11850 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices of toxicity with other substances, or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, tebufenozide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance petition, Dow AgroSciences has not assumed that tebufenozide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the exposure assumptions previously described, and taking into account the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, Dow AgroSciences has concluded that dietary ( food only) exposure to tebufenozide will utilize 21% of the chronic population adjusted dose ( cPAD) for the U. S. population. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD. Submitted environmental fate studies suggest that tebufenozide is moderately persistent to persistent and mobile; thus, tebufenozide could potentially leach to ground water and runoff to surface water under certain environmental conditions. The modeling data for tebufenozide indicate levels less than the Agency's DWLOCs. There are no chronic non occupational/ residential exposures expected for tebufenozide. Therefore, Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to adults, infants and children from chronic aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues. 2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure ( MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard uncertainty factor ( usually 100 for combined inter and intra species variability) and not the additional tenfold MOE/ uncertainty factor when EPA has a complete data base under existing guidelines and when the severity of the effect in infants or children or the potency or unusual toxic properties of a compound do not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the standard MOE/ safety factor. Using the exposure assumptions previously described, and taking into account the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the dietary ( food only) exposure to tebufenozide will utilize 51% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup ( children 1   6 years old). EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the cPAD. Despite the potential for exposure to tebufenozide in drinking water and from non dietary nonoccupational exposure, Dow AgroSciences does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the RfD.

F. International Tolerances Codex maximum residue levels have been established for residues of tebufenozide in/ on pome fruit ( 1.0 ppm), husked rice ( 0.1 ppm) and walnut ( 0.05 ppm). Tebufenozide is registered in Canada, and a tolerance for residues in/ on apples is established at 1.0 ppm. EPA has set the pome fruit tolerance at 1.5 ppm based on U. S. field residue trials.

[ FR Doc. 03   5912 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0022; FRL   7295   9]

Dimethenamid; 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 a pesticide petition 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   2003   0022, must be received on or before April 11, 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: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   7610; e mail address: jackson. sidney@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Industry ( NAICS 111), e. g., Crop production.   Industry ( NAICS 112), e. g., Animal production.   Industry ( NAICS 311), e. g., Food manufacturing.   Industry ( NAICS 32532), e. g., Pesticide manufacturing. 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. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit I. A. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I 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   2003   0022. 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 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11851 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices 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, 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   2003   0022. 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   2003   0022. 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   2003   0022. 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   2003   0022. 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.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11852 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices 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 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: March 4, 2003. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition 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.

