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

<EPA Registration Division contact: [Shaunta Hill, 703/347-8961]>

<Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC>

<[0F7689]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([0F7689]) from <Arysta
LifeScience North America, LLC. 15401 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
>proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.614 by
establishing tolerances for the residues of kasugamycin,
3-O-[2-amino-4-[(carboxyiminomethyl)amino]-2,3,4,6-tetradeoxy-α-D-arabi
no-hexopyranosyl]-D-chiro-inositol, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities: fruiting vegetables (crop group 8 –fruiting
vegetables – except cucumber) at 0.15 parts per million (ppm), pome
fruit (crop group 11- pome fruit) at 0.25ppm, and walnuts at 0.04 ppm.
EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<Metabolism in plants. The metabolism of kasugamycin in tomato has been
investigated and is well understood as published in the Federal Register
of April 8, 2005 (67 FR 17997). The nature of residues of kasugamycin in
tomato was investigated using 14C radiolabeled kasugamycin. Parent
kasugamycin was the primary component in both fruit and foliage. The
main metabolite in fruit, present at a maximum level of 0.01 ppm, was
identified as kasugamycinic acid, resulting from the conversion of the
iminomethyl function to a carboxylic acid; conjugates of kasugamycin and
kasugamycinic acid were also found in fruit at very low levels.
Investigation of extracts from foliage indicated the presence of
2-N-acetyl kasugamycin, kasuganobiosamine, and conjugates of kasugamycin
and kasugamycinic acid.

Metabolism in livestock.  The metabolism of kasugamycin in the lactating
goat has been investigated using 14C radiolabeled kasugamycin .and is
well understood 14C-kasugamycin was fed at an exaggerated level (14.4X)
of 12.6 mg/kg (dry feed basis) to a goat for 5 days.

The majority of the label was excreted as unchanged kasugamycin in the
urine and feces.  Residues ranged from 0.003 ppm in skim milk to 0.024
ppm in milk fat. Residues in other tissues ranged from 0.002 ppm
(omental fat) to 0.013 ppm (liver). The kidney contained 0.262 ppm
kasugamycin. Of the residues found in kidney 92.9% was identified as
unchanged kasugamycin.

The goat study indicated that kasugamycin is poorly absorbed and those
residues that are retained comprise only parent compound.

>

<Analytical method.  A practical analytical method for detecting and
measuring levels of kasugamycin has been developed and validated in all
appropriate agricultural commodities. This analytical method is suitable
for monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the
tolerances. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for this method is 0.04 ppm.
An independent laboratory validation of the residue analytical method
was successful.

>

<Magnitude of residue.  A total of 8 residue trials were conducted in
pears with 6 applications at 0.083lb ai/A, 7±1 days between
applications, and a 30 day PHI. The measured residues so obtained ranged
from 0.044 ppm to 0.172 ppm.  These results support a proposed tolerance
in pears of 0.25 ppm.

As the proposed use pattern for pears is for 4 applications only, the
existing data for 6 applications are a conservative predictor of
potential residues following the proposed 4 applications, and the
proposed tolerance of 0.25 ppm for pears is protective.

A total of 24 Apple trials were conducted in both the U.S. and Canada
based on 4 applications at 0.083 lb ai/A, 7-days treatments intervals
and a 90 day PHI.  The measured residue values so obtained range from
<0.04 ppm to 0.075 ppm. All data are considered relevant to setting a
tolerance in the U.S.

Decline data from a pear trail indicated that the dissipation of
kasugamycin residues from pome fruit is slow (1.3% per day).
Anticipated residues for apples at a the 30 day PHI are calculated by
multiplying the residues measured at 90 days by the decline factor seen
over a 60 day interval (2.16). This calculation yields anticipated
residues at the proposed 30 day PHI are estimated to range from 0.099
ppm to 0.162 ppm

Based on the above analysis, it is reasonable to propose a pome fruit
crop group tolerance at 0.25 ppm (i.e., the value supported by the pear
data).

Because quantifiable residues were not measured in the processing
studies with apples, default processing factors will be included in the
dietary exposure assessment to conservatively estimate potential
residues in processed apple commodities.

Twenty-four treated tomato samples were collected from 3 field trials.
Applications were made according to the proposed use pattern (i.e., 3
applications at ~0.021 lb ai/A with 7 day retreatment interval).
Tomatoes were harvested 1 day after the last application. No
quantifiable residues were measured in any of the treated samples.
Therefore, the tolerance for tomatoes is proposed at the limit of
quantitation (0.04 ppm).

Because quantifiable residues were not measured in the processing
studies, default processing factors were included in the dietary
exposure assessment to conservatively estimate potential residues in
processed tomato commodities.

Nine trials (18 samples) were conducted in peppers (6 in bell pepper and
3 in non-bell peppers) according to the proposed use pattern (i.e., 3
applications at ~0.021 lb ai/A with 7±1 day retreatment interval). Two
trials were conducted in greenhouses, and the remaining trials were
conducted in the field. Peppers were harvested 1 day after the last
application. Quantifiable residues were detected in just 6 of the 18
samples, with measured residues ranging from <0.04 ppm to 0.107 ppm.

The majority of the residue data (67%) were below the lower limit of
quantification so a direct consideration of the data is appropriate.
Residues in peppers range from <0.04 ppm to 0.107 ppm, so the proposed
tolerance for peppers is 0.15 ppm.

For the fruiting vegetable crop group, the proposed tolerances for
tomatoes and peppers are within 5X of each other, so a crop group
tolerance is feasible. The crop group tolerance for fruiting vegetables
is therefore based on the proposed tolerance for peppers of 0.15 ppm.

