[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47531-47533]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19862]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. USCG-2007-27668]
RIN 1625-AB35

Approval of Classification Societies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening the comment period before issuing
a final rule regarding the Approval of Classification Societies (USCG-
2007-27668). We previously published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing application procedures and performance standards that
classification societies must meet in order to obtain approval by the
Coast Guard before conducting work in the United States. We published
the proposed regulations to implement the requirements imposed by the
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, but before the
publication of the final rule, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2010 changed the applicability to require that all classification
societies be approved by the Coast Guard prior to conducting any work
on a vessel in the United States. The published NPRM proposed allowing
full members of the International Association of Classification
Societies (IACS) to be exempt from Coast Guard approval prior to
working in the United States. Because

of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, we are reopening the
comment period to allow for any additional or updated comments from the
public before publishing the final rule.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before September 6,
2011 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2007-27668 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
    Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the
material proposed for incorporation by reference at Room 2100, U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the
material are available as indicated in the ``Incorporation by
Reference'' section of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail LT Alfred Giordano, Coast Guard; telephone 202-
372-1362, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-27668), 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. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2007-27668'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. 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.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2007-27668'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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 Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the docket using one of the methods specified under
ADDRESSES. In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting
would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.

II. Background

    We published a notice of policy and a request for comments that
outlined the procedures by which classification societies could apply
for approval with the Coast Guard. See 69 FR 63548 (November 2, 2004).
This notice of policy was based on the August 9, 2004 enactment of
Section 413 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004
(the ``2004 Act'') (Pub. L. 108-293). The 2004 Act amended 46 U.S.C.
3316 by adding paragraph (c), which prohibits certain activities of
classification societies on a vessel in the United States that are not
approved by the Coast Guard. The 2004 Act mandated that, after December
31, 2004, a classification society, including an employee or agent of
that society, may not review, examine, survey, or certify the
construction, repair, or alteration of a vessel in the United States
unless the classification society is either approved by the Coast Guard
or is a full member of the International Association of Classification
Societies (IACS).
    After publication of the notice of policy, we received questions
from the public that were addressed in a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2010. The NPRM,
titled ``Approval of Classification Societies'' (75 FR 21212), outlined
the procedures and criteria we would use to evaluate classification
societies. The comment period closed on July 22, 2010, and we received
no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and
none was held.
    Before the publication of the final rule, on October 15, 2010, the
enactment of section 622 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010
(the ``2010 Act'') (Pub. L. 111-281) amended 46 U.S.C. 3316(c). The
2010 Act changed the applicability to require that all

classification societies, including IACS members, be approved by the
Coast Guard prior to conducting any work on a vessel in the United
States.

III. Discussion

    In this notice, we are reopening the comment period for the NPRM to
allow comments from all interested parties. The 2010 Act changed the
applicability to require that all classification societies be approved
by the Coast Guard prior to conducting any work on a vessel in the
United States. Accordingly, in Sec. Sec.  2.45-10(a), 2.45-15(a), and
2.45-30 of the proposed rule, we plan to delete all references to IACS
members, in order to comply with our revised statutory authority. The
2010 Authorization Act requires IACS members to apply to the Coast
Guard for approval under Title 46, United States Code, Section 3316(c),
if they wish to continue performing work related to the certification
of construction, repair, or alteration of vessels within the United
States.

    Dated: August 1, 2011.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2011-19862 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITION

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558

EPA Registration Division (RD) Contact: RD

Interregional Research Project Number 4

Pesticide Petition Number: 5E8377

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 5E8377) from Interregional
Research Project No. 4

(IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ  08540, 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 §180.523 by establishing a tolerance for
residue of the molluscicides, metaldehyde,
2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane,

in or on the follow raw agricultural commodities:   wheat, forage at
0.05 parts per million (ppm); wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, hay at
0.05 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.05 ppm; beet, garden, roots at 0.05 ppm;
beet, garden, tops (greens) at 0.08 ppm; rutabaga, roots at 0.05 ppm;
turnip, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip, tops at 0.08 ppm; hop, dried cones 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 these data support granting of the
petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1.   Plant metabolism. Previously submitted studies sponsored by Lonza
Inc., established that Metaldehyde can translocate into plants and that
the only residue of concern is parent Metaldehyde. The translocation
studies using 14C-Metaldehyde were conducted in leaf lettuce and sugar
beets (MRID Nos. 43923301 and 43923302).  Laser scanning cytometer
(LSC) analysis of the lettuce from the treated lettuce plot showed that
the lettuce contained an average Total Radioactive Residue (TRR) level
(expressed as 14C-Metaldehyde equivalents) of 2.44 ppm from the outer
leaves and 2.36 ppm from the inner leaves.  The corresponding values for
the beet foliage and roots were 2.87 and 0.61 ppm, respectively.   High
Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) analysis of treated lettuce and
beet samples showed that 100% of the radioactivity in the lettuce and
beet samples consisted of parent 14C-Metaldehyde.

2.   Analytical method.  A Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS) analytical method has been developed for analyzing residues of
Metaldehyde in food crops including all of the crops identified above.
The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm.  The method
has been validated with respect to specificity and non-analyte
interference, precision (repeatability), accuracy, sensitivity,
linearity of standards, stability of standard solutions and precision
(replicate injections) by EN-CAS Analytical Laboratories Study No.
99-0055 (MRID# 46010501).

3. Magnitude of residues. Crop field trials were conducted in all the
crops identified in this petition, except for the crops covered by the
revised crop groupings.  A summary of the trials is shown below.  All of
the trials were conducted with the registered end-use product, Deadline
M-P, which contains 4% Metaldehyde.

Summary of Residue Studies Conducted with Metaldehyde

Crop	Number of Trials	Application Rate	Results

Root Vegetables (garden beet, rutabaga and turnip)	6	1.001 – 1.003
pounds of active ingredient/acre (lbs. a.i./A) per application

2.002 -2.006 lbs. a.i./A (per season)	No detectable residues of
Metaldehyde (LLMV =  0.05 ppm) were found in any treated roots collected
in any trial.