PP 0E6196 EPA has received a pesticide petition ( PP 0E6196) from the Interregional Research Project No. 4 ( IR   4), Technology Centre of New Jersey, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.464 by establishing tolerances for residues of dimethenamid, ( R, S) 2 chloro N[( 1 methyl 2 methoxy) ethyl] N( 2,4 dimethyl thien 3 yl) acetamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities beet, garden, roots at 0.01 parts per million ( ppm); beet, garden, tops at 0.01 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.01 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 0.01 ppm; garlic, dry bulb at 0.01 ppm; horseradish at 0.01 ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.01 ppm, shallot, dry bulb at 0.01 ppm; and tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup ( Crop group 1C) at 0.01 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 supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This petition summary was prepared by the registrant, BASF Corporation, P. O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709   3528.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant and animal metabolism. BASF Corporation notes that metabolism in plants and animals is understood. 2. Analytical method. The proposed analytical method uses extraction and clean up followed by quantification with capillary column gas chromatography ( GC) using thermionic nitrogen specific detector. A GC/ mass spectrocopy ( MS) method for identification is also available. This method is not selective towards the dimethenamid isomer and is therefore valid for residues from both dimethenamid and the enriched dimethenamid P. Tolerances are proposed based on a non isomer specific basis. 3. Magnitude of residues. For onion, magnitude of the residue data are based on applications with dimethenamid. Residue trials were conducted at 8 locations in California, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Treatments were made at 1.5 lbs active ingredient/ acre ( ai/ A) 30 or 45 days before harvest. No residues above the limit of quantitation ( LOQ) of 0.01 ppm were detected in dry bulb onion. Residue data from dry bulb onion will be used as surrogate data for dry bulb garlic and shallots. For sugar beet, magnitude of the residue data are based on dimethenamid P applications to sugar beet at 0.98 lb ai/ A. Dimethenamid P is the biologically active isomer from the racemic dimethenamid mixture. The method measures both dimethenamid and dimethenamid P, so the sugar beet residue determinations for dimethenamid P are considered representative of the proposed treatments with dimethenamid. No residues were detected in sugar beet roots or tops from a testing program conducted in 12 locations across 8 states. Data from processing studies indicate that no residues are detected in the roots even at exaggerated rates of 3.15 lbs ai/ A. The limit of quantitation is 0.01 ppm. The sugar beet trials also support the tolerances for table beet. For the tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup, magnitude of the residue data for potatoes are based on applications with dimethenamid P. Residue trials were conducted at 17 locations in California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Treatments were made at 1.25 lbs ai/ A 40 days before harvest. No residues above the LOQ of 0.01 ppm were detected in potato tubers. Data from processing studies indicate that no residues are detected in the tubers even at exaggerated rates of 12.5 lbs ai/ A. Residue data from potato tubers will be used as surrogate data for horseradish. BASF believes that due to the low levels of residue in the RAC's, tolerances in animals are not required.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11853 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Based on available acute toxicity data, dimethenamid and dimethenamid P do not pose an acute dietary risk. The acute toxicity studies place both technical materials in acute toxicity category II for acute oral; in acute toxicity category III for acute dermal, inhalation, and eye; and in acute toxicity category IV for dermal irritation. The technical materials are a positive skin sensitizer. 2. Genotoxicity. The following testing was performed with dimethenamid for genotoxicity. A modified ames test: Negative; in vitro CHO/ HGPRT mammalian cell mutation assay: Negative; in vitro cytogentics  CHO cells ( 1 study; chromosome aberrations): Weakly positive; in vitro UDS test using rat hepatocytes ( 3 studies; DNA damage and repair): 2 negative; 1 equivocally positive, mouse micronucleus assay ( 2 studies; chromosome aberrations): Negative, rat dominant lethal assay: 1 study equivocally positive, 1 study negative. Overall dimethenamid has been tested in 14 genetic toxicology assays. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that dimethenamid is not genotoxic. The following testing was performed with dimethenamid P for genotoxicity. A modified ames test ( 3 studies; point mutation): Negative; in vitro CHO/ HGPRT mammalian cell mutation assay ( 1 study; point mutation): Negative; in vitro cytogentics  CHO cells ( 1 study; chromosome aberrations): Negative; in vitro UDS test using rat hepatocytes ( 1 study; DNA damage and repair): Negative; mouse micronucleus assay ( 1 study; chromosome aberrations): Negative. Dimethenamid P has been tested in a total of 7 genetic toxicology assays. These assays were performed both in vitro and in vivo and multiple assays were conducted for each of the three EPA Guideline requirement categories. Based on the data presented above, the data indicates that dimethenamid P does not induce gene mutations, is not clastogenic and does not induce other effects indicative of genotoxicity. Therefore, BASF concludes that dimethenamid P does not pose a mutagenic hazard to humans. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity   i. Rat. A developmental rat study using dimethenamid via oral gavage resulted in dosages of 0, 50, 215, and 425 milligram per kilogram ( mg/ kg)/ day with a development toxicity no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) of 215 mg/ kg/ day and a maternal toxicity of 50 mg/ kg/ day based on the following: ( 1) Signs of maternal toxicity, in the form of reduced body weight gain and food consumption, increased liver weight and clinical observations were observed at dose levels > 215 mg/ kg/ day with an increase in effects to the upper dose level; ( 2) at the = 215 mg/ kg/ day dose levels slight decreases in fetal body weights were observed which are not indicative a teratogenic effect; and ( 3) at the 425 mg/ kg/ day dose level a slight increase in resorptions was observed, and two fetuses had incomplete ossified manubria. These effects are not indicative of a teratogenic effect. A developmental rat study using dimethenamid P via oral gavage resulted in dosages of 0, 25, 150, and 300 mg/ kg/ day with a development toxicity NOAEL of 25 mg/ kg/ day and a maternal toxicity of 25 mg/ kg/ day based on based on the following: ( 1) Signs of maternal toxicity, in the form of decreased body weights and food consumption were observed at dose levels > 150 mg/ kg/ day with an increase in effects to the upper dose level; ( 2) at the 150 mg/ kg/ day dose level slight decreases in fetal body weights and retarded ossification of the pelvis pubis were observed which are not indicative a teratogenic effect; and ( 3) at the 300 mg/ kg/ day dose level slight decreases in fetal body weights, microphthalmia in two fetuses/ two litters, distended ureters, and retarded ossification of the 2nd sternal centra and pelvis pubis were observed, similarly, these effects are not indicative of a teratogenic effect. ii. Rabbits. A developmental study in rabbits using dimethenamid via oral gavage resulted in dosages of 0, 37.5, 75, and 150 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT) with a development toxicity NOAEL of 75 mg/ kg/ day and a maternal toxicity of 37.5 mg/ kg/ day based on: ( 1) Decreased body weight, food consumption, and absorption/ premature delivery in the 75 and 150 mg/ kg/ day dose groups; and ( 2) effects on fetal development were a low incidence of absorption/ premature delivery and hyoid angulated changes in the 150 mg/ kg/ day dose group which are not are indicative of a teratogenic effect. iii. Two generation reproduction  rats. A two generation reproduction study using dimethenamid with rats fed dosages of 0, 7.5, 38, and 155 mg/ kg/ day ( average mg/ kg/ day dose levels for both male and female rats) with a reproductive NOAEL of 38 mg/ kg/ day and with a parental NOAEL of 38 mg/ kg/ day based on: ( 1) Parental toxicity as evident by reduction in body weight and food consumption and significant increases in absolute and/ or relative liver weights in both males and female rats in the 155 mg/ kg/ day dose group; and ( 2) significant reductions in pup weight during lactation were observed in the 150 mg/ kg/ day dose group. No changes in pregnancy rates, fertility or length of gestation were observed at all dose levels tested. 4. Chronic feeding and carcinogenicity. The established reference dose ( RfD) for dimethenamid and dimethenamid P is based on a 2 year feeding study in rats with dimethenamid, with a threshold NOAEL of 5.1 mg/ kg/ day. Using an uncertainty factor of 100, the RfD is calculated to be 0.05 mg/ kg/ day. The following are summaries of the pertinent toxicity data supporting dimethenamid tolerances: i. Chronic feeding  nonrodent. A 1 year feeding study in dogs fed dimethenamid at dosages of 0, 2, 9.6, or 49 mg/ kg/ day with a NOAEL of 9.6 mg/ kg/ day based on the following effects: ( 1) Slight decreases in body weights for both the high dose male and female dogs as compared to controls; ( 2) a variable degree of periportal hepatocyte vacuolation in the high dose male and female dogs; ( 3) minimal or mild hepatocyte enlargement was similarly observed in the high dose dogs; and ( 4) the liver changes at the high dose group correlated with increase in serum alkaline phosphatase activity and cholesterol levels and increased liver tobody weight ratios in both male and female dogs. ii. Chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity  rat. A combined chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study using dimethenamid was performed in rats being fed dosages of 0, 5.1, 36, and 80 mg/ kg/ day ( males) and 0, 6.8, 49, and 109 mg/ kg/ day ( females) with a NOAEL of 5.1 mg/ kg/ day ( males) and 6.8 mg/ kg/ day ( females) based on the following effects: ( 1) Decreased body weights in both males and female rat at dose levels > 36 mg/ kg/ day dose groups with a slight progression of severity to the upper level; ( 2) decreased food consumption in both males and female rats at dose levels > 36 mg/ kg/ day dose groups with a slight progression of severity to the upper dose level; ( 3) minimal hematological and clinical chemistry value changes at dose levels > 36 mg/ kg/ day dose groups with very slight increase of severity at the higher dose tested; ( 4) increased absolute liver weights for females at dose levels > 49 mg/ kg/ day; ( 5) microscopic findings were observed in the liver, parathyroid, and stomach of high dose males, only, and ovaries of high dose females; and ( 6) an increased incidence of benign and malignant tumors of the liver at the highest dose level tested. The liver tumors observed in this study occurred at an incidence which was slightly beyond the historical control range for this tumor type, and occurred at the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11854 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices maximum tolerated dose ( MTD). Given the lack of structural activity relationship ( SAR) and the lack of mutagenicity discussed in section B. 2., it is BASFs opinion that dimethenamid P should not be considered a biologically relevant carcinogen in rats and the assessment is made that the results of this carcinogenicity study do not indicate a carcinogenic potential of the test substance for humans. iii. Carcinogenicity  mice. A carcinogenicity study using dimethenamid in mice fed dosages of 0, 3.8, 41, 205, and 431 ( HDT) mg/ kg/ day ( males) and 0, 4.1, 41, 200, and 411 ( HDT) mg/ kg/ day ( females) with