79914 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Notices conference meeting. See below for time limitations on public comments. Members of the public desiring additional information about the meeting locations must contact Ms. Zisa Lubarov Walton, EPA Science Advisory Board ( 1400A), Suite 6450FF, U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone/ voice mail at ( 202) 564   4533; fax at ( 202) 501   0582; or via e mail at lubarovwalton zisa@ epa. gov. A copy of the draft agenda, and other information for the review for each meeting, will be posted on the SAB Web site ( www. epa. gov/ SAB/ whatsnew. htm) approximately 10 days before that meeting. ( a) Availability of Review Materials   Materials that are the subject of this review are available from Ms. Laura Miner Nordstrom, Office of the Chief Financial Officer or from Mr. Kevin Teichman, Office of Research and Development. Ms. Laura Miner Nordstrom can be reached on ( 202) 564   1601 or by e mail at Miner Nordstrom. Laura@ epa. gov and Mr. Teichman can be reached on ( 202) 564   6705 or via e mail on teichman. kevin@ epa. gov. ( b) Meeting Access   Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, including wheelchair access to the conference room, should contact Mr. Miller at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. ( c) General Information   Additional information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ sab) and in the Science Advisory Board FY2001 Annual Staff Report which is available from the SAB Publications Staff at ( 202) 564   4533 or via fax at ( 202) 501   0256.

4. Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face to face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes ( unless otherwise indicated). For teleconference meetings, opportunities for oral comment will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for getting on the public speaker list for a meeting are given above. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB accepts written comments until the date of the meeting ( unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the review panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the appropriate DFO at the address/ contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e mail ( acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files ( in IBM PC/ Windows 95/ 98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Dated: December 24, 2002. Robert Flaak, Acting Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [ FR Doc. 02   32987 Filed 12   30   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0343; FRL   7284   7]