The proposed tolerance of 0.15 ppm for fruiting vegetables will take
precedence over the existing import tolerance of 0.04 ppm for this crop
group.

Three field trials (6 samples) were conducted in walnuts according to
the proposed use pattern (i.e.,4 applications at 0.083 lb ai/A with 14
day retreatment interval). Walnuts were harvested approximately 100 days
after the last application. No quantifiable residues were measured in
any of the six treated samples. The tolerance for walnuts is proposed at
the limit of quantitation (0.04 ppm).

Assuming tolerance level residue of 0.25 ppm in treated apples, and
applying the maximum theoretical processing factor for apple pomace of
14X yields a kasugamycin residue level of 3.5 ppm kasugamycin.  Apple
pomace constitutes up to 10% of dairy cattle diets and is 40% moisture
(EPA, 2008), bringing the maximum dairy cattle diet burden to 0.875 ppm
kasugamycin.

In a metabolism study in the lactating goat, 14C-kasugamycin was fed at
an exaggerated level (14.4X) of 12.6 mg/kg (dry feed basis) to a goat
for 5 days. Residues ranged from 0.003 ppm in skim milk to 0.024 ppm in
milk fat. Residues in other tissues ranged from 0.002 ppm (omental fat)
to 0.013 ppm (liver). The kidney contained 0.262 ppm kasugamycin.

The residues in milk calculated using the 1X feeding level are
anticipated to range from 0.00014 ppm to 0.0017 ppm, and levels in other
tissues would range from 0.00021 ppm to 0.00090 ppm. Residues in kidney
could be anticipated to occur at up to  0.018 ppm.

However, because apple pomace is generally fed only to dairy cattle and
these animals are not generally consumed, the main emphasis is on
anticipated residues in milk and milk products. Given the low
probability that these residues would ever occur, no tolerances for
dairy or meat products are necessary

B. Toxicological Profile.

Acute toxicity.  Kasugamycin has a low order of acute toxicity.  The
acute oral and dermal LD50 values for kasugamycin are greater than 5,000
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for rats regardless of gender. In acute
inhalation testing in the rat, kasugamycin’s LC50 is greater than 2.07
milligram/liter (mg/L). Further Kasugamycin mildly irritating to the
eyes, and moderately irritating to the skin of rabbits, but was found to
be non-sensitizing to the skin of the guinea pig.  This technical label
will carry the EPA signal word ``CAUTION.'' >

<

Genotoxicity.  A battery of mutagenicity studies yielded negative
results in bacteria and mammalian cells; kasugamycin was negative in the
following assays:  Bacterial reverse mutation, Chinese hamster ovary
(CHO), chromosomal aberration (in vitro), mammalian erythrocyte
micronucleus, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and in vitro mammalian cell
gene mutation. Overall, it is unlikely that kasugamycin presents a
genetic hazard>

<Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

i	Rat developmental.  In the developmental toxicity study conducted with
rats, for maternal toxicity the NOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is
1000 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights, body weight gains, and
food consumption; increased incidence of loose stool; and distention of
the large intestine with stool in the cecum.

 is ≥1000 mg/kg/day.

ii.	Rabbit developmental.  In the developmental toxicity study conducted
with rabbits, the maternal NOEL is 10 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is ≥10
mg/kg/day.  It is noted that abortions and decreased maternal body
weights, body weight gains, and food consumption were seen at 30
mg/kg/day in a range-finding study.

For developmental toxicity the NOAEL is 10 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is
≥10 mg/kg/day.

iii.	Reproduction.  In the rat reproduction study the parental/systemic
NOAEL is 13.7/16.2 mg/kg/day (M/F) and the LOAEL is 70.3/82.9 mg/kg/day
(M/F) based on decreased body weights and body weight gains.  At
425.3/503.4 mg/kg/day (M/F), red and swollen skin around the anal
opening (M/F) and testicular atrophy/degeneration in Fl males were seen.

For reproductive toxicity the NOAEL is 70.3/82.9 mg/kg/day (M/F) and the
LOAEL is 425.3/503.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on decreased fertility and
fecundity in the F1 parents for both litters and increased pre-coital
interval during the mating period for the F2 litter.

For offspring toxicity the NOAEL is 425.3/503.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) and the
LOAEL is ≥425.3/503.4 mg/kg/day (M/F)

Subchronic toxicity.

i	Rat 90 day oral toxicity.  A thirteen week sub chronic feeding study
was conducted in the rat. The NOAEL is 176.7/201.0 mg/kg/day (M/F) and
the LOAEL is 354.8/395.5 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on decreased body weights
and body weight gains.

ii 	Rat 21 day dermal toxicity.  A 21 day dermal toxicity study was
conducted using Sprague Dawley rats as the test system. Based on the
results of this study, kasugamycin technical administered dermally for
6 hours per day, 7 days per week, for 21 consecutive days at a dosage
level of 500 mg/kg/day for males and 200 mg/kg/day for females exceeded
the tolerated dose due to adverse dermal observations with correlating
microscopic findings in both sexes.  Therefore, the dermal no-observed
adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for kasugamycin technical (expressed as the
free base) to Crl:CD(SD) rats was 250 mg/kg/day for males and 100
mg/kg/day for females.  The dermal no-observed-effect level (NOEL) was
50 mg/kg/day for males and females.  Based on the lack of systemic
effects, the systemic NOEL was 500 mg/kg/day for males and 200 mg/kg/day
for females, the highest dosage levels examined.

