMS, are vehicle violations cited during a driver-only inspection.
While very few driver violations are ever documented in vehicle-only
inspections, this change will also be made to ensure that only
violations within the scope of a particular type of inspection are
included in SMS.
    When a vehicle violation is discovered during a Level 3 inspection,
FMCSA strongly encourages the roadside inspector to convert the
inspection to a Level 2 inspection where documentation of vehicle
violations is appropriate. If the roadside inspector is not certified
to conduct Level 2 inspections, the roadside inspector can still
address the unsafe condition through State citations or warnings.

Identify Motor Carriers Transporting Passengers and Apply a More
Stringent Passenger Carrier Intervention Threshold

    Motor carriers subject to the passenger carrier intervention
threshold in SMS are held to a significantly higher standard than non-
passenger carriers. Enforcement stakeholders support updating the
definition of passenger carrier within SMS to better focus FMCSA
resources on carriers involved in passenger transportation.
    FMCSA is revising the definition of carriers subject to the lower
passenger carrier intervention thresholds within SMS. The new criteria
add all for-hire carriers that operate 9-15 passenger capacity vehicles
and private carriers that operate 16-plus passenger capacity vehicles,
as these carriers are under FMCSA's authority. The new criteria exclude
carriers that operate only 1-8 passenger capacity vehicles and private
carriers that operate only 1-15 passenger capacity vehicles
(effectively removing many carriers operating limousines, vans, taxis,
etc.), as operation of these vehicles is generally outside most of
FMCSA's regulations. The new criteria also remove carriers where less
than 2% of their respective fleets are passenger vehicles, in order to
exclude carriers that do not haul passengers as a significant part of
their business. FMCSA determined how many carriers would be subject to
the passenger carrier intervention threshold under these new criteria.
This change would remove 4,200 carriers, while adding 5,700 carriers.

Eliminate the Use of the Terms ``Inconclusive'' and ``Insufficient
Data'' and Distinguish Crash Data

    Since April 2010, the BASIC summary on SMS online (http://
ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/sms) has used the term ``inconclusive,'' to describe
carriers that have enough inspections to be assessed but too few
violations to warrant being considered for FMCSA interventions, and the
term ``insufficient data'' to describe carriers that do not have enough
inspections to produce a robust measure to even be assessed.
Stakeholders have asked FMCSA to offer more specific fact-based
descriptions, as the terms ``inconclusive'' and ``insufficient data''
are perceived to be difficult to understand.
    FMCSA is providing a preview of the new terminology and the
approach to presenting the crash data. The Agency encourages carriers
to give feedback on the new terms before they are implemented publicly.
For example, rather than displaying ``insufficient data,'' the site
will display a fact-based description such as ``< than 5 inspections,''
and rather than displaying ``inconclusive,'' the site will contain a
description such as ``no violations within 1 year.''
    Also, in the ``Summary of Activities'' section of a motor carrier's
information on SMS Online, FMCSA displays a count of recordable crashes
broken into ``fatality/injury'' and ``tow- away.'' In response to
stakeholder requests, FMCSA is separating the combined fatality/injury
category into distinct categories: Fatality, injury, and tow-away
crashes.

Implementation

    As of the publication of this notice, motor carriers will be able
to preview how these changes will affect their data and SMS results.
During the SMS preview, motor carriers will have the opportunity to
review the accuracy of SMS data, provide feedback, and if necessary,
take action to improve their safety performance. During the March 2012
SMS Preview, motor carriers should:
     View their operational information to determine if they
are now subject to placardable HM or passenger carrier intervention
thresholds.
     View the new HM BASIC to review applicable violations.
     View the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC to determine how cargo/
load securement violations previously

recorded in the Cargo-Related BASIC impact their Vehicle Maintenance
percentiles, and to see which IEP-related violations have been
recorded.
     Verify that vehicle violations found during driver-only
inspections and driver violations found during vehicle-only inspections
have been removed from their Vehicle Maintenance BASIC data.
     Review alternative terminology for ``insufficient data''
and ``inconclusive'' in the BASIC summary.
     View the ``Summary of Activities'' section of SMS Online
to see the new breakout between injury crashes and fatal crashes.
    FMCSA will collect, assess, and address feedback during the SMS
Preview, and may further refine the enhancements prior to public
implementation in July 2012.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments on the above improvements to SMS.
Commenters are requested to provide supporting data wherever
appropriate.

    Issued on: March 22, 2012.
 William Bronrott,
 Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-7360 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37318]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0430]
RIN 1625-AA00

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Fourth of July
Celebration; Santa Rosa Sound; Fort Walton Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone for the Fourth of
July Celebration in the Santa Rosa Sound, Fort Walton Beach, Florida
from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2012. This action is necessary for
the safeguard of participants and spectators, including all crews,
vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the Fourth of July
Celebration. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting or
anchoring in the Safety Zone is prohibited to all vessels not
registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels,
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile
or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 will be enforced from 9 p.m.
until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector
Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone
for the annual Fourth of July Celebration event listed in 33 CFR
165.801 Table 1, Table No. 146; Sector Mobile, No. 5 on July 4, 2012
from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into the safety zone
listed in Table 1, Table No. 146; Sector Mobile, No. 5 is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage
through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33 U.S.C.
1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. In addition to
this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Mobile or Patrol Commander determines
that the Safety Zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated
in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
D.J. Rose,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2012-15159 Filed 6-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8335-8338]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8808-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of
Several Currently Approved Collections; Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit requests to renew several currently approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICRs are specifically identified in this document by their
corresponding titles, EPA ICR numbers, OMB Control numbers, and related
docket identification (ID) numbers. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the information collection activities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket ID number for
the corresponding ICR as identified in this document, by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The

Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number for the
corresponding ICR as identified in this document. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the docket without change and
may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the 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 docket index
available in http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding EPA Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0885: Rame Cromwell, Field and External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For questions regarding EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0886:
Cameo Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA, EPA specifically solicits
comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate 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.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
     7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
     8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

III. What Do I Need to Know About PRA?

    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final
rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal
Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instruments or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list
at 40 CFR 9.1.
    Under PRA, burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

IV. Which ICRs Are Being Renewed?

    EPA is planning to submit a number of currently approved ICRs to
OMB for review and approval under PRA. In addition to specifically
identifying the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID
numbers, this unit provides a brief summary of the information
collection activity and the Agency's estimated burden. The Supporting
Statement for each ICR, a

copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more
detailed explanation.

A. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0885

    Title: Pesticide Registration Fee Waivers.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2147.04, OMB Control No. 2070-0167.
    ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on
October 31, 2010.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR
include pesticide registrants seeking a waiver or exemption of fees
under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA). The
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes include
325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing), 32518
(other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing), and 32519 (other basic
organic chemical manufacturing).
    Abstract: This information collection will allow EPA to process
requests for waivers and exemptions of fees under the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Renewal Act of 2007 (PRIA 2) which established
section 33 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). The ICR covers the collection activities associated with
requesting a fee waiver or exemption and involves requesters submitting
a waiver or exemption request to provide information to demonstrate
eligibility for the waiver or exemption and certification of
eligibility. Waivers are available for small businesses and minor uses
and exemptions are available for minor uses and actions solely
associated with the Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4).
State and Federal agencies are exempt from the payment of fees. This
ICR provides burden hour and labor cost estimates for both applicants
for fee waivers and EPA employees who process and approve or deny
waiver requests.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 to
37 hours per response depending upon the type (A, B, or C) of
respondent. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket,
provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondent requests: 1,800.
    Frequency of response: As needed.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 5,611 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $335,328.
    Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of
this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 2,757 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR.
This decrease reflects a shift in both the number and type of waiver
requests submitted. The average estimated burden per response has not
changed. However, the total number of responses per year decreased from
389 to 293. In addition, there was a shift in the distribution of
responses to the least-burdensome type, resulting in the lower total
estimated burden. This change is an adjustment.

B. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0886

    Title: Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information under
FIFRA Section 6(a)(2).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1204.11, OMB Control No. 2070-0039.
    ICR status: The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on
October 31, 2010.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR
include anyone who holds or ever held a registration for a pesticide
product issued under FIFRA section 3 or section 24(c). The NAICS code
is 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing).
    Abstract: This ICR is a proposed renewal of an existing ICR that is
currently approved by OMB and is due to expire October 31, 2010.
Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA requires pesticide registrants to submit
information to the Agency which may be relevant to the balancing of the
risks and benefits of a pesticide product.
    The statute requires the registrant to submit any factual
information that it acquires regarding adverse effects associated with
its pesticidal products, and it is up to the Agency to determine
whether or not that factual information constitutes an unreasonable
adverse effect. In order to limit the amount of less meaningful
information that might be submitted to the Agency, EPA has limited the
scope of factual information that the registrant must submit. The
Agency's regulations at 40 CFR 159 provide a detailed description of
the reporting obligations of registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2).
    As expected, implementation of the 1998 final regulations (June 19,
1998; 63 FR 33580) initially resulted in an increase in the number of
incident reports submitted annually. That was assumed to be the result
of increased awareness and understanding on the part of pesticide
registrants of their reporting responsibilities under FIFRA section
6(a)(2). After the first year under the regulations, incident reporting
leveled off and has remained generally consistent. Study submissions,
on the other hand, have gradually decreased as the pesticide re-
registration program data call-in activities wound down. For the
purposes of this renewal the estimate for study and incident
submissions have been averaged for the three fiscal years 2006-2008.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average a
range of 2.1 hours to 3.5 hours per response. The ICR, a copy of which
is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1,733.
    Frequency of response: As needed.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
For submission of studies less than 1. Submission of incidents may
range from 1 to 40, however, incidents are usually reported as
aggregate statistics.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 203,236 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $11,793,027.
    Changes in the estimates from the last approval: The renewal of
this ICR will result in an overall increase of 35,920 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved
ICR. Total burden hour estimates associated with studies are reduced
because the estimated number of study submissions is reduced from 240
to 183 studies. Burden estimates associated with the number of incident
reports, however, are increased because of the increased volume of
incident reporting (31%). In addition, an increase in the number of
registrants of active products (1,733 versus 1,720) results in the need
for additional employees to be trained. Overall, considering the net
effect of the decrease in studies and the increase in incidents as well
as the change in employee training, the total respondent burden hours
increased from 167,316 to 203,236.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process for These ICRs?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the individual
ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages will then be submitted to
OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of these ICRs to OMB and

the opportunity for the public to submit additional comments for OMB
consideration. If you have any questions about any of these ICRs or the
approval process in general, please contact the people listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010-3694 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S