a NOAEL of 41 mg/ kg/ day for male and female mice based on the following effects: ( 1) Decreased body weights and food consumption were observed in both males and female mice at the highest dose tested; ( 2) increased liver weights were observed for male and female mice at the highest dose tested at an interim sacrifice and increased weights for kidney and liver were observed for female mice at dose levels > 200 mg/ kg/ day at terminal sacrifice; ( 3) microscopic findings were observed in the liver and stomach for both male and female mice at the upper dose levels; ( 4) concerning the finding in the stomach, EPA has determined that this finding was attributed to irritation of the material and the finding was not toxicology significant; and ( 4) no increased incidence of neoplasms occurred at any dose levels tested in this study. EPA has concluded that this product is not carcinogenic under the conditions of this study. Dimethenamid is considered not to be carcinogenic in mice by BASF. In the rat carcinogenicity study, a slight increase in liver tumors was observed in males, only, at the highest dose tested. The liver tumors observed in this study occurred at an incidence that was slightly beyond the historical control range for this tumor type, and occurred at the MTD. Dimethenamid shares no common mechanisms with other compounds in the chloroacetanilide class of compounds. It is BASF's opinion that dimethenamid and dimethenamid P should not to be considered biologically relevant carcinogens in rats and the assessment is made that the results of this carcinogenicity study do not indicate a carcinogenic potential of these substances for humans. However, EPA has determined that dimethenamid is considered to be a Group C carcinogen  possible human carcinogen  based on the judgment of the EPA Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee assessment. Also, the Committee determined for risk assessment purposes, the RfD approach should be used to quantify human risk. BASF agrees with the Agency that the RfD approach for human risk assessment is valid. 5. Endocrine disruption. No specific tests have been performed with dimethenamid P or dimethenamid to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, there are no significant findings in other relevant toxicity studies, i. e. teratology and multi generation reproductive studies, that would suggest the dimethenamid produces endocrine related effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure   i. Food. BASF has reviewed the available toxicology database to determine the endpoints of concern. For dimethenamid and dimethenamid P, BASF believes there is no concern regarding an acute dietary risk since the available data do not indicate any evidence of significant toxicity from a 1 day or single event exposure by the oral route. For the purpose of assessing the potential chronic dietary exposure, BASF has estimated aggregate exposure based on theoretical maximum residue contribution ( TMRC) from the tolerance of dimethenamid on sweet corn, sorghum, peanuts, and dry beans at 0.01 ppm for all uses stated, respectively. The TMRC is a `` worse case'' estimate of dietary exposure since it is assumed that 100% of all crops for which the tolerances are established are treated and that pesticide residues are always found at tolerance levels. EPA in a letter issued on October 13, 1995, for dimethenamid, determined the TMRC for the crops mentioned in section C. 1. to be 0.076 and 0.341 microgram ( ug)/ kg/ day for the general U. S. population and non nursing infants (< 1), respectively. Dimethenamid treated crops using the TMRC values utilized 0.15% and 0.683% for the general U. S. population and non nursing infants (< 1), respectively, of the RfD ( 0.05 mg/ kg/ day). These assessments are also valid for dimethenamid P. BASF concurs with this assessment. The addition of an onion tolerance at 0.01 ppm has a TMRC of 0.0011 ug/ kg/ day for the general population and a TMRC of 0.0004 ug/ kg/ day for nonnursing infants. Sugar beet tolerances at 0.01 ppm, add 0.0033 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for the general population and 0.0013 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for nonnursing infants. The addition of table beet tops, dry bulb garlic, horseradish, and dry bulb shallot is negligible; table beet root tolerances at 0.01 ppm add 0.00022 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for the general population and 0.0019 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for non nursing infants. The addition of potato tolerances at 0.01 ppm would contribute 0.011 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for the general population and 0.014 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for non nursing infants. The addition of sweet potato tolerances at 0.01 ppm would contribute 0.00039 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for the general population and 0.0029 ug/ kg/ day to the TMRC for non nursing infants. The total RfD utilization from all uses, both registered and proposed, is 0.18% for the general population, and 0.72% for non nursing infants. Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, and the exposure assessment discussed in section C. 1., BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of dimethenamid and dimethenamid P, including all anticipated dietary exposure. ii. Drinking water. Other potential sources of exposure to dimethenamid for the general population are residues in drinking water and exposure from non occupational sources. In a dimethenamid P environmental fate risk assessment dated December 1998, EPA calculated the following maximum concentrations for drinking water: Based on SCI GROW model calculations, ground water concentrations were expected to be < 1.0 parts per billion ( ppb). Based on PRZM/ EXAMS model calculations for surface water, the maximum yearly average ( chronic) concentration was 5.4 ug/ l from a Southeast corn scenario. Using these values, the drinking water level of comparison ( DWLOC) and the aggregate RfD utilization are summarized in the table below.