Prosulfuron; Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to Establish Tolerances for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of prosulfuron in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0343, must be received on or before January 30, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Tompkins, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5697; e mail address: tompkins. jim@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS code 111)   Animal production ( NAICS code 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS code 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS code 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 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 questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0343. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 26 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEN1. SGM 31DEN1 79915 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Notices electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0343. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0343. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0343. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0343. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 26 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEN1. SGM 31DEN1 79916 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Notices docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as 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. 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. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. 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.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 20, 2002. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petitions The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petitions was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petitions summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed. EPA has received pesticide petitions ( PP 5F4469) and ( PP 4F4336), from Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P. O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419   8300 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 by establishing a tolerance for residues of prosulfuron, 1( 4 methoxy 6 methyl triazin 2 yl) 3 [ 2( 3,3,3 trifluoropropyl) phenylsulfonyl] urea in or on the raw agricultural commodities, cereal grains group ( except rice and wild rice) grain at 0.01 parts per million ( ppm), cereal grains group ( except rice and wild rice) forage at 0.10 ppm, cereal grains group ( except rice and wild rice) fodder at 0.01 ppm, cereal grains group ( except rice and wild rice) straw at 0.02 ppm, cereal grains group ( except rice and wild rice) hay at 0.20 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, meat, fat, kidney, liver, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This is a revised notice of filing to amend a previous notice of filing published in the Federal Register of August 25, 1999 ( FR 64 46382) ( FRL   6093   7), to propose permanent tolerances, instead of the current timelimited tolerances for prosulfuron.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue of prosulfuron in corn is adequately understood. Significant pathways involve oxidation of the phenyl ring to give 5   hydroxy prosulfuron, which is followed by sugar conjugation. Hydrolytic cleavage of the sulfonylurea bridge occurs for both prosulfuron and 5   hydroxy prosulfuron, yielding the corresponding sulfonamide and triazine amine moieties. The sulfonamide metabolites are subsequently conjugated with sugars. Demethylation of the triazine amine results in the formation of the corresponding hydroxy triazine, which is further hydrolyzed at the amino group to form the dihydroxy triazine. 2. Analytical method. Adequate analytical methods exist for the detection and measurement of residue levels of prosulfuron in or on raw and processed commodities of cereal grains, and for meat, milk and eggs. The limit of quantitation ( LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for crop commodities, processed fractions and milk, and 0.05 ppm for meat and eggs. The method is based on commodity specific cleanup procedures followed by determination by high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet ( UV) detection. 3. Magnitude of residues. Complete, full geography residue programs, including processing, have been conducted on corn, wheat and grain sorghum. A three level dairy animal feeding study to determine the transfer of residues of prosulfuron from animal feed commodities to meat and milk has also been conducted.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. EPA has set an acute reference dose of 0.1 milligram/ kilogram/ day ( mg/ kg/ day) based upon a no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) of 10 mg/ kg/ day from the rat acute neurotoxicity study ( lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 250 mg/ kg/ day due to reduced motor activity and body temperature in males and impaired righting reflex in females) and a 100   fold uncertainty factor ( UF). 2. Genotoxicty. Prosulfuron was negative for mutagenic/ genotoxic effects when tested in a bacterial reverse gene mutation assay with and without metabolic activation using different S. typhimurium and E. coli stains; in a mammalian gene mutation study using V79 cells; in an in vitro mammalian cytogenetic test using Chinese hamster ovary ( CHO) cells with and without metabolic activation; in a micronucleus test in mice; and in a DNA repair using freshly isolated rat liver hepatocytes. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The data base on prosulfuron relative to prenatal and postnatal effects for children is considered to be essentially complete with no data gaps. The developmental and reproductive toxicity data do not indicate increase susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/ or postnatal exposure to VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 26 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEN1. SGM 31DEN1 79917 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Notices prosulfuron. In a rat teratology study, evidence of maternal toxicity ( decreased body weight gain and reduced food consumption) and developmental toxicity ( increased incidence of skeletal variations that was not significantly different from the historical control) was found at the maximum tolerated dose of 400 mg/ kg. There was no evidence of teratogenicity at any dose, and the maternal and developmental NOAELs were established at 200 mg/ kg. In a rabbit teratology study, maternal toxicity ( decreased body weight gain and reduced food consumption) was observed in the 100 mg/ kg dose group. There was no evidence of teratogenicity at any dose. Since a range finding rabbit teratology study had seen additional clinical findings and fetotoxicity at maternally toxic doses (  150 mg/ kg) but not in the definitive study at up to 100 mg/ kg, a second rabbit teratology study was conducted at doses of 0, 20, 100, and 200 mg/ kg/ day. Maternal toxicity was observed at 200 mg/ kg. The developmental NOAEL was 100 mg/ kg and the maternal NOAEL was 20 mg/ kg in this study. There was no evidence of teratogenicity at any dose. A rat multigenerational reproduction study indicated reproductive and systemic NOAELs of 13.3 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased mean body weights and body weight gain observed at 136 mg/ kg/ day for both pups and parental animals. No treatment related effects on reproductive performance ( i. e., to produce, deliver or raise litters), litter sizes, viability of pups, and necropsy findings in parental animals and offspring were noted up to the highest dose level. 