Only one of the eight treated samples of top leaves collected in the
garden beet and turnip trials had a residue higher than the LLMV (0.0512
ppm)

Wheat	4	Trt 02 Plot:

0.999 – 1.002 lbs. a.i./A (per application)

2.997 – 3.006 lbs. a.i./A (per season)

Trt 03 plot:

10.039 lbs a.i./A             (per application)

30.117 lbs a.i./A             (per season)	No residues above the LLMV of
Metaldehyde were found in any treated samples of grain, straw, hay or
forage collected in the field trials in this study.

Hops	4	1.600 – 1.680 lbs. a.i./A (per application)

6.400 – 6.720 lbs. a.i./A (per season)

	No detectable residues of Metaldehyde were found in hop samples taken
at 58-64 days after application.

4.  Magnitude of the Residue in Animals.  Metaldehyde is a cyclic
tetramer of acetaldehyde.  Therefore, metabolism in animal systems will
result in the release of acetaldehyde, a normal body constituent.  The
metabolism of acetaldehyde, a normal body constituent and major
degradate of ethanol, is well documented and understood.  On the basis
of this rationale the Agency granted waivers from conducting both nature
and magnitude of the residue studies in animals with Metaldehyde.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity.  The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50s in rats and mice
were determined to be 283 and 425 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
respectively.  The acute dermal LD50 and acute inhalation lethal
concentration (LC)50 in rats were determined to be > 5 grams (g)/kg)
and > 15 mg/liter (l), respectively (MRID#s 131434 and 131429).  When
instilled into the eye of the rabbit, slight transient iridial and
conjunctival irritation were observed during the first 48 hours after
instillation (MRID# 42068801).  No irritation was observed when
Metaldehyde was applied to the skin of the rabbit (MRID# 131971).  In a
dermal sensitization study conducted in guinea pigs, Metaldehyde was
shown to be nonsensitizing (MRID# 153405).

2. Genotoxicity.  A battery of tests has been conducted including assays
for gene mutation in bacterial cells (MRID#s 131433 and 41553205),
chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells (MRID# 163832), an in vitro
gene mutation assay in mouse lymphoma L5178Y cells (MRID#s 41553206 and
42044007) an in vivo micronucleus test in the mouse (MRID# 42044006).
Metaldehyde was not active in any of these assays.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  A developmental toxicity
study in rats was conducted at Metaldehyde dose levels of 0, 25, 75 and
150 mg/kg/day (MRID# 41656001).  The doses were administered via oral
gavage on gestational days 6 – 15.  The maternal no-observed adverse
effect level (NOAEL) was 75 mg/kg/day and the developmental NOAEL was
greater than the highest dose level tested of 150 mg/kg/day.

A developmental toxicity study in New Zealand White rabbits was
conducted at Metaldehyde dose levels of 0, 10, 40 and 80 mg/kg/day
(MRID# 41590501).  There was no impact on gestational parameters, or
external, visceral or skeletal variations or malformations at any of the
dose levels tested.  The maternal and developmental toxicity NOAEL was
greater than the highest dose tested (80 mg/kg/day).

A two-generation reproduction study was conducted in rats fed diets
containing 0, 50, 1000 and ppm of Metaldehyde (MRID# 42823101).  No
effects on the reproductive parameters, litter viability or pup survival
were observed during either generation.  The NOAEL for adult toxicity
was 50 ppm; the NOAEL for offspring was 1000 ppm and the NOAEL for
reproductive effects was greater than 2000 ppm.

4. Subchronic toxicity.  A 90-day repeated dose dietary neurotoxicity
study in Sprague-Dawley CD® rats was conducted at Metaldehyde dietary
concentrations of 0, 100, 500 and 2500 ppm (equivalent to 0, 8, 39 and
185 mg/kg/day, respectively) (MRID# 46223401).  With the exception of
one female in the 2500 ppm treatment group that showed loss of hind limb
function, increased respiration, wet fur, and red/brown staining around
the anogenital region, no clinical signs of toxicity were observed in
any of the dose groups.  Females in the 2500 ppm treatment group had
decreased body weight gain during the first week of the study.  No
treatment-related effects were observed in the behavioral, functional or
sensory assessments of neurotoxicity.  The NOAEL for neurotoxicity was
considered to be 500 ppm (39 mg/kg/day).

5. Chronic toxicity. A six-month chronic toxicity study was conducted in
Beagle dogs (MRID# 131432). Metaldehyde dose levels of 0, 20, 60 and 90
mg/kg/day were administered via the diet.  No clear evidence of systemic
toxicity was observed in any of the treatment groups.

A 52-week chronic toxicity study in dogs was conducted by administering
Metaldehyde via the diet at concentrations of 0, 10, 30 and 90 mg/kg/day
(MRID# 46378401).  Clinical signs observed in the high-dose group
included ataxia, emesis, salivation, tremor and twitching.  Reduced body
weight gain, changes in hematological and biochemical parameters and in
increased absolute and relative liver weight also were noted for the
animals in this group.  Histopathology revealed morphological changes in
the testes and prostate of the animals treated with 90 mg/kg/day in the
form of an atrophy and/or degeneration of the germinative epithelium
with giant cells.  One mid- and high-dose female and one mid-dose male
died prior to the terminal sacrifice.  The study director attributed all
three deaths to treatment with Metaldehyde and defined the NOAEL as
10 mg/kg/day on this basis.  Since there were no other
treatment-related effects observed in the 30 mg/kg/day dose group, it is
somewhat questionable as to whether or not the two deaths in the
mid dose group should be attributed to Metaldehyde treatment.