U. S. population (% of RfD) Non nursing infants (% of RfD)

Chronic dietary exposure 0.18 0.72 Remainder RfD available for water (%) ( drinking water level of comparison) 99.82 99.32 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11855 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices U. S. population (% of RfD) Non nursing infants (% of RfD)

SCI GROW ground water estimation1 < 0.10 0.20 PRZM/ EXAMS surface water estimation1 0.30 1.10 Total of RfD used by diet and water 0.58 2.00 1Used highest values predicted from the model for all agricultural uses. Assumes 2L/ day and 70 kg adult; 1L/ day and 10 kg infant.

2. Non dietary exposure. For nonoccupational exposure, dimethenamid/ dimethenamid P is not registered for either golf course or homeowner uses which could contribute to `` non dietary or other exposure.''

D. Cumulative Effects BASF has considered the potential for cumulative effects of dimethenamid and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. BASF is aware of several other chloroacetanilide herbicides that have been considered structurally similar to dimethenamid, these being: Acetochlor, propachlor, butachlor, metolachlor, and alachlor. However, BASF believes that consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity to these products is not appropriate or valid. This conclusion was based on the presentation EPA made to the EPA FIFRA Science Advisory Panel ( SAP) on March 20, 1997. The title of the presentation was `` Grouping of Chloroacetanilide Pesticides Based on a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.'' In this presentation EPA showed the structure of several chloroacetanilides that included dimethenamid. BASF is identifying Chlor   7 as dimethenamid. EPA concluded that Chlor   7 should not be considered to have a common mechanism to the other chloroacetanilides based on the following reasons:   Except for Chlor   7 all other members of this case study have a potential to generate a quinone imine. The quinone imine intermediate, is capable of reacting with macromolecules.   Chlor   7 has not produced nasal nor thyroid tumors in rats, thus does not support inclusion in the group for a common mechanism for these tumor types. For liver tumors, Chlor   1, Chlor   7, Chlo   r5, and Chlor   6, can be potentially grouped for a common mechanism, but EPA determined that there is no knowledge of a common mechanism of toxicity or of a common toxic species responsible for the effect. Therefore, EPA concluded that because a mechanism can not be postulated, it believes that sufficient evidence is not available to support a common mechanism for this tumor type with these materials. Therefore, BASF agrees with the position put forward by the Agency and confirmed by the SAP that a common mechanism is inappropriate for dimethenamid ( Chlor   7) and the other chloroacetanilides mentioned in section D. BASF has considered only the potential risks of dimethenamid in its exposure assessment.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the exposure assumptions described in section C., based on the completeness and the reliability of the toxicity data, BASF has estimated that aggregate exposure to dimethenamid will utilize < 1% of the RfD ( 0.05 mg/ kg/ day) for the U. S. population. EPA generally has no concern for exposure below 100% of the RfD. Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, and the exposure assessment discussed in sections B. and C., BASF concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of dimethenamid including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non occupational exposures. 2. Infants and children. BASF cites results of developmental toxicity studies reported in section B. 3. including:   Observed developmental toxicity effects in rats are not indicative of teratogenic effect.   The results of developmental study in rabbits also demonstrated that dimethenamid is not a teratogenic compound and has a development toxicity NOAEL of 75 mg/ kg/ day and a maternal toxicity of 37.5 mg/ kg/ day. BASF believes that these test results demonstrate that the rat and rabbit are similarly sensitive to dimethenamid. Additionally, the NOAEL of 5 mg/ kg/ day from the chronic rat study used to set the RfD is 7.5X and 5X lower than the maternal NOAELs established in the rabbit and rat teratology studies, respectively. The developmental effects observed in either the rat or rabbit occurred only at maternally toxic doses. Therefore, BASF concludes that no additional safety factor is needed for children. F. International Tolerances A maximum residue level has not been established under Codex Alimentarius Commission for dimethenamid for any of the proposed uses.

[ FR Doc. 03   5914 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0043; FRL   7292   5]

Extension of an Experimental Use Permit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an extension of an experimental use permit ( EUP) to the following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Sibold, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6502; e mail address: sibold. ann@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, 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   2003   0043. 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 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1


We believe that the records developed and maintained in the ordinary course of business will provide the primary means of assuring compliance with today's rule. We know that, as a general rule, companies necessarily generate and keep records related to the types of projects covered by today's rule. For example, companies generally have comprehensive procedures by which funds are allocated to both capital and maintenance expense projects. Many of the records generated by these procedures are needed for tax accounting purposes and, by law, must be maintained for at least 6 years. Moreover, additional records must be maintained in industries regulated for other purposes, such as the energy sector ( over 90 percent of which, by capacity, is subject to FERC regulations). Electric utilitiesPublic | utilities, licensees and natural gas companies that are subject | to FERC jurisdiction must, unless they receive a waiver from the Commission, comply with extensive accounting and record retention requirements. They must keep financial information according to a uniform systems of accounts that isare set out in 18 CFR Part | 101 for electric utilitiespublic utilities and licensees, and 18 | CFR Part 22501 for natural gas companies. These uniform systems | of accounts include hundreds of specific accounts, including | individual accounts for boiler plant equipment, engines and engine driven generators, turbogenerator units, and hundreds of other asset, liability, cost and property items.

These companies also must retain records according to the schedules set forth in 18 CFR Part 125 ( for electric | utilitiespublic utilities and licensees) and 18 CFR Part 225 ( for | natural gas companies). Just a few of theThe types of records | that companies must keep include, for public utilities and | licensees, for example, are generation and output logs ( records | must be kept for 3 years), generating load records ( 3 years), gauge reading reports ( 2 years), maintenance work orders and job orders showing entries for labor, materials and other charges in connection with maintenance and other work pertaining to utility operations ( 5 years), work order sheets for construction work in progress ( 5 years), appraisals and valuations made of utility property or investments ( 3 years), engineering records, drawings, and other supporting data for proposed or as constructed utility facilities, including detail drawings and records of engineering studies ( must be kept until facilities are retired), contracts or other agreements relating to services performed in connection with construction of utility plant ( 6 years after the plant is retired or sold), general and subsidiary accounting ledgers ( 10 | years), paid and canceled vouchers, and original bills and invoices for materials, services, etc. ( 5 years).