4. Subchronic toxicity. The liver was identified as a target organ at high doses in the rat, mouse, and dog as indicated by slightly increased liver enzymes and liver weights. No histomorphologic correlates of liver damage was noted in the 90   day studies except in the mouse study where centrilobular hypertrophy was found in males at feeding levels   1,750 ppm and in females at levels   3,500 ppm. In general, NOAELs for target organ effects were established at doses that were much higher than overall study NOAELs, which were based on other indicators of toxicity such body weight gain. 5. Chronic toxicity. In the 1   year dog chronic dosing study, the NOAEL was 1.84 mg/ kg/ day based on hematologic and clinical chemistry effects and incidence of lipofuscin accumulation in the liver at 18.6 mg/ kg/ day. In the 18   month mouse carcinogenicity study, there was no evidence of carcinogenic effects up to the highest dose tested ( HDT) of 1,062 mg/ kg/ day. The NOAEL was 1.71 mg/ kg/ day in males, and 100 mg/ kg/ day in females based on increased incidence/ severity of centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy. A 2   year chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in rats indicated systemic NOAEL of 7.9 mg/ kg/ day was based on decreased body weight and body weight gain, hematopoietic effects ( males), and possibly increased serum GGT and decreased liver, kidney, and adrenal weights ( females) at 79.9 mg/ kg/ day. There was uncertain evidence of carcinogenicity with slight increases in the incidence of mammary gland adenocarcinomas in females at 95.7 and 205.8 mg/ kg/ day, slight increase in incidence of benign testicular interstitial cell tumors at 79.9 and 160.9 mg/ kg/ day ( significant trend only). Considering the weight of the evidence, the EPA Reference Dose Committee previously concluded that the chemical should be classified as a Group D carcinogen ( inadequate evidence), not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. The HIARC ( meeting December 2, 1999) accepted the previous conclusions and updated the cancer classification to the new classification: `` data are inadeqate,'' with no new studies required. EPA has set a chronic reference dose of 0.02 mg/ kg based on a NOAEL of 1.84 mg/ kg in a dog feeding study and a 100   fold UF. 6. Animal metabolism. The metabolic pathways in the rat, goat, and hen are similar and are adequately understood. Prosulfuron is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal ( GI) tract of rats and is rapidly excreted. Approximately 90% of the administered dose is excreted during the first 48 hours, predominately via urine. Tissue residues are low. Prosulfuron is metabolized primarily via hydroxylation at side chain and phenyl ring positions and O demethylation of the triazyl methoxy group. Minor pathways include unsaturation of the trifluoropropyl side chain, hydrolysis of the phenylsulfonylurea bridge and oxidative/ hydrolytic cleavage of the triazine ring system. In the goat, the orally administered prosulfuron is quickly eliminated primarily via the urine as prosulfuron. The metabolism of prosulfuron in the goat follows a similar pathway as observed in the rat although not as extensive. The majority of the residues were accounted for as prosulfuron, the triazine amine, which results from bridge hydrolysis ( CGA   150829) and the triazinyl hydroxymethyl metabolite ( CGA   273437). In the hen, metabolism is similar to that observed in the rat and goat. The major residues found in edible tissues and eggs were prosulfuron, the triazine amine ( CGA   150829), and the sulfonamide ( CGA   159902) which results from hydrolysis of the sulfonylurea bridge. 7. Metabolite toxicology. Metabolic pathways of prosulfuron in plants and animals are comparable and no detectable residues are found in or on crops. All relevant plant metabolites are observed in the animals and are thus toxicologically covered. The remaining plant metabolites are toxicologically insignificant. Therefore, parent prosulfuron is the appropriate compound for the tolerance expression and analytical monitoring. 8. Endocrine disruption. Prosulfuron does not belong to a class of chemicals known for having significant adverse effects on the endocrine system. Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and reproduction study in rats gave no indication that prosulfuron might have any effects on endocrine function related to development and reproduction. The subchronic and chronic studies also showed no evidence of a long term effect related to the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted for prosulfuron using tolerance values published in 40 CFR 180.481. In both assessments it was assumed that 100% of all corn and cereal grains were treated with prosulfuron ( 100% market share). The exposure analyses was conducted using food consumption data from USDA's 1994   1996 Continuing Survey of Intake by Individuals ( CSFII) and Novigen Sciences, Inc. Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM). i. Food. Chronic exposure was compared to a RfD of 0.02 mg/ kg based on a NOAEL of 1.84 mg/ kg in a dog feeding study and a 100   fold UF. This exposure analysis showed that the U. S. population had an exposure of less than 1% of the chronic RfD. The most sensitive subpopulation was children ( 1   6 years old) with a chronic exposure of 2.4%. Acute exposure was compared to an acute RfD of 0.1 mg/ kg, which was based on a NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg from an acute neurotoxicity study in the rat and a 100   fold UF. The most sensitive subpopulation was all infants with an exposure of 2.2% of the acute RfD. The U. S. population showed an exposure of 1.5% of the RfD. These results show that there is more than a reasonable certainty of no harm, through exposure to prosulfuron residues in the diet. ii. Drinking water. For estimated surface water concentrations using generic expected environmental concentration ( GENEEC), the peak day   VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 26 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEN1. SGM 31DEN1 79918 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Notices 0 estimate, 1.86 parts per billion ( ppb), was used in the acute exposure analysis and the corrected 56   day drinking water concentration of 0.4667 ppb was used in the chronic exposure analysis. The SCIGROW estimated ground water concentration for the prosulfuron uses of 0.406585 ppb contributed little to the overall exposure. The acute drinking water levels of concern ( DWLOC) for prosulfuron were based on the acute RfD, a margin of exposure ( MOE), the 99.9th percentile of the acute dietary exposure for U. S. population subgroups and the body weight  daily water consumption of each respective subgroup. The calculated acute DWLOC values for the population subgroups ranged from 978   3447 ppb. The estimated ground water concentration ( 0.406585 ppb) and the peak day   0 surface water concentration ( 1.86 ppb) of prosulfuron did not exceed the acute DWLOC values. The chronic ( noncancer DWLOC for prosulfuron were based on the chronic RfD, any estimated residential exposure, the chronic dietary exposure for select U. S. population subgroups and the body weight  daily water consumption of each respective subgroup. The calculated chronic DWLOC values for the population subgroups ranged from 197   694. The estimated ground water concentration ( 0.406585 ppb) and the corrected average 56   day surface water concentration ( 0.4667 ppb) of prosulfuron did not exceed the chronic DWLOC values. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that the residues of prosulfuron in the drinking water would not result in unacceptable levels of acute or chronic aggregate human health risk, and that such exposure would not exceed the exposure allowable by the risk cup. Nondietary exposure. Nondietary exposure to prosulfuron is considered negligible as the chemical is registered for agricultural use only. For workers handling this chemical, acceptable MOE ( in the range of thousands) have been obtained for both acute and chronic scenarios.