iii 	Rat 90 day dietary neurotoxicity.  Kasugamycin technical was
offered on a continuous basis in the diet for approximately 13 weeks to
groups of 12 male and 12 female Crl:CD(SD) rats at concentrations of
0, 300, 3000, and 6000 ppm.  Test substance-related effects were limited
to reduced mean body weights and body weight gains in the 6000 ppm group
males and females; the reduced mean body weights were evident during the
weekly and physiological FOB evaluations.  There were no test
substance-related effects on any parameters evaluated in the 300 and
3000 ppm groups.  Based on these results, the no-observed-adverse-effect
level (NOAEL) for subchronic toxicity was considered to be 3000 ppm for
males (210 mg/kg/day) and females (238 mg/kg/day) and the NOAEL for
subchronic neurotoxicity was considered to be 6000 ppm for males (439
mg/kg/day) and females (486 mg/kg/day) when kasugamycin technical was
offered on a continuous basis in the diet for approximately 90 days.

iv	Mouse 90 day oral toxicity.  A thirteen week sub chronic feeding
study was conducted in the mouse .The NOAEL is 135.4/170.9 mg/kg/day
(M/F) and the LOAEL is 408.5/565.6 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on increased
mortality and anal lesions (M/F), and kidney lesions (F). At 1559/1834
mg/kg/day (M/F), decreased body weights and body weight gains (M/F),
testicular tubular dilatation and degeneration, perianal/perigenital
staining (F), and extramedullary hematopoiesis of the spleen (M) were
seen

v	Dog 90 day oral toxicity.  A thirteen week sub chronic feeding study
was conducted in the dog. The NOAEL is 10.6/11.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) and the
LOAEL is 106.0/107.9 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on tongue lesions, few feces,
swollen mouth, excessive salivation, and thickened skin at the
commissure of the mouth. At 182/170 mg/kg/day (M/F), decreased body
weights, body weight gains, and food consumption were seen.

Chronic toxicity.  Kasugamycin has been tested in chronic studies with
dogs, rats, and mice.

Rat combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity.  In a 24-month combined
chronic/oncogenicity study in rats, findings were increased cecum
weights and kidney weights, increased brown pigment deposition in the
kidney proximal tubules and an increased incidence of foam cell
aggregation in the lungs. No significant increase in neoplastic lesions.
The NOEL is 300 ppm (10.59 mg/kg/day in males and 11.44 mg/kg/day in
females).

Carcinogenicity mouse.  Kasugamycin was administered at 1,500 ppm in the
diet to mice for 78 weeks. Observations were lower absolute and relative
spleen weights for males. The NOEL is 300 ppm (34.94 mg/kg/day in males
and 42.49 mg/kg/day in females).

Dog chronic toxicity.  Kasugamycin was administered for 52 weeks to
dogs. The administration of 3,000 ppm kasugamycin was associated with
minimally higher urea nitrogen and creatinine, lower urine volume, and
higher urine specific gravity. The NOEL is 1,000 ppm.

Carcinogenicity.  Kasugamycin did not produce carcinogenicity in
adequately designed chronic studies with rats or mice; additionally, no
mutagenic potential was noted in any of the five mutagenicity studies.
Classification of kasugamycin is ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.

Animal metabolism.  The metabolism of kasugamycin in animals is well
understood. Following administration to the rodent, the majority of
kasugamycin is excreted into the feces, a small amount was eliminated in
the urine, and less than 0.1% of the radioactivity was retained in the
carcass.  Kasugamycin is not excreted in the bile and enterohepatic
circulation of kasugamycin does not occur. There were no apparent sex
related differences

Metabolite toxicology.  No metabolites of significant expected toxicity
were identified in the animal metabolism study

Endocrine disruption.  Beyond testicular softening seen in the rat
combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study, there is no evidence
that kasugamycin has any effect on endocrine function.  >

<	>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<1. 	Dietary exposure.  Tier I chronic dietary exposure evaluations were
conducted for the active ingredient fungicide/bactericide, kasugamycin,
using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™, version
2.16), from Exponent, DEEM™.  Default processing factors were used in
these assessments.  All consumption data for these assessments was taken
from the USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals
(CSFII) with the 1994-98 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII
children’s survey (1998) consumption database.  These exposure
assessments included tolerance values as proposed for pending uses on
fruiting vegetables, pome fruit, and walnuts and assumed 100% of the
crops were treated.  Secondary residues in animal commodities were not
considered as anticipated residues and transfer information from
metabolism studies indicate that tolerances for kasugamycin in animal
commodities are not required.    Drinking water estimates were
incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the
value of 2.91 ppb derived for the surface water estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) using uses FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening
Tool) as the Tier I screening model for surface and ground water.  This
value was chosen for the risks assessment as it exceeds the 1.24 ppb
value obtained through use of SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration In
Ground Water) as the Tier I screening model.

For acute dietary exposures, no appropriate dose and endpoint could be
identified for females 13-49 or the general population. Consequently, an
acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.

For chronic dietary exposures, the reference dose is 0.113 mg/kg/d,
based on the NOAEL for males (11.3 mg/kg/d) in the combined chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity study in rats and an uncertainty factor of 100. No
additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  The toxic effect of concern
is increased testicular softening observed in males at 116 mg/kg/d. No
effects were observed in females at the maximum dose (140 mg/kg/d).