An oncogenicity study was conducted for a period of 78 weeks in Charles
River CD-1® mice (MRID# 42737201).  Metaldehyde dietary concentrations
of 0, 25, 100 and 300 ppm were evaluated (equivalent to 4, 16 and 49
mg/kg/day for the males and 0, 5, 20 and 60 mg/kg/day for the females,
respectively). The only treatment-related effect was hepatocellular
hypertrophy in the 300 ppm dose group.  Pair wise comparisons and/or
life table analyses did not indicate any treatment-related effects on
survival, tumor incidence or time to tumor.

Because the criteria for a maximum tolerated dose was not satisfied in
the initial oncogenicity study, a second 78-week chronic oncogenicity
study was conducted in Charles River CD-1® mice (MRID# 44625101).  In
this study, Metaldehyde dietary concentrations of 0 and 1000 ppm were
evaluated (equivalent to 0 and 135 mg/kg/day for the males and 0 and
163 mg/kg/day for the females).  The exposure of mice to 1000 ppm of
Metaldehyde in the diet did not result in clinical signs of toxicity or
changes in survival, body weight, hematology or toxicologically
significant changes in food consumption.  Treatment-related increases in
liver weight and histopathological lesions in the liver of male mice,
and to a lesser extent, of female mice were observed.  Significant
histopathologic lesions observed in Metaldehyde treated mice included
hepatocellular hypertrophy in male and female mice and single cell
necrosis, focal and multifocal necrosis, pigment accumulation,
sinusoidal histiocytosis and hepatocellular adenoma in male mice. A
small increase in the incidence of hepatocellular eosinophilic cell foci
or hepatocellular adenoma in female mice treated with 1000 ppm
Metaldehyde also was observed.  The nature of these changes was
consistent with an adaptive hypertrophic response of the liver to an
increase in metabolic demand with subsequent development of
proliferative changes and hepatocellular toxicity.  There were no other
treatment-related findings.

A cell proliferation assay (MRID# 44810901) was conducted in order to
further investigate the mechanism by which the increase in benign liver
tumors occurred in the mouse oncogenicity study.  Archival material from
a mouse 90-day dose range-finding study was used for this evaluation.  A
clear dose response for cell proliferation in the liver was observed in
this assay.  These findings support the conclusion that the increased
incidence of benign liver tumors observed in the mouse oncogenicity
study resulted from cell proliferative effects secondary to cytotoxicity
rather than a direct oncogenic effect of Metaldehyde.

A chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study was conducted for a period of
104 weeks in Sprague-Dawley CD® rats (MRID# 42203601).  Metaldehyde
dietary concentrations of 0, 50, 1000 or 5000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 2,
44, and 224 mg/kg/day for the males and 0, 3, 60 and 314 mg/kg/day for
the females) were evaluated.  No biologically significant differences in
mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, palpable masses or food
consumption were observed in any of the treatment groups.  Treatment of
both male and female rats with 5000 ppm Metaldehyde resulted in
decreased body weight and weight gain throughout the test period,
increases in both absolute and relative liver weights, and an a
numerical increase in the incidence of females at necropsy with liver
masses and/or nodules at necropsy.  Increased serum globulin and
increased serum cholesterol for females only, hepatocellular hypertrophy
for males and females, and a questionable increase in the incidence of
females with hepatocellular adenomas were observed in the high-dose
group.  These benign neoplasms occurred late in the course of the study
and were within the range of historical control incidences for the same
tumor.  Therefore, this small numerical increase in hepatocellular
adenomas was attributed to an uncommonly low number of such tumors in
the concurrent control animals.  Treatment-related effects in animals
fed diets containing 1000 ppm Metaldehyde were lower body weight and
body weight gain in the males and females for the first year of the
study, increased serum cholesterol for females only, and hepatocellular
hypertrophy for males and females.  The NOAEL for systemic toxicity
after 104 weeks of dietary administration to rats was 50 ppm (2.0
mg/kg/day for males and 3.0 mg/kg/day for females).

Based on the toxicology data base assembled for Metaldehyde, the acute
NOAEL is considered to be 75 mg/kg/day and the acute Reference Dose
(RfD), using a 100x safety factor is 0.75 mg/kg/day.  The chronic NOAEL
is considered to be 10 mg/kg/day and the chronic RfD, using a 100x
safety factor, is 0.1 mg/kg/day.

6. Animal metabolism. A study was conducted in Charles River CD® rats
to determine the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion
patterns of 14Carbon (C)-Metaldehyde following oral dose administration
(MRID# 42300901).  The results of the study showed that orally
administered Metaldehyde is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal
tract and quantitatively metabolized to acetaldehyde, which in turn is
converted to acetyl-C0A as it enters the Krebs cycle.  This allowed the
14C label to be eliminated as 14C-Carbon Dioxide(C0)2 and to enter the
two carbon pool resulting in persistent 14C residues in tissue.  The
majority of the Metaldehyde was eliminated as 14C-CO2.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The only residue found in plants was parent
Metaldehyde.  In animal systems, Metaldehyde is metabolized to
acetaldehyde (a normal body constituent) and CO2.  Therefore, only
parent Metaldehyde is included in the proposed tolerance expressions and
in the risk exposure assessment.

8. Endocrine disruption.  No special studies investigating the potential
estrogenic or other endocrine effects of Metaldehyde have been
conducted.  However, the standard battery of required toxicology studies
has been completed.  These include an evaluation of the potential
effects on reproduction and development, and an evaluation of the
pathology of the endocrine organs following repeated or long-term
exposure to doses that far exceed likely human exposures.  Based on
these studies there is no evidence to suggest that Metaldehyde has an
adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were
conducted for Metaldehyde using the Cumulative and Aggravate Risk
Evaluation System (CARES) and the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by Individuals (CSFII, for 1987 through 1994). Existing crop tolerances
and the proposed tolerances noted in this document were used.  The
results of both the chronic and acute dietary and clearly demonstrate a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed uses of
Metaldehyde.