Altogether, these are various sources of information provide more thatn a reasonable assurance of compliance with today's rule. | This is particularly true given EPA's broad authority to inspect affected facilities and require submission of compliance related data.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69559-69560]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application For
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2014.

ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(1)); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Regulation(s)     Nature of special permits
     Application No.         Docket No.          Applicant             affected                 thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               New Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16267-N..................  ..............  Korean Air Los        49 CFR 172.101        To authorize the one-time
                                            Angeles, CA.          Column (9B),          transportation in
                                                                  172.204(c)(3),        commerce of certain
                                                                  173.27, and           explosives that are
                                                                  175.30(a)(1).         forbidden for
                                                                                transportation by cargo
                                                                                only aircraft. (mode 4).

16275-N..................  ..............  ThyssenKrupp          49 CFR 173.306(f)(2)  To authorize the
                                            Bilstein of                                 transportation in
                                            America, Inc.                               commerce of accumulators
                                            Hamilton, OH.                               meeting the requirements
                                                                                of Sec.   173.306(f)(2)
                                                                                except that the charge
                                                                                pressure may exceed 200
                                                                                psig but may not exceed
                                                                                320 psig. (modes 1,2).
16288-N..................  ..............  CE Kellogg Co. Inc.   49 CFR 107.503(b),    To authorize the
                                            Vancouver, WA.        107.503(c),           manufacture, mark, sale
                                                                  173.241, 173.242,     and use of a non-DOT
                                                                  173.243.              specification glass
                                                                                fiber reinforced plastic
                                                                                (GFRP) cargo tank
                                                                                similar to a DOT
                                                                                Specification 407/412.
                                                                                (mode 1).
16291-N..................  ..............  Procter & Gamble      49 CFR 172.301(c),    To authorize the
                                            Distributing LLC      173.306 (a)(3)(ii).   transportation in
                                            Cincinnati, OH.                             commerce of certain
                                                                                aerosol containers not
                                                                                fully conforming to
                                                                                specification DOT 2P.
                                                                                (mode 1).
16292-N..................  ..............  Standard              49 CFR 177.834(h),    To authorize the
                                            Technologies, LLC     178.700(c)(1).        manufacture, mark, sale,
                                            Fremont, OH.                                and use of certain non-
                                                                                UN standard IBCs
                                                                                containing certain Class
                                                                                3 liquids which may be
                                                                                discharged without
                                                                                removal from the motor
                                                                                vehicle. (mode 1).
16295-N..................  ..............  CYTEC INDUSTRIES      49 CFR 172.519(c)...  To authorize the
                                            INC. Woodland Park,                         transportation in
                                            NJ.                                         commerce of certain IBCs
                                                                                containing combustible
                                                                                liquids with a placard
                                                                                meeting the label
                                                                                specifications for size
                                                                                in Sec.   172.407(c).
                                                                                (modes 1,3).
16302-N..................  ..............  Ametek Inc.           49 CFR 171.1,         To authorize the
                                            Pittsburgh, PA.       172.101 Columns       transportation in
                                                                  (9A) and (9B),        commerce of gases
                                                                  173.303, 173.304.     contained in glass
                                                                                ampules as not subject
                                                                                to the Hazardous
                                                                                Materials Regulations.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
16304-N..................  ..............  GG Global             49 CFR 173.196(a)...  To authorize the
                                            Enterprizes LLC                             manufacture, mark, sale,
                                            Phoenix, AZ.                                and use of alternative
                                                                                packaging for Ebola
                                                                                contaminated waste.
                                                                                (mode 1).
16307-N..................  ..............  Croman Corporation    49 CFR 172.101        To authorize the
                                            White City, OR.       Columns (8C) and      transportation in
                                                                  (9B), 173.242,        commerce of certain
                                                                  175.310.              flammable liquids in
                                                                                alternative packaging
                                                                                having a capacity of 119
                                                                                gallons or more by cargo
                                                                                air. (mode 4).
16308-N..................  ..............  GeNO LLC Cocoa, FL..  49 CFR 173.175......  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of permeation
                                                                                devices that are used in
                                                                                medical devices in lieu
                                                                                of use for calibrating
                                                                                air quality monitoring
                                                                                devices. (modes 1, 2, 3,
                                                                                4, 5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-27426 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7407-7408]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0096; Notice 2]

Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2008 Tesla Roadster passenger cars do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.4(c)(2), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Tesla filed a report dated
August 1, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Tesla then petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR
part 556 requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Kerrin
Bressant, Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Tesla submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 24, 2015, in the Federal Register (80 FR
36403). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0096.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 542 MY 2008 Roadster model passenger
cars manufactured from February 1, 2008 through October 29, 2009.