Chronic exposure to the most exposed subpopulation (children 1-2 years)
resulted in exposure equivalent to 3.2% of the chronic RfD of 0.113
mg/kg-bw/day.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of
the RfD, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from the proposed uses for
kasugamycin

Cancer:  EPA classified kasugamycin as “not likely to be a human
carcinogen.”  Due to the classification, no quantitative cancer
exposure assessment was performed.

Non-dietary exposure.

Occupational handler (mixer/loader/applicator) exposure.  Products
containing kasugamycin will be registered for agricultural uses only and
will not be available for any residential or public uses. Kasumin 2L
will be applied only by professionals; assessment of occupational
handler exposures potential post-application exposure is required. These
exposures are anticipated to be of short-term or intermediate-term
duration. Exposures associated with greenhouse uses were also evaluated
against the long-term toxicity endpoints. The exposure related hazards
are:

For dermal exposure of any duration, irritation was the effect of
concern. The NOAELs from a 21-day dermal study in rats are 250 mg/kg/d
and 100 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively. The female NOAEL
was used in the risk characterization, and consequently the adult
occupational exposure assessment is based on the default female body
weight of 60 kg.

For inhalation exposures (short- and intermediate-term), the NOAELs from
the chronic oral dog study were selected. The NOAELs are 99.6 mg/kg/day
for males and 103.6 mg/kg/day for females (i.e., the highest doses
tested) from the chronic oral dog study. For simplicity, a NOAEL of 100
mg/kg/d was used in risk characterization. Complete absorption of
inhaled exposures is assumed.

For long-term inhalation exposures, the NOAEL from the chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity study in rats was selected (i.e., 11.3 kg/kg/day).

Applications of Kasumin 2L to pome fruit, fruiting vegetables and
walnuts will be made with either airblast (pome fruit, walnuts) or
groundboom (fruiting vegetables) equipment. Applications to fruiting
vegetables in greenhouses may be made with hand-held equipment.

The highest rates, maximum number of applications, shortest intervals
and shortest PHI on the proposed label were modeled individually for
handlers making applications to pome fruit, fruiting vegetables, and
walnuts.

EPA default assumptions for the maximum daily area treated were also
employed in the assessment; these being, 40 acres/day for airblast
applications and 80 acres/day for groundboom applications (EPA, 2001).
For handheld uses in greenhouses, the maximum spray volume applied is 40
gallons/day for backpack and low pressure handwand sprayers and 1000
gallons/day for high pressure handwand sprayers (EPA, 2001).  Dermal and
inhalation unit exposures were obtained from the PHED Surrogate Exposure
Guide (EPA, 1997). Handler exposure estimates assume a 60 kg body
weight. Complete (100%) absorption of inhaled exposures is assumed. A
dermal absorption fraction was not applied in the calculation because
the endpoint of concern is from a dermal toxicity study.

Short-/intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures and margins of
exposure (MOEs) calculated for occupational handlers applying
kasugamycin range from 5,420 to 788,000.  Short-/intermediate-term
dermal, and short-/intermediate-term inhalation MOEs range from 113,000
to 11,300,000. For hand-held applications, long-term dermal MOEs range
from 5,420 to 788,000, and long-term inhalation MOEs range from 12,800
to 1,280,000.

MOEs greater than 100 indicate that occupational handler exposures
associated with applications of kasugamycin to pome fruit, fruiting
vegetables and walnuts are not of concern.

Occupational post-application exposure assessment.  A screening-level
occupational post-application assessment was performed assuming re-entry
into treated crops as soon as the sprays have dried.  A default
assumption of 20% was used to estimate initial DFRs on the day of
application. Because the restricted entry interval (REI) for kasugamycin
is 12 hours, workers may re-enter treated crops. For each crop, the
maximum transfer coefficient (TC) was selected, without regard to the
activity associated with the TC in order to produce a conservative
estimate of potential re-entry exposures.

For pome fruit, the maximum transfer coefficient is 3,000 cm2//hr for
thinning and other activities (EPA, 2006).

For fruiting vegetables, the maximum transfer coefficient is 1,000 cm
cm2//hr for pruning, hand harvest, staking, tying and other activities
(EPA, 2000).

For walnuts, the maximum transfer coefficient is 2,500 cm2//hr for
pruning and hand harvest, was selected for pruning immature plants (EPA,
2000).

Dermal exposures were estimated assuming an 8-hour workday. Calculated
MOEs for re-entry activities in the proposed crops range from 1,340 to
15,900.  MOEs greater than 100  indicate that workers can re-enter
treated crops as soon as the sprays have dried to perform maintenance
activities. Thus, the REI of 12 hours for kasugamycin is protective of
human health.

The occupational exposure and risk assessments for the proposed uses of
Kasumin 2L formulation demonstrate MOEs greater than 100, and estimated
dietary exposures are below the chronic reference dose. Therefore, the
occupational and residential exposures associated with the proposed Use
of Kasumin 2L on pome fruit, fruiting vegetables and walnuts indicate a
reasonable certainty of no harm for exposed populations.

 D. Cumulative effects.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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'',  The EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether kasugamycin has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  For the purposes of this tolerance action,
the EPA has not assumed that kasugamycin has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety determination.

	1. U.S. population.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all proposed uses of kasugamycin would
result in an exposure equal to 0.000698 mg/kg body wt/day (0.6% of the
acute RfD of 0.113 mg/kg/day) for the general US population.  A chronic
cancer exposure analysis was not performed, since there is no evidence
of human carcinogenic potential for Kasugamycin.  Short-term aggregate
and intermediate-term aggregate risk was not assessed because there are
no current, pending, or proposed residential uses for Kasugamycin.
Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data
supporting these petitions, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from the
proposed kasugamycin tolerances, including anticipated dietary exposure
from food and water exposures.