A.  Acute Dietary Exposure.

Based on the CARES acute dietary risk assessment, exposure at the 95th
percentile for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be 0.000273
mg/kg/day, which results in a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 275,000, which
is 0.036% of the acute Permissible Acceptable Dose (aPAD). The highest
exposed population subgroup, children 1-2 years, had an acute exposure
at the 95th percentile that was estimated to be 0.000531 mg/kg/day,
which results in an MOE of 141,180 and 0.071% of aPAD.

B. Chronic Dietary Exposure.

i. Food:  Based on the CARES chronic dietary risk assessment, the
exposure for the overall U.S. population was estimated to be 0.000097
mg/kg body weight (bw)/day, which is 0.10% of the c(chronic)PAD.  The
highest exposed subgroup, children 3-5 years, had a chronic exposure of
0.000240 mg/kg bw/day, which is 0.24% of the cPAD.

2. Non-dietary exposure. A deterministic non-dietary (non-occupational)
risk assessment using the Residential Exposure Assessment (Rex) model
was performed for Metaldehyde applied to the ground in and around
ornamental plants, small fruit and berry plants, fruit trees, vegetable
garden areas (MRID# 46524302).  The maximum application rate of 3.5 lbs
of active ingredient (a.i.) per acre was used.

A separate assessment for use of Metaldehyde in lawn care applications
was also performed (MRID# 46524304).

The results for the non-dietary (non-occupational) risk assessment
indicate that acceptable MOEs exist for the vegetable garden (and by
inference small fruits and berries), ornamental, and tree care hand
dispersion scenarios.  Using worst-case conditions (e.g., no gloves
during application, maximum application rates, 1,000 square feet being
treated for each setting, i.e., gardens, ornamentals and trees), the
overall aggregate MOE for the adult applicator (dermal and inhalation
routes) was approximately 400 assuming the same person applied granules
to all three settings (vegetable gardens, ornamentals, and trees) on the
same day.

The results of the screening-level, non-dietary (residential) consumer
applicator (dermal and inhalation) and post-application (adult dermal,
and child dermal and incidental ingestion) risk analysis for Metaldehyde
use for lawn care, demonstrate that acceptable MOEs exist for various
lawn care methods evaluated, i.e., spot treatment of lawns via hand
dispersion of granules or low pressure hand-wand spraying, or granular
broadcast treatment of lawns via push-spreaders.  Using worst-case
conditions (e.g., no gloves during application, maximum application
rates, high contact reentry activities on the day of broadcast
treatment), the overall total intake ranged from approximately 0.232
mg/kg/day for the adult applicator (dermal and inhalation routes; MOE=
3,950) for granular lawn broadcast treatment (push spreader) to
0.0328 mg/kg/day (MOE = 30,370) for spot treatment using a low pressure
hand-wand sprayer.

Based on this assessment, it can be concluded that the potential
residential/consumer application exposures associated with the use of
Metaldehyde-based products for slug and snail control are associated
with a “reasonable certainty of no harm.”

D. Cumulative Effects

There is no evidence to indicate or suggest that Metaldehyde has any
toxic effects on mammals that would be cumulative with those of any
other chemicals.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. As indicated above, the predicted acute exposure is
0.000273 mg/kg day. Based on the acute NOAEL and reference dose (75 and
0.75 mg/kg bw/day, respectively), this exposure estimate results in
intake of approximately 0.036% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile (MOE =
275,000).  The predicted chronic exposure for the overall U.S.
population is 0.000097 mg/kg bw/day, or 0.10% of the cPAD (based on the
chronic NOAEL of 10 mg/kg bw/day).

Because the predicted exposures, expressed as percentages of the aPAD
and cPAD are well below 100%, there is reasonable certainty that no
acute or chronic effects in the U.S. population would result from
dietary exposure to Metaldehyde.

2.   Infants and children. The population subgroup with the highest
level of acute exposure at the 95th percentile is children 1-2 years of
age.  The estimated acute exposure is 0.000531 mg/kg bw/day, or 0.071%
of the aPAD (MOE =141,180).  The population subgroup with the highest
level of chronic exposure at the 95th percentile is children 3-5 years
of age. The estimated chronic exposure is 0.000240 mg/kg bw/day
equivalent to 0.24% of the cPAD.  Because the predicted exposures,
expressed as percentages of the aPAD and cPAD are well below 100%, there
is reasonable certainty that no acute or chronic effects would result in
the population subgroup with the highest level of exposure (children 1-2
years) from dietary exposure to Metaldehyde.

F. International Tolerances

No incompatibilities with international tolerances are expected.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 154 (Friday, August 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44711-44712]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17325]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9057-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed August 2, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through August 9, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210113, Final, USACE, CA, Adoption--Westside Subway Extension
Transit Corridor Project Extension of the Existing Metro Purple Line
and Metro Red Line Heavy Rail Subway Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority Los Angeles County CA, Review Period Ends: 09/
13/2021, Contact: Kathlyn Osagie<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has adopted the Federal
Transit Administration's Final EIS No. 20120072, filed 03/15/2012 with
the Environmental Protection Agency. The USACE was not a cooperating
agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is
necessary under

Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20210114, Final, NRC, TX, Interim Storage Partners LLC's
License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for
Spent Nuclear Fuel in Andrews County, Texas, Review Period Ends: 09/13/
2021, Contact: James R. Park<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20210115, Final Supplement, USACE, CA, Adoption--Westside
Purple Line Extension Section 4(f) Evaluation, Review Period Ends: 09/
13/2021, Contact: Kathlyn Osagie<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has adopted the Federal
Transit Administration's Final Supplemental EIS No. 20170235, filed 11/
24/2017 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The USACE was not a
cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the
document is necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ regulations.