D. Cumulative Effects Consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there is no information to indicate that toxic effects produced by prosulfuron would be cumulative with those of any other types of chemicals.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. The calculation shows that less than 1% of the RfD will be utilized for the U. S. population based on chronic toxicity endpoints. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to prosulfuron residue. 2. Infants and children. The calculated percent of the RfD that will be utilized by aggregate exposure to residues of prosulfuron is only 2.4% for children ( 1 to 6 years old), the most impacted subpopulation. There were no adverse reproductive or developmental effects indicated in the prosulfuron toxicity data base, which is considered to be essentially complete with no data gaps. It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to prosulfuron residues.

F. International Tolerances No codex MRLs have been established for residues of prosulfuron. [ FR Doc. 02   32988 Filed 12   30   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0349; FRL   7285   6]

Flumioxazin; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0349, must be received on or before January 30, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6224; e mail address: Miller. Joanne@ epamail. epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0349. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments,

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 16: 26 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEN1. SGM 31DEN1


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26467-26471]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0122]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions from the diabetes
standard; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 35 individuals
for exemptions from the prohibition against persons with insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable
these individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0122 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: 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.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID 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 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: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<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:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 35
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Abdelhadi A. Abdelnabi

    Mr. Abdelnabi, age 58, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Abdelnabi meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009

and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class D operator's license from Illinois.

Dennis W. Athey, II

    Mr. Athey, 33, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Athey meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Barry A. Barber

    Mr. Barber, 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barber meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.