	2. Infants and children.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food
plus water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed uses
of kasugamycin would in an exposure equal to 0.003573 mg/kg body wt/day
(3.2% of the acute RfD of 0.113 mg/kg/day)  for the most sensitive
subpopulation, children (1-2 years old). A chronic cancer exposure
analysis was not performed, since there is no evidence of human
carcinogenic potential for kasugamycin.  Short-term aggregate and
intermediate-term aggregate risk was not assessed because there are no
current, pending, or proposed residential uses for kasugamycin.  Based
on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting
these petitions, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all proposed
kasugamycin tolerances, including anticipated dietary exposure from food
and water exposures.  Considering the potential aggregate exposure from
food and water exposure routes, aggregate exposure is not expected to
exceed 100% of the chronic or acute reference dose and there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from the aggregate exposure to kasugamycin.>

<F. International tolerances.

B*

B*

á

ã

ú

û

ä

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

㄀Ĥ摧愓+	̤̀␱愁̤摧ㅫh

A

Kasugamycin is currently not included on Annex 1 and has a default MRL
of 0.01 within the EU.

Japan has established MRLs as follows:  tomato  at 0.03 ppm; brown rice,
dried soybeans, dried beans, peas, broad beans, dried peanuts, other
legumes/pulses, potato, Japanese radish, roots (including radish),
Japanese radish, leaves (including radish), Chinese cabbage, cabbage ,
broccoli, other cruciferous vegetables, burdock, lettuce (including cos
lettuce and leaf lettuce), onion, welsh (including leek), garlic,
carrot, celery, pimento (sweet pepper), melons, Japanese pear, pear,
loquat, peach, mume plum, kiwifruit, and tea at 0.04 ppm; sugar beet,
turnip, roots (including rutabaga), turnip, leaves (including rutabaga),
watercress, brussels sprouts, kyona, cauliflower, shungiku, other
composite vegetables, mitsuba, other umbelliferous vegetables, other
solanaceous vegetables, cucumber (including gherkin), pumpkin (including
squash), water melon, other cucurbitaceous vegetables, okra, ginger,
other vegetables, unshu orange, pulp, citrus natsudaidai, whole, lemon,
orange (including navel orange), grapefruit, lime, other citrus fruits,
other fruits, other spices, and other herbs at 0.05 ppm>

<

>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42815-42817]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69977; File No. SR-OCC-2013-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide That OCC, Rather Than
an Adjustment Panel of the Securities Committee, Will Determine
Adjustments to the Terms of Options Contracts To Account for Certain
Events, Such as Certain Dividend Distributions or Other Corporate
Actions, That Affect the Underlying Security or Other Underlying
Interest

July 11, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On May 15, 2013 The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-05 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on June 3, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69642 (May 28, 2013),
78 FR 33138 (June 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    Certain corporate actions--such as declaration of dividends or
distributions, stock splits, rights offerings, reorganizations, or the
merger or liquidation of an issuer--affecting an underlying security
may require an adjustment to the terms of the overlying options. The
principal purpose of this rule change is to authorize OCC, rather than
adjustment panels of the Securities Committee,\4\ to determine option
contract adjustments and to determine the value of distributed property
involved in such adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OCC Securities Committee is authorized under OCC By-Law
Article VI Section 11(a) to determine contract adjustments in
particular cases and to formulate adjustment policy or
interpretations having general applicability. The Securities
Committee is comprised of representatives of OCC's participant
options exchanges and authorized representatives of OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article VI, Section 11 of OCC's By-Laws provide that all
adjustments to option contracts are currently determined on a case-by-
case basis by an adjustment panel of the Securities Committee composed
of two representatives \5\ of each exchange that trades an option on
the underlying security and the OCC Chairman (or his representative).
All actions are determined by majority vote, with OCC voting only to
break a tie. Besides determining particular adjustments in individual
cases, Article VI, Section 11 also authorizes the Securities Committee
to adopt statements of policy or interpretations governing option
adjustments in general. Additionally, the Securities Committee is
authorized to determine the value of distributed property involved in
stock option adjustments as stated in Article VI, Section 11A(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has approved an amendment to OCC's By-Laws
under which only one representative of each relevant exchange is
required on an adjustment panel. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
34-67333 (July 2, 2012), 77 FR 40394 (July 9, 2012) (SR-OCC-2012-
07). However, the amendment will not be implemented until an
amendment to the Options Disclosure Document reflecting this change
is made. Interpretation and Policy .01 to Article VI, Section 11
clarifies that until such time as the amendment to the Options
Disclosure Document is made and only one representative is required,
an adjustment panel must have two representatives of each exchange
that trades an option on the underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussions among OCC and the options exchanges concerning
potential changes to Securities Committee governance in respect of
adjustments