EIS No. 20210116, Draft, USFS, CO, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison
Forest Plan Revision, Comment Period Ends: 11/12/2021, Contact:
Samantha Staley<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20210092, Draft, USAF, ID, Airspace Optimization for Readiness
for Mountain Home Air Force Base, Comment Period Ends: 09/22/2021,
Contact: Robin Divine<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/09/2021; Extending the Comment
Period from 08/23/2021 to 09/22/2021.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-17325 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

	OPEN MEETING

July 23, 2010

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ- OPP-2009-0378

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues related to the Comparative Adult and Juvenile
Sensitivity Toxicity Protocols for Pyrethroids

Please note that all times are approximate

(See note at the end of the Agenda)

		Friday, July 23, 2010

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures by Designated
Federal Official – Sharlene Matten, Ph.D., Designated Federal
Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:35 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members –

	Steven Heeringa, Ph.D., Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:40 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Tina Levine, Ph.D., Director,
Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:00 A.M.	Regulatory Overview and Objectives – Edward Scollon, Ph.D.,

	Health Effect Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

10:00  A.M.	BREAK

10:15  A.M.	Public Comments

11:15  A.M.	Charge Question 1

12:00  P.M.	LUNCH

1:00 P.M. 	Charge Question 1 cont’d

2:00 P.M.	Charge Question 2

3:00 P.M.	BREAK

3:15 P.M.	Charge Question 3

4:15 P.M.	Additional Discussion, as needed

5:00 P.M.	Adjourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Dr. Sharlene Matten, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
`

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11335]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03464]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008; FRL-9959-34-Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the North Penn Area 6
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III published
in the Federal Register of December 23, 2016, a Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion of the North Penn Area 6 Superfund Site from the
National Priorities List. The notice referenced the incorrect Docket ID
Number. This notice provides the correct Docket ID Number.

DATES: February 22, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Huu Ngo, Remedial Project Manager
(3HS21), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 23,
2016, (81 FR 94295) in [FRL 9957-30-Region 3], in the heading and in
the ADDRESSES section, correct the Docket ID Number to read: EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0008.

     Dated: January 20, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-03464 Filed 2-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72864]
[DOCID:fr07de05-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
Extension: Form 12b-25; OMB Control No. 3235-0058; SEC File No. 270-71.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The purpose of Form 12b-25 is to provide notice to the Commission
and the marketplace that a public company will be unable to timely file
a required periodic report. If all filing conditions are met, the
company is granted an automatic filing extension. Form 12b-25 is filed
by publicly held companies. Approximately 7,799 issuers file Form 12b-
25 and it takes approximately 2.5 hours per response for a total of
19,498 burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: November 30, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6979 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11728-11731]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No FMCSA-2011-0097]

Pilot Project on NAFTA Trucking Provisions

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On September 12, 2011, FMCSA announced and requested public
comment on data and information concerning the Pre-Authorization Safety
Audit (PASA) for Grupo Behr de Baja California SA de CV (Grupo Behr),
USDOT 861744, a motor carrier that applied to participate in
the Agency's long-haul pilot program. That action was required by the
``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007'' and all subsequent
appropriations. While Grupo Behr successfully completed the PASA
process, commenters raised concerns about the company's safety record.
In addition, during the Agency's safety vetting process, an operating
authority violation was discovered. As a result, the Agency placed
Grupo Behr's application on hold. The purpose of this notice is to
respond to the comments received in response to the September 12, 2011,
notice, and to explain the enforcement action that the Agency took as a
result of the operating authority violation. In addition, this notice
advises that the Agency will now issue provisional authority to Grupo
Behr for participation in the long-haul pilot program.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of

the DOT Headquarters Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
    Public Participation: The www.regulations.gov Web site is generally
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket, and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcelo Perez, FMCSA, North American
Borders Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext. 228; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 25, 2007, the President signed into law the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (the Act), [Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112,
183, May 25, 2007]. Section 6901 of the Act requires that certain
actions be taken by the Department of Transportation (the Department)
as a condition of obligating or expending appropriated funds to grant
authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the
municipalities in the United States on the United States-Mexico
international border or the commercial zones of such municipalities
(border commercial zones).
    On July 8, 2011, FMCSA announced in the Federal Register [76 FR
40420] its intent to proceed with the initiation of a U.S.-Mexico
cross-border long-haul trucking pilot program to test and demonstrate
the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate safely in the
United States beyond the border commercial zones as detailed in the
Agency's April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice [76 FR 20807]. The
pilot program is a part of FMCSA's implementation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cross-border long-haul trucking provisions
in compliance with section 6901(b)(2)(B) of the Act. FMCSA reviewed,
assessed, and evaluated the required safety measures as noted in the
July 8, 2011, notice and considered all comments received on or before
May 13, 2011, in response to the April 13, 2011, notice. Additionally,
to the extent practicable, FMCSA considered comments received after May
13, 2011.
    In accordance with section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, FMCSA is
required to publish a notice in the Federal Register, and provide
sufficient opportunity for the public to review and comment on
comprehensive data and information on the PASAs conducted of motor
carriers domiciled in Mexico that are granted authority to operate
beyond the border commercial zones.