III. Noncompliance

    Tesla explains that if a fault is detected in a sensor, because the
sensor is faulty, missing or unapproved, the Tire Pressure Monitoring
System (TPMS) malfunction telltale will flash for 60 to 90 seconds and
then remain continuously illuminated as required by FMVSS No. 138.
However, the TPMS malfunction telltale fails to operate properly when a
faulty, missing or unapproved sensor is detected and then the vehicle's
ignition is cycled off and back on. In this situation, the malfunction
telltale in the subject vehicles does not re-illuminate immediately as
required when the vehicle's ignition system is re-activated. Instead,
the affected vehicles must reach a speed between 20 miles per hour
(mph) and 25 mph for a maximum period of at least 90 seconds before the
TPMS malfunction telltale re-illuminates.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S4.4(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 138 requires in pertinent part:

    S4.4 TPMS Malfunction.
* * * * *
    (c) Combination low tire pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale. The
vehicle meets the requirements of S4.4(a) when equipped with a
combined Low Tire Pressure/TPMS malfunction telltale that:
    (2) Flashes for a period of at least 60 seconds but no longer
than 90 seconds upon detection of any condition specified in S4.4(a)
after the ignition locking system is activated to the ``On''
(``Run'') position. After each period of prescribed flashing, the
telltale must remain continuously illuminated as long as a
malfunction exists and the ignition locking system is in the ``On''
(``Run'') position. This flashing and illumination sequence must be
repeated each time the ignition locking system is placed in the
``On'' (``Run'') position until the situation causing the
malfunction has been corrected. . . .

V. Summary of Tesla's Analyses

    Tesla stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:

    (A) Tesla stated that although the TPMS malfunction indicator
will not illuminate immediately after the vehicle is restarted, it
generally will illuminate shortly thereafter and in any event it
will illuminate in no more than 90 seconds after the vehicle
accelerates between 20-25 mph. Tesla further explained that
additional warnings via the ``fault'' display in the dashboard and
the auxiliary display warnings will appear anew. Clearing this
``new'' warning in the auxiliary screen will require the driver to
``actively'' (take positive action) to clear the screen. Tesla
believes these additional steps required to clear the auxiliary
screen warning ensures driver attention to the issue.
    (B) Tesla states that they provide warnings and alerts above and
beyond what is required by regulations. Checks include wheel sensor
fitment (compatibility) and tire pressures. If sensors are ``new''
(i.e., different from those verified at the previous ignition
cycle), the sensors are ``learned'' and after calibrations
performed, a check of all tires is again performed for any low
pressure conditions. In addition, the subject vehicles are equipped
with an ``auxiliary'' screen which displays a diagram of the vehicle
with respective tire positions and status of those respective tires.
Tesla explained that this type of detailed information and multiple
alerts ensures the driver is well informed of a potential low tire
pressure condition.
    (C) Tesla said that the noncompliance is confined to one
particular aspect of the functionality of the otherwise compliant
TPMS malfunction indicator. All other aspects of the low-pressure
monitoring system functionality are fully compliant with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 138.
    (D) Tesla stated that it is not aware of any customer
complaints, field communications, incidents or injuries related to
the failure of the TPMS noncompliance.

    In summation, Tesla believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to