yielded a consensus that the exchanges should retain policy-making
authority under the adjustment By-Laws through the Securities Committee
but that OCC should be the sole determiner of particular adjustment
decisions, thereby eliminating adjustment panels convened for the
purpose of determining adjustments of particular option contracts.
Under the rule change:
    (i) The policy making role of the Securities Committee will be
unchanged. As members of the Securities Committee, exchanges will
retain authority to determine adjustment policy in general.
    (ii) OCC will apply the adjustment By-Laws and Interpretations to
determine particular adjustments on a case-by-case basis. An adjustment
panel comprised of exchange and OCC representatives will not be called
to determine a particular adjustment.
    (iii) OCC and the exchanges will retain unrestricted ability to
mutually discuss considerations pertaining to any adjustment decision
or policy.
    (iv) OCC will have authority to determine the value of distributed
property involved in contract adjustments.
    Notwithstanding the elimination of exchange representative
adjustment panels, panels of exchange representatives will retain their
existing functions and authority under other provisions of OCC's By-
Laws.\6\ The types of adjustments for which exchange representative
panels may continue to be convened will be limited to rare situations
involving market closures or the unavailability of accurate pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, those panels will retain the authority to fix
exercise settlement amounts for cash-settled options where a closing
price for the underlying is otherwise unavailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of this rule change, adjustment panels for the purpose
of determining adjustments of particular options contracts will cease
to exist and exchanges will have no obligation or authority to
determine a particular adjustment. OCC will determine the appropriate
application of the By-Laws and Interpretations and Policies, but the
exchanges will retain policy making authority as members of the
Securities Committee. In this policy making capacity, actions of the
Securities Committee will continue to require approval by a majority
vote.
    OCC states that occasionally there may be unique aspects of a
corporate event that justify departure from adjustment policy or
precedent, or that involve a situation for which there is no existing
adjustment policy or precedent. Such events may also highlight a need
for a more general reformulation of adjustment policy. Under this rule
change, if OCC determines such aspects to be present, OCC will
determine in its sole discretion any adjustment to be applied in the
particular case. The Securities Committee will not initiate policy
changes ``ad hoc'' to address a particular case (which would be a de
facto determination of a particular adjustment decision). Instead,
after OCC determined a particular adjustment, the Securities Committee,
in its discretion, will determine the appropriateness of adopting
prospective policy changes or clarifications.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This approach was followed in 2006 in response to a special
cash dividend. In that case, adjustment panels determined to depart
from precedent and adjust certain ETF options where the ETF
distributed pro rata dividends based on the amount of a special
dividend paid by the issuer of one of the component stocks in the
ETF. Following these adjustments, the Securities Committee
recommended to the OCC Board a policy reformulation. See
Interpretation .08 to Article VI, Section 11A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC and the exchanges believe that they should retain unrestricted
ability to discuss with each other any considerations pertaining to an
adjustment decision or policy--with the understanding that adjustment
decisions would be made solely by OCC and the exchanges would be
involved solely in an advisory capacity.\8\ Accordingly, this rule
change does not prohibit either the exchanges or OCC from initiating
conversations concerning adjustment policy or particular adjustment
decisions, but neither would such consultation be required.
Furthermore, to ensure continued exchange involvement in determining
adjustment policy, OCC intends to call periodic meetings of the
Securities Committee, to be held on a quarterly or more frequent period
basis, to discuss policy issues and review recent experience with
contract adjustments.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although OCC and the exchanges believe it is feasible for
OCC to independently determine adjustments, both are averse to
losing valuable exchange experience and insight that is now brought
to bear in adjustment decisions.
    \9\ As a practical matter, even if adjustments are determined
solely by OCC it would still be necessary for OCC and the exchanges
to coordinate the operational execution of all option adjustments.
This coordination includes, but is not limited to, the determination
of an effective date, option symbols and strike prices and the
publication of notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change will apply only to the functions of OCC and the
Securities Committee in the determination of option contract
adjustments as described in Article VI, Sections 11 and other By-Law
provisions. The Securities Committee--or panels comprised of
representatives of the Securities Committee--in respect of actions that
do not involve option contract adjustments will retain all other
functions and authority granted under the By-Laws, including, for
example, the ability to fix index option settlement values in cases of
market disruption and similar actions.
    In addition to the principal purpose underlying this rule change,
OCC is making certain other conforming and/or clarifying changes to the
By-Laws relating to adjustments and/or adjustment panels. Specifically,
OCC is modifying or eliminating certain adjustment related By-Law
provisions because, due to industry or other changes, there is no
longer any open interest in options covered by such provisions. OCC is
eliminating other stale provisions, including those found within
Interpretation and Policy .01 under the Article VI, Section 11, which
relate to the determination of ``ordinary cash dividends or
distributions'' for which no adjustment is ordinarily made. OCC is also
making changes to Article XIV, Section 3A(a)(3) in relation to binary
options for which the underlying is an equity interest. OCC is also
making changes to Article XIV Section 3A to reflect a clarifying
interpretation issued by the Securities Committee with respect to
determinations of corporate issuers to accelerate or defer payments of
otherwise ordinary dividends.\10\ Other conforming changes being made
by OCC update cross-references to By-Laws and Rules that are being
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC's Securities Committee is empowered under the By-Laws
to adopt statements of policy or interpretations having general
application to specified types of events or specific kinds of
cleared contracts. The Securities Committee determined that such
events would not, as a general rule, affect the ordinary nature of
such dividends subject to the evaluation of these events on a case-
by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \11\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \12\
requires that the rules of a clearing agency are designed to, among
other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions and foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

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

    By providing OCC with sole discretion for particular adjustment
decisions, the rule change helps to ensure that decisions are
consistent, efficient and free from undue influence. As a result, the
rule change should help to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions as well as foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement
of securities transactions consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\13\ Furthermore, in addition to ensuring consistency with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\14\ the conforming and clarifying changes to
OCC's By-Laws and Rules should help ensure that OCC maintains a well-
founded, transparent and enforceable legal framework as required by
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \16\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-05) be and
hereby is approved.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17099 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 40294]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14288]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95175; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2021-086]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend the Opening Auction Process
Provided Under Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B)