Comments and Responses

    On September 12, 2011, FMCSA published the passed PASA results for
Grupo Behr [76 FR 56274], and the Agency received responses from 13
commenters.
    On October 14, 2011, the Agency published a second notice [76 FR
63988] that explained that Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety
(Advocates) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters)
expressed concern that Grupo Behr's out-of-service (OOS) rate was
28.6%, which was higher than the national average of 20.7%.
    In addition, both commenters noted that Grupo Behr's vehicle
maintenance rating within FMCSA's Safety Measurement System (SMS) was
45.8%. Advocates further noted that Grupo Behr had 40 vehicle
violations in the 24 months prior to August 26, 2011. Also, the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) indicated that
publicly-available information indicated that Grupo Behr had an
inadequate safety history.
    FMCSA Response: Over the past year, Grupo Behr has improved its
safety record. Grupo Behr's Vehicle OOS rate is currently 14% and its
Driver OOS rate is 2% based on the December 14, 2012, SMS snapshot.
Grupo Behr does not currently have any SMS Behavior Analysis and Safety
Indicator Categories (BASICs) that exceed FMCSA's intervention
thresholds. As a result, the company is in good standing to participate
in the Pilot Program.
    It should also be noted that the statutory and regulatory
requirement for participation in the pilot program is satisfactory
completion of the PASA and a subsequent compliance review, after
operation. The Agency may not establish standards for pilot program
participants that are not comparable to the requirements for U.S.
carriers.
    OOIDA researched the vehicle identification numbers from inspection
reports and questioned if Grupo Behr would be using a 1991 Class 8
Freightliner, which does not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) requirement for vehicles of model year 1998 or later.
    FMCSA Response: The FMCSA confirmed that all vehicles proposed for
use in the pilot program by Grupo Behr meet both Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards and EPA requirements. The oldest of the proposed
vehicles to be operated by Grupo Behr in the pilot program is 1998, and
the 1991 Class 8 Freightliner in question by OOIDA will not be used.
    OOIDA questioned the safety data collected on Grupo Behr's straight
trucks and asked how this is affected by SMS segmentation. In addition,
OOIDA challenged the accuracy of Grupo Behr's Vehicle Maintenance BASIC
and alleged that the event group-the group of carriers that Grupo Behr
is compared against in SMS-- ``watered down'' their scores.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA notes that Mexican carriers are evaluated the
same as U.S. carriers under SMS. Also, there are many types of trucking
operations using a variety of equipment. The pilot program is designed
to test and demonstrate the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
to operate safely in the United States beyond the commercial zones; the
Mexican trucking industry as a whole includes straight trucks that may
operate beyond the commercial zones, and such operations are an
important part of the pilot program.
    Advocates asked if the drivers and vehicles to be used in the pilot
program had been subject to any of Grupo Behr's OOS orders.
    FMCSA Response: During the past 12 months, two of the five vehicles
that Grupo will use in the Pilot Program have been placed out of
service and deficiencies subsequently corrected. FMCSA notes that Grupo
Behr's Vehicle Maintenance BASIC score is 30.9% resulting from on-road
performance data, which is below our intervention threshold levels. In
addition, during our PASA, FMCSA confirmed that Grupo Behr has a
systematic vehicle maintenance program that meets our requirements. The
five vehicles to be used in the pilot program were inspected by FMCSA
in June 2012 and received Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
decals. The vehicles

will be reinspected prior to installation of electronic monitoring
devices and CVSA decals applied, as appropriate. Additionally, during
the past 12 months, one driver who will participate in the pilot
program was placed out-of-service for having an expired Licencia
Federal de Conductor (LFC) during a roadside inspection. The FMCSA
confirmed that this driver's LFC has since been reinstated. This driver
was also subject to several subsequent inspections and has not been
placed out of service, indicating that this deficiency was adequately
addressed.
    The Teamsters noted that Grupo Behr's insurance history has a
period between July 2007 and April 2010 where ``cancelled'' is listed
six times. Based on this information, the Teamsters questioned if Grupo
Behr will be able to obtain and maintain insurance.
    FMCSA Response: The insurance history questioned by the Teamsters
for Grupo Behr is associated with the operating authority number
MX630115. A review of the insurance history for MX630115, which is
publicly available on FMCSA's Licensing and Insurance Web site,
reflects no lapse in either required bodily injury-property damage
liability insurance or cargo insurance coverage for Grupo Behr from
July 2, 2007, through April 3, 2010. The policy cancellation notices
associated with Grupo Behr's MX630115 operating authority are the
result of the insurance industry's common practice of sending
cancellation notices to FMCSA prior to the end of the term of insurance
coverage, because of FMCSA's requirement that they notify the Agency 30
days prior to the end of the policy. FMCSA notes that the Agency's
previous cross border Demonstration Project was terminated on March 9,
2010, and Grupo Behr's provisional operating authority was revoked.
Grupo Behr's insurance was not cancelled prior to the termination of
the Demonstration Project.
    In the October 14, 2011, notice, FMCSA explained that, based on the
information provided by Advocates, OOIDA, and Teamsters, the Agency was
conducting additional reviews of Grupo Behr's inspections and vehicles.
As a result, the Agency would not issue long-haul operating authority
to Grupo Behr until such time as the reviews were complete, and the
above noted comments were addressed in a subsequent Federal Register
notice. This notice satisfies that commitment by the Agency.
    During the review of Grupo Behr's operations, it was determined
that Grupo Behr operated beyond the scope of its operating authority.
Grupo Behr had a lease agreement with a U.S.-based motor carrier, Maria
Guadalupe Carrillo Cervantes (USDOT 1553781). However, per
section 219(d) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA) [Pub. L. 106-159],\1\ no Mexico-domiciled commercial zone
carrier may lease vehicles for use beyond the commercial zone.
Specifically, this statute reads:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (December 9, 1999); 49
U.S.C. 521 note.

    SEC. 219. FOREIGN MOTOR CARRIER PENALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS.
(d) LEASING.--Before the implementation of the land transportation
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, during any
period in which a suspension, condition, restriction, or limitation
imposed under section 13902(c) of title 49, United States Code,
applies to a motor carrier (as defined in section 13902(e) of such
title), that motor carrier may not lease a commercial motor vehicle
to another motor carrier or a motor private carrier to transport
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
property in the United States.