Jeromy B. Birchard

    Mr. Birchard, 37, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Birchard meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Kevin J. Blue

    Mr. Blue, 49, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blue meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2008 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a class B CDL from Illinois.

Lester B. Brazfield

    Mr. Brazfield, 50, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brazfield meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New
Mexico.

Bradley M. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 39, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Gary L. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 68, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Arizona.

Robert F. Browne, III.

    Mr. Browne, 31, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Browne meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from New
Hampshire.

Robert F. Carter

    Mr. Carter, 42, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carter meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana.

Howard L. Cooksey

    Mr. Cooksey, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Cooksey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

William D. Cornwell, III

    Mr. Cornwell, 54, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cornwell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Brian P. Dionne

    Mr. Dionne, 45, has had ITDM since 1978. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dionne meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from New Hampshire.

Richard C. Dunn

    Mr. Dunn, 48, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dunn meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Connecticut.

Donald K. Ennis

    Mr. Ennis, 34, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ennis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Dennis Graves

    Mr. Graves 64, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Graves meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.

Michael T. Harris

    Mr. Harris, 26, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota.

Daniel H. Henson

    Mr. Henson, 59, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Illinois.

J. Theoginis Kehaias

    Mr. Kehaias, 37, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kehaias meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a C operator's license from New
Hampshire.

Harold M. Koski

    Mr. Koski, 52, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Koski meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Richard B. Lorimer

    Mr. Lorimer, 54, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the

past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has
stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a
CMV safely. Mr. Lorimer meets the requirements of the vision standard
at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Missouri.

Lester J. Manis

    Mr. Manis, 46, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Manis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.

Trena L. Marshall

    Ms. Marshall, 41, has had ITDM since 2007. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2008 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Marshall meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2009 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class C operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

Troy A. Martinson

    Mr. Martinson, 35, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martinson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Wisconsin.

Ronald R. McDougle

    Mr. McDougle, 68, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McDougle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nevada.

Richard L. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 45, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Jerome A. Mjolsness

    Mr. Mjolsness, 51, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mjolsness meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

David K. Mopps

    Mr. Mopps, 50, has had ITDM since 1981. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mopps meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license
from Indiana.

George E. Patton

    Mr. Patton, 53, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patton meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.

Jack E. Rensing

    Mr. Rensing, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rensing meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio.

Clayton M. Reynolds

    Mr. Reynolds, 37, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function

that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reynolds meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Jeffrey S. Saint-Vincent

    Mr. Saint-Vincent, 53, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Saint-Vincent meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

Richard Scott

    Mr. Scott, 45, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scott meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Gary A. Sweeney

    Mr. Sweeney, 50, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sweeney meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

David L. Wilhelm

    Mr. Wilhelm, 40, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilhelm meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Arkansas.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the Notice.
    FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU) requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program
established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must
provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus,
and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 Notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) The elimination of the requirement for
three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with
insulin; and (2) the establishment of a specified minimum period of
insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being
allowed to operate a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience requirement and
fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure
that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite
level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C.
31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the
operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September
3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section
4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3,
2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the Federal Register
on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: May 26, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-12757 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77073-77074]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0497; FRL-9525-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam
Generating Units (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0497, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On August 9, 2012 (77 FR 47631), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0497, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1052.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0026.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2013.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or
additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart D.
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an initial
notification report, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are also
required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 54
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of fossil fuel
fired steam generating units.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 660.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 70,777.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $16,753,220, which includes $6,853,220
in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $9,900,000 in operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in respondent burden
from the most recently approved ICR due to an adjustment of respondent
labor hours. The previous ICR assumed that labor hours accounted for
all technical, managerial, and clerical hours. To be consistent with
the estimation methodology used in other ICRs, this ICR assumes that
labor hours account for technical hours only. Clerical and managerial
hours require additional time, and equal 10 and 5 percent of technical
hours, respectively. This ICR updates these labor hours and their
associated labor rates, resulting in an increase of total labor costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-31405 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P