June 29, 2022.
    On December 21, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to to amend the Opening Auction process under BZX
Rule 11.23(b)(2)(B). The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on January 5, 2022.\3\ On February 14, 2022,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a
longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On April
1, 2022, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change, which amended and superseded the proposed rule change as
originally filed.\6\ On April 4, 2022, the Commission noticed the
filing of Amendment No. 2 and instituted proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93888 (December 30,
2021), 87 FR 532.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94238, 87 FR 9399
(February 18, 2022). The Commission designated April 5, 2022, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ On March 31, 2022, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, and on April 1, 2022, the Exchange
withdrew Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. Amendment No.
2 is available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2021-086/srcboebzx2021086-20122189-278229.pdf.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94601, 87 FR 20895
(April 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 5, 2022.\10\ The 180th day after publication of the proposed
rule change is July 4, 2022. The Commission is extending the time
period for approving or disapproving the proposal for an additional 60
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ See supra note 3 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ designates
September 2, 2022, as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-
2021-086), as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14288 Filed 7-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40763-40766]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0313; FRL-8137-4]

Glufosinate-ammonium; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of Glufosinate-ammonium in or on pistachio. Interregional Research
Project No. 4 requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 25, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 24, 2007,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0313. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 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 Docket Facility is open 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: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 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-2007-0313 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before September 24, 2007.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0313, 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'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
Facility Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26375) (FRL-8128-1),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E7196)
by Interregional Research Project No. 4, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W, Princeton, NJ 08540-6635. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.473 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of
the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium and its metabolites expressed as
butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl)-, monoammonium
salt, 2-acetamido-4-methylphosphinico-butanoic acid and 3-
methylphosphinico-propionic acid, expressed as glufosinate free acid
equivalents, in or on pistachio at 0.1 parts per million (ppm). That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer
CropScience LP, the registrant, which is available to the public 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 the 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 the FFDCA defines ``safe'' an 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 the 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. . .
.'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in 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 the petitioned-for tolerance
for combined residues of glufosinate-ammonium and its metabolites on
pistachio at 0.10 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

    On May 3, 2006 the Agency published a final rule (71 FR 25942, FRL-
8060-3) establishing tolerances for combined residues of glufosinate
ammonium, butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-,
monoammonium salt, and its metabolite, 3-methylphosphinicopropionic
acid in or on barley hay, barley straw, buckwheat fodder, buckwheat
forage, oat forage, oat hay, oat straw, rye forage, rye straw,
teosinte, triticale, wheat forage, wheat hay and wheat straw at 0.40
ppm. On September 29, 2003, the Agency published a final rule (68 FR
55833, FRL-7327-9) establishing tolerances for combined residues of
glufosinate ammonium (butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-,monoammonium salt) and its metabolites, 2-
acetamido-4-methylphosphinico-butanoic acid and 3-methylphosphinico-
propionic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid equivalents, in or on bushberry
subgroup, lingonberry, juneberry and salal at 0.15 ppm, cattle, fat at
0.40 ppm, cattle, meat at 0.15 ppm, cattle, meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm,
cotton, gin byproducts at 15 ppm, cotton, undelinted seed at 4.0 ppm,
egg at 0.15 ppm, goat, fat at 0.40 ppm, goat, meat at 0.15 ppm, goat,
meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm, hog, fat at 0.40 ppm, hog, meat at 0.15
ppm, hog, meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm, horse, fat at 0.40 ppm, horse,
meat at 0.15 ppm, horse, meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm, milk at 0.15 ppm,
poultry, fat at 0.15 ppm, poultry, meat at 0.15 ppm, poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.60 ppm, sheep, fat at 0.40 ppm, sheep, meat at 0.15
ppm, and sheep, meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm, rice, grain at 1.0 ppm,
rice, straw at 2.0 ppm, and rice, hull at 2.0 ppm.
    When the Agency conducted the risk assessments in support of the
2003 and 2006 tolerance actions, it assumed that glufosinate-ammonium
residues would be present on pistachio at 0.10 ppm, equivalent to the
previously established tolerance for the tree nut crop group. Under
current regulations, pistachio is not included in the tree nut crop
group; however, the residue field trial data required to establish a
tolerance on the tree nut crop group may be relied upon to establish a
tolerance at the same level on pistachio. Since EPA assumed
glufosinate-ammonium residues would be present on pistachio at 0.10 ppm
in its most recent risk assessments, establishing the pistachio
tolerance will not change the estimated aggregate risks resulting from
use of glufosinate ammonium, as discussed in the May 3, 2006 (71 FR
25942, FRL-8060-3) and September 29, 2003 (68 FR 55833, FRL-7327-9)
Federal Registers. Refer to these Federal Register documents, available
at http://www.regulations.gov, for a detailed discussion of the

aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety. EPA relies upon
those risk assessments and the findings made in the Federal Register
documents in support of this action.
    Based on the risk assessments discussed in the final rules
published in the Federal Registers of May 3, 2006 (71 FR 25942, FRL-
8060-3) and September 29, 2003, (68 FR 55833, FRL-7327-9), EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to glufosinate-ammonium residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There is an established CODEX maximum residue limit (MRL) of 0.1
ppm for residues of glufosinate-ammonium on tree nuts, including
pistachios, which is consistent with the U.S. tolerance being
established for pistachio. There are no Canadian or Mexican MRLs
established for tree nuts or pistachio.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
glufosinate-ammonium, (butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-, monoammonium salt) and its metabolites, 2-
acetamido-4-methylphosphinico-butanoic acid and 3-methylphosphinico-
propionic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-
(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid equivalents, in or on pistachio
at 0.10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, 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 final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 final rule 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 section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: July 13, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.473 is amended by alphabetically adding ``pistachio'' to
the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.473  Glufosinate-ammonium; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Pistachio                                                           0.10
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-14170 Filed 7-24-07 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9734-9735]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0012]