FMCSA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Grupo Behr on November 9,
2011, citing Grupo Behr for operating beyond the scope of its operating
authority by leasing vehicles to Maria Guadalupe Carillo Cervantes.
Grupo Behr and Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Cervantes terminated this
agreement on November 11, 2011.
    The Agency required Grupo Behr to provide a corrective action plan
to ensure that the company had ceased all leasing agreements, and would
ensure no further transportation outside of the commercial zones. In
June 2012, FMCSA conducted a focused investigation of Grupo Behr and
confirmed that since the NOV, there are no inspections or evidence of
Grupo Behr's commercial motor vehicles operating beyond the U.S.
municipalities on the U.S.-Mexico border and their commercial zones. A
copy of this focused review was added to the carrier's PASA document on
the Pilot Program Web site.
    Finally, during the focused investigation, FMCSA reviewed the
mandatory elements of the PASA to determine if Grupo Behr remained in
substantial compliance as required by Appendix A to Subpart B of 49 CFR
part 365.
    Two violations that were not found during the PASA were discovered
during the focused investigation. Grupo Behr was using a driver vehicle
inspection report (DVIR) form that listed the bumper; engine; cabin
floor; fuel tank; cab; tires; drive shaft; muffler; chassis; rear door;
air tanks; trailer; 5th wheel; and seal/tiedowns, but did not list
service brakes, including the trailer brake connections; parking brake;
steering mechanism; lighting devices and reflectors; horn; windshield
wipers; rear vision mirrors; wheels and rims; and emergency equipment
as required on the DVIR. The Agency subsequently received a corrective
action letter from Grupo Behr committing to using a revised version of
the DVIR. A copy of this letter is included with the PASA documentation
on the pilot program Web site.
    In addition, at the time of focused investigation, Grupo Behr could
not provide adequate documentation of required alcohol testing. Grupo
Behr addressed this issue in its corrective action letter. Since the
closeout of the focused investigation, Grupo Behr provided sufficient
information to the Agency to show that alcohol testing was done at the
required 10 percent sampling rate. To demonstrate this, the focused
review documentation was added to the initial PASA on the Agency's Web
site to reflect the two reviews.
    Grupo Behr has acknowledged affiliations with Logix Transport, Inc.
(USDOT 2210821). Logix Transport, Inc. was originally granted
operating authority as a U.S.-based motor carrier on December 8, 2011,
but requested that the operating authority be converted to a property
broker certificate. Logix Transport, Inc. was granted a property broker
certificate on May 9, 2012. FMCSA has no evidence that Logix Transport,
Inc. operated as a motor carrier in the United States.
    Grupo Behr is also affiliated with the U.S. freight forwarder
Pacific Customs Services (Grupo Logix), Freight Forwarder number 9476.
FMCSA has no evidence that Pacific Customs Services (Grupo Logix) has
operated as a motor carrier in the United States.
    FMCSA also notes that Grupo Behr was affiliated with Logistics
Transport dba Logix Transport USDOT 850185, Logistics Transport was
found to have an unsatisfactory safety rating in March 2003 and has not
operated since. This is well beyond the 3 years of history the Agency
requests that applicants supply on their OP-1 (or OP-1MX) application
for authority.
    As noted above, Grupo Behr had a business relationship with Maria
Guadalupe Carrillo Cervantes (USDOT 1553781), which currently has
vehicle and driver OOS rates of 14.5% and 2%, respectively, based on
the 24-month record ending December 14, 2012. Maria Guadalupe Carrillo
Cervantes has no SMS BASICs above threshold levels In addition, FMCSA
has established that the business relationship between

Grupo Behr and Maria Guadalupe Carillo Cervantes no longer exists.
    We are also aware that Grupo Behr is affiliated with Logix
Transport, Inc. (USDOT number 2210821/MC number 767176). However, this
enterprise carrier's authority is inactive.
    Based on the original passed PASA, completion of the focused
investigation, corrective action documentation, and improved out of
service rates and SMS scores, FMCSA deems Grupo Behr's safety record
sufficient for participation in the pilot program. Therefore, FMCSA
will issue provisional operating authority for participation in the
pilot program.

    Issued On: January 29, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-03672 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15472-15475]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61755; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 127 To Remove the Restrictions on the Execution of Block
Cross Transactions Outside the Prevailing NYSE Amex Quotation

March 22, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on March 11, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 (``Block
Crosses Outside the Prevailing Exchange Quotation'') to remove the
restrictions on the execution of block cross transactions outside the
prevailing NYSE Amex quotation to make such execution more consistent
with prevailing industry standard and to delete all references to
``percentage orders'' in the rule text. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange'') proposes to amend
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 (``Block Crosses Outside the Prevailing
Exchange Quotation'') to remove restrictions on the execution of block
cross transactions outside the prevailing NYSE Amex quotation to make
such execution more consistent with prevailing industry standard and to
delete all references to ``percentage orders'' in the rule text.
    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of the New York Stock Exchange LLC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NYSE-2010-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Background: NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 governs the execution of
block cross transactions outside the Exchange quotation. NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 127 prescribes the method of block cross executions for
member organizations when the member organization intends to represent
both sides of the proposed