exempt Tesla from providing recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: Tesla explained that although the malfunction
indicator does not re-illuminate immediately after the vehicle is
restarted, it will illuminate shortly thereafter--within 90 seconds
after the vehicle reaches a speed between 20 mph and 25 mph.
    NHTSA recognizes that the malfunction indicator will not illuminate
as required for very short periods of time--when the vehicle is
traveling at low speeds and thus poses little risk to vehicle safety.
Under normal driving conditions, a driver will begin a trip by
accelerating moderately beyond 20-25 mph, and as explained by Tesla,
once the vehicle accelerates above 20-25 mph, the malfunction indicator
re-illuminates and then it will remain illuminated for the entire
ignition cycle, regardless of vehicle speed. We understand the
noncompliance will only occur in the very rare case where the driver
begins a trip and never exceeds the 20-25 mph threshold, the speed
required to re-activate the malfunction indicator. No real safety risk
exists because at such low speeds there is little risk of vehicle loss
of control due to underinflated tires. Furthermore, the possibility
that the vehicle will experience both a low inflation pressure
condition and a malfunction simultaneously is highly unlikely.
    Tesla states that they provide warnings and alerts above and beyond
what is required by regulations and that the subject vehicles are
equipped with an ``auxiliary'' screen which displays a diagram of the
vehicle with respective tire positions and status of those respective
tires. Tesla explained that this type of detailed information and
multiple alerts ensures the driver is well informed of a potential low
tire pressure condition.
    The agency evaluated the displays Tesla uses in the noncompliant
vehicles. In addition to the combination telltale indicator lamp, the
subject vehicles are equipped with a ``plan view'' icon which displays
the pressures for all four wheels individually. If any wheel has a
malfunctioning pressure sensor the indicator for that wheel displays
several dashes indicating that there is a problem with that respective
wheel. The additional information is not required by the safety
standard but can be used as an aid to the driver to determine the
status of a vehicle's tires.
    Tesla discussed that the noncompliance only involves one specific
aspect of the malfunction functionality and that the primary function
of the TPMS, identification of other malfunctions and of low inflation
pressure scenarios, is not affected. Tesla explained that in the
subject vehicles, the TPMS only fails to operate properly when a
faulty, missing or non-approved sensor is detected and the ignition is
recycled. According to Tesla, if such a fault is detected, and then the
ignition is cycled off and back on, the MIL will reset, thus requiring
the system to re-detect the fault or missing/unapproved sensor versus
immediately re-illuminating the MIL from the previously detected fault.
    The agency agrees with Tesla's reasoning that the primary function
of the TPMS is to identify low tire inflation pressure conditions which
Tesla's system does as required by the safety standard. There are a
variety of other malfunctions that can occur in addition to the
incompatible wheel/tire malfunction identified in this petition. We
understand from Tesla that its TPMS will perform as required during all
other type system malfunctions.
    Tesla mentioned that they have not received or are aware of any
consumer complaints, field communications, incidences or injuries
related to this noncompliance. In addition to the analysis done by
Tesla that looked at customer complaints, field communications,
incidents or injuries related to this condition, NHTSA conducted
additional checks of NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations consumer
complaint database and found no related complaints.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing analysis, NHTSA
has decided that Tesla has met its burden of demonstrating that the
FMVSS No. 138 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Tesla's petition is hereby granted and Tesla is exempted
from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for,
that the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject nonconforming vehicles that Tesla no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this decision does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Tesla
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02722 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18256]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-16]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before April 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0216 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leslie B. Taylor, phone (816) 329-
4134, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-0216.
    Petitioner: Hawker Beechcraft Corporation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 23.783(f)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC)
requests an exemption from the specific dimensions of the passenger
entry door of the Hawker Beechcraft Model 390-2. The door has basic
dimensions greater than the minimum required by Sec.  23.783(f)(1). The
total area of the model 390-2 cabin door opening minus the area
occupied by localized projections is greater than the minimum area
required by Sec.  23.783(f)(1); however, the minimum width dimension
cannot be met at discrete points due to the protrusions.

[FR Doc. 2010-8128 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33650-33651]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0003; FRL-9316-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon;
Interstate Transport of Pollution; Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a portion of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for the purpose of
addressing certain provisions of the interstate transport provisions of
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) and
the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that each State have adequate
provisions to prohibit air emissions from adversely affecting air
quality in other States through interstate transport. EPA is taking
final action to approve Oregon's SIP revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the these standards in any
other State and to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of these standards by any other State.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective on July 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's SIP revision and other information
supporting this action are available for inspection at EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this notice, the words ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Public Comments on the Proposed Action
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a portion of Oregon's Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on June 23, 2010 and December 23, 2010.
Specifically, we are approving the portion of the interstate transport
SIP revision that addresses the following elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i): (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment of these
NAAQS in any other state; and (2) interference with maintenance of
these NAAQS by any other state. EPA will address element (3),
interference with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration (PSD) of its air quality; and element (4),
interference with any other state's required measures to protect
visibility in separate actions.\1\ This action does not address the
requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in future actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 8, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the Oregon
interstate transport SIP provisions addressing interference with any
other state's required measures to protect visibility. See 76 FR
12651 (March 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this action?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised
NAAQS within three years after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
lists the elements that such new SIPs must address, as applicable,
including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to interstate
transport of certain emissions.
    On June 23, 2010, the State of Oregon submitted a SIP revision
addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In this
rulemaking EPA is addressing the first two elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i): (1) Significant contribution to nonattainment of these
NAAQS in any other state, and (2) interference with maintenance of
these NAAQS by any other state. On April 7, 2011, EPA published a
proposal to approve the portion of Oregon's SIP submission that
addresses these two elements. 76 FR 19292.

III. Public Comments on the Proposed Action

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period and solicited
comments on our proposal published on April 7, 2011. 76 FR 19292. EPA
received no comments on this proposed action.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Oregon SIP as discussed in
our proposed action and concludes that for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, air pollutant emissions from sources
within Oregon do not either (1) significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state; or (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state.
    As noted previously, EPA will address element (3) interference with
any other state's required measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its

air quality and element (4), interference with any other state's
required measures to protect visibility, in a separate action. EPA will
also take action on the portion of Oregon's SIP that addresses the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a separate
action.

 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 27, 2011.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator Region 10.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1989 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1989  Interstate Transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
1997 PM[bdi2].[bdi5] NAAQS.

    (a) On June 23, 2010 and December 23, 2010, the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality submitted a SIP revision, adopted by the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission on April 30, 2010, to meet the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approves the
portion of this submittal relating to significant contribution to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state and interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state.
    (b) [Reserved.]

[FR Doc. 2011-14199 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P