Partnership To Develop the Branded Food Products Database for
Public Health (R01)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of grant funds for the support of the Agricultural
Technology Innovation Partnership's (ATIP) Branded Food Products
Database for Public Health. ATIP, in conjunction with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
and the International Life Science Institute North America (ILSI North
America), has established a public-private partnership to enhance the
public's health. The Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine (OFVM) has
grant funds available to help support ATIP consolidate food composition
data from manufacturers. OFVM's goal is to monitor the sodium content
of branded foods and to make nutrient composition data available to the
public.

DATES: Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is April 2, 2015.
    2. The anticipated start date is May 2015.
    3. The opening date is February 13, 2015.
    4. The expiration date is April 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudine Kavanaugh, Office of Foods
and Veterinary Medicine, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Vieda Hubbard, Division of Acquisition Support
and Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane (HFA-500),
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

RFA-FD-15-005

93.103

A. Background

    OFVM is interested in monitoring the sodium content of branded
foods in the U.S. marketplace. Knowing the nutrient profile of branded
foods is critical to FDA's work and to the public's health. Public
health experts have linked excessive sodium consumption to
hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic diseases. A
database that reflects the sodium content of foods will help OFVM
research strategies regarding sodium reduction and help the public
maintain healthy diets.
    OFVM has funds available for ATIP to compile compositional data for
branded foods for the public's benefit. ATIP, through ILSI North
America and USDA, has experience engaging the private sector and
expertise compiling brand data. With OFVM's fiscal contribution, ATIP
will be able to build upon USDA's National Nutrient Database--widely
recognized as the gold standard for food compositional data--in a
timely fashion. ATIP's database will reflect the breadth and depth of
the nation's food supply and will facilitate nutrition analysis and
research that otherwise may not be possible.
    The research community, healthcare professionals, the food
industry, and policymakers will use ATIP's database. For example,
drafters of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey will
be able to more accurately characterize food selection and sodium
consumption for Americans. Medical researchers will be able to better
link sodium intake to measures of chronic diseases. Food manufacturers
will be able to compare information to improve product formulations.
Policy-making bodies will be able to develop better guidelines that
will promote public health. Ultimately, having more robust sodium data
available will allow FDA to develop targeted sodium reduction
strategies and the public to better monitor sodium intake.

B. Research Objectives

    ATIP will compile compositional data for branded foods for the
public's benefit. The database will include food group information on
branded foods and branded restaurant food products. ATIP will manage a
large volume of date-stamped branded product information to link food
intake and nutrient composition to dietary patterns recommendations.
ATIP will collect and publish comprehensive food compositional data,
including sodium content, in a timely fashion.

C. Eligibility Information

    This grant is available solely for ATIP. Through ILSI North America
and USDA, respectively, ATIP has existing relationships with industry
and years of food compositional data upon which ATIP can build. ATIP
has already demonstrated that its database can effectively manage a
large volume of date-stamped branded product information. Compiling
additional compositional data for branded foods will allow FDA to link
sodium intake and composition data to dietary patterns recommendations
more efficiently.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    OFVM has $35,000 available for a single award to a single grantee--
ATIP.

B. Length of Support

    This grant is available for 1 year from the start date.

III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an
electronic application in response to this FOA, applicant should first
review the full announcement. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses
throughout this document, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent
changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.) For all electronically submitted applications, the following
steps are required.

 Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number
 Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)
 Step 3: Obtain Username & Password
 Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR)
Authorization
 Step 5: Track AOR Status
 Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA)
Commons

    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in
detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed
these steps, submit

electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03690 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16502-16503]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0385]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
26 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective May 7, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2000-
8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-
19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-
0054; FMCSA-2010-0385], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 26 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 26 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Rex A. Botsford (MI)
William D. Cardiff (IL)
Roger C. Carson (IN)
Gregory L. Cooper (PA)
Kenneth D. Craig (VA)
Terry J. Dare (IN)
Jerald O. Edwards (ID)
Breck L. Falcon (LA)
Kenneth E. Flack, Jr. (AL)
Maylin E. Frickey (OR)
David R. Gross (PA)
Francisco J. Jimenez (TX)
Christopher J. Kane (VT)
Michael Lafferty (ID)
Roosevelt Lawson (AL)
Eugene R. Lydick (VA)
Emanuel N. Malone (VA)
Roberto E. Martinez (WA)
Travis W. Neiwert (ID)
Bernard J. Phillips (WA)
James A. Smith (WA)
Clarence L. Swann, Jr. (AL)
Michael G. Trueblood (IL)
Donald A. Uplinger II (OH)
Kerry W. VanStory (TX)
Steven M. Vujicic (IL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to

a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each
exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 26 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR
10301; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR 64806;
70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 7543; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR
16887; 72 FR 184; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 12666; 72
FR 18726; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR
11991; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 75 FR 77942;
76 FR 5425; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 25762; 78 FR 22596). Each of these 26
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0385), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it
has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, got to http://www.regulations.gov
and put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-
2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0385''
in the ``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen
appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into
the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-
17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-
2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0385'' in the ``Keyword'' box
and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Issued on: March 19, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07049 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P