cross as agent or will trade with one side of the cross in part or in
whole as principal. The member organization handling the block orders
must first trade with the displayed bid or offer (whichever is relevant
to the proposed cross, i.e., whether the cross is to be executed at a
price lower than the bid or higher than the offer) including any
reserve interest \5\ at that bid or offer price when the member
organization is trading as principal on one side of the transaction and
is establishing or increasing a proprietary position as a result. The
member organization then executes, in a single transaction, at the
agreed upon block price, all limit orders on the Display Book[supreg]
(``Display Book'') \6\ priced at or better than the block clean-up
price. The result is two separate tape prints. If, however, the cross
represents agency interest only or the liquidation of a member
organization's position, the member organization must execute all
orders on the Display Book priced better than the block clean-up price
at a price one cent better than the clean-up price and then execute the
block at the clean-up price. This results in three separate tape
prints. The block cross will have execution priority at the clean-up
price. None of these executions are subject to the procedural
requirements of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 76 governing ``crossing''
orders with respect to offering the security at a minimum variation
higher than the bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Reserve interest is that portion of a bid or offer that is
designated as not to be displayed, i.e., is in ``reserve.''
    \6\ The Display Book[supreg] system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book receives and displays orders to
the DMMs, contains order information and provides a mechanism to
execute and report transactions and publish the results to the
Consolidated Tape. The Display Book is connected to a number of
other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison, surveillance
and reporting information to customers and other market data and
national market systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two Print Execution Example: The NYSE Amex quote in XYZ is $20.05
bid for 10,000 shares with 5,000 shares offered at $20.10. There is no
reserve interest at the best bid or offer or at the other bid prices.
There are bids at $20.04, $20.03 and $20.02, each for 5,000 shares. A
member organization intends to facilitate a block transaction of 50,000
shares at $20.02. The following executions occur:
    The member organization sells to the 10,000 shares bid at $20.05.
Next, the member organization sells 15,000 shares at a price of $20.02
to satisfy the 5,000 shares bids at $20.04, $20.03 and $20.02. The
remaining 25,000 shares of the 50,000 share block order are crossed at
$20.02 with the member organization buying 25,000 shares as principal
from its customer.
    Three Print Execution Example: The NYSE Amex quote in XYZ is $20.05
bid for 10,000 shares with 5,000 shares offered at $20.10. There is no
reserve interest at the best bid or offer or at the other bid prices.
There are bids for $20.04, $20.03 and $20.02, each for 5,000 shares. A
member organization intends to facilitate a block transaction of 50,000
shares at $20.02 either representing customer (agency) buy side
interest at $20.02 or liquidating a current position. The following
executions occur:
    The member organization sells 10,000 shares at $20.05 to satisfy
the exposed bid price. Next, the member organization sells an
additional 10,000 shares one cent better than the clean-up price at
$20.03 to satisfy the bids at $20.04 and $20.03. The remaining 30,000
shares of the 50,000 share block cross order is crossed at $20.02 at
the block clean-up price.
    Proposed Amendment to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127: Historically,
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 provided a member organization with the
ability to execute block transactions at a negotiated price outside the
prevailing quote while providing price improvement to resting orders on
the Display Book.
    Block transactions effected pursuant to the Rule must be executed
manually. The DMM assigned to the security must manually enter the
information in the Display Book to effect each of the required
transactions. Given the speed of execution and updating of quotations
in the Exchange's current more electronic market, the DMM, in most
securities, is physically unable to print the transaction at the bid
and clean-up price, or bid, one cent better and the clean-up price
prior to any quote changes or cancellations/replacements of orders. In
the time it takes the DMM to manually print the block cross transaction
pursuant to the steps set forth in NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127, quotes
and prices in the market have been updated. As such, the member
organization is unable to determine how many shares it must satisfy on
the Display Book in order to effect the block transaction at the
negotiated price.
    Without the provisions of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127, a member
organization could electronically transmit an order to execute against
the liquidity (displayed and non-displayed) available at each limit
price until the bid/offer reached the price the member sought to cross
his or her order.\7\ However, because Rule 127 mandates that a member
organization with a block of stock it intends to cross on the Floor at
a specific clean-up price outside the current NYSE Amex quotation must
follow the provisions of paragraph (b) of the Rule, member
organizations are impeded in the execution of block cross transactions
because of the physical inability of the DMM to print the block cross
transactions consistent with the provisions of NYSE Amex Equities Rule
127. This physical impediment to the DMM's ability to print these
transactions makes compliance with NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127
virtually impossible in the liquid securities traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is similar to the method employed by off-Floor
participants wherein orders are sent to market centers for execution
against protected quotes and the balance of the cross order is then
printed on a trade reporting facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange acknowledges that in order to provide for the
efficient execution of block cross transactions outside the prevailing
quote that affords a member organization the ability to cross stock at
a negotiated price and provide price improvement to resting orders on
the Display Book, system modifications are required. Such system
modifications would allow for these trades to be executed consistent
with the requirements of the proposed amendments to NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 127, pursuant to the customer's instructions.
    Given the inability of the DMM to manually print the required
transaction pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 and the need for
system modification, NYSE Amex proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 127. The amendments would remove the current requirement in Rule
127 that a member organization with a block of stock that it intends to
cross on the Floor at a specific clean-up price outside the current
NYSE Amex quotation must comply with the provisions of Rule 127.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange seeks to amend the rule text in NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 127(b) by replacing the word ``should'' with ``may'' in
order to remove the restrictive language that would require member
organizations to execute block cross transactions outside the
prevailing NYSE Amex quotation pursuant to the specific provisions of
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ E-mail from Jennifer D. Kim, Counsel, NYSE Regulation, to
Theodore Venuti, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission, dated March 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127(b), the member
organization may execute block crosses

outside the prevailing quote prescribed in NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127
or in the same manner as large non-block trades are currently executed.
The member organization may electronically route an order to the
Display Book that will satisfy protected quotes in other markets and
sweep orders on the Display Book to the cross price and manually cross
the remainder of the initiating order if market conditions permit,
i.e., if the remainder of the initiating order will be executed at the
National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') or consistent with the
intermarket sweep order exception under Reg NMS or any other applicable
trade-through exception or exemption that may apply. This cross
transaction shall be consistent with all NYSE Amex Equities Rules,
including those rules related to priority and parity.\9\ Member
organizations will continue to be required to comply with all Reg NMS
obligations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g. NYSE Amex Equities Rule 72.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.600 et seq.; See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange seeks to delete all references in the rule
text to ``percentage orders.'' Percentage orders were eliminated as a
valid order type on the Exchange in a previously approved NYSE
filing.\11\ The references in NYSE Amex Equities Rule 127 were
inadvertently left in and should be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No.58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \12\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change supports these
provisions because the proposed amendment removes the current
impediment to NYSE Amex members organizations' ability to execute block
cross orders and offers an alternate method while the Exchange develops
a better mechanism for the execution of block cross orders outside the
prevailing quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that
the proposed rule change would allow member organizations to execute
block cross transactions outside the prevailing NYSE Amex quotation
consistent with the manner that large, non-block size orders may
currently be executed on the Exchange and on other market centers. The
proposed rule change is consistent with Regulation NMS and the
Commission does not believe that it raises any new substantive issues.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change as operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-27. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\20\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-27 and should be submitted on
or before April 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-6836 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P