[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56596-56598]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19903]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-2022-00089-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating cracking in fastener
holes at the center wing box and at certain positions of the rear spar
and lower skin on a Model 737-300 airplane. A cross model review
determined that similar cracking of the fastener holes in the center
wing box lower skin could occur on Model 707 and Model 727 airplanes.
For Model 707 airplanes this proposed AD would require repetitive
detailed inspections of the center wing box lower skin for cracking and
repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and ultrasonic (UT)
inspections of the rear spar lower chord at a certain position for
cracking, repetitive sealant application, and repair if necessary. For
Model 727 airplanes this proposed AD would require repetitive detailed
inspections of the center wing box, lower skin, and rear spar lower
chord at a certain location for cracking, repetitive sealant
application, and repair if necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
1051.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Newell, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00089-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sean
Newell, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5266; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA received a report from an operator of a Model 737-300
airplane indicating cracking in fastener holes at the center wing box,
station 663.75 rear spar, lower skin located at left body buttock line
(LBBL) 6.50. The lower skin cracks were hidden between the center wing
box lower chord on the upper surface and the keel beam upper chord on
the lower surface. The Model 737-300 airplane had a total of 72,702
flight

hours and 44,369 flight cycles at the time of the finding. A cross
model review determined that similar cracking of the fastener holes in
the center wing box lower skin could occur on Model 707 and Model 727
airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the center
wing box lower skin or rear spar lower chord, which could result in the
inability of the structure to sustain limit load and adversely affect
the structural integrity of the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Explanation of Applicability

    Model 727-100 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 47 have a
limit of validity (LOV) of 50,000 total flight cycles, and the actions
proposed in this NPRM, as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021, would be required at
a compliance time occurring after that LOV. Although operation of an
airplane beyond its LOV is prohibited by 14 CFR 121.1115 and 129.115,
this NPRM would include those airplanes in the applicability so that
these airplanes are tracked in the event the LOV is extended in the
future.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB,
dated November 1, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for repetitive internal detailed inspections of the center wing box
lower skin for cracking and repetitive internal surface HFEC and UT
inspections of the rear spar lower chord between LBBL 40 and right body
buttock line (RBBL) 40 for cracking, repetitive sealant application,
and repair.
    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB,
dated September 13, 2021. This service information specifies procedures
for repetitive internal detailed inspections for cracking of the center
wing box, lower skin, and rear spar lower chord between LBBL 34.7 and
RBBL 34.7, repetitive sealant application, and repair.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1051.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 48 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections and sealant            34 work-hours x $85              $0  $2,890 per           $66,470 per
 application Model 707 airplanes.   per hour = $2,890                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle
                                    per inspection                                            (23 airplanes).
                                    cycle.
Inspections and sealant            22 work-hours x $85               0  $1,870 per           $46,750 per
 application Model 727 airplanes.   per hour = $1,870                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle
                                    per inspection                                            (25 airplanes).
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-
2022-00089-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model 707-100 Long Body, -200, -100B Long Body, and -100B
Short Body series airplanes.
    (2) Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.
    (3) Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F
series airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating cracking in fastener
holes at the center wing box and at certain positions of the rear
spar and lower skin on a Model 737-300 airplane. A cross model
review determined that similar cracking of the fastener holes in the
center wing box lower skin could occur on Model 707 and Model 727
airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the
center wing box lower skin or rear spar lower chord, which could
result in the inability of the structure to sustain limit load and
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Model 727 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021: Within 120 days
after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all
applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 and 3 Model 727 Airplanes and All
Model 707 Airplanes

    Except as specified by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021; or
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September
13, 2021; as applicable, do all applicable actions identified in,
and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021; or
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB, dated September
13, 2021, as applicable.
    Note 1 to paragraph (h): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing 707 Alert Service
Bulletin A3544, dated November 1, 2021, which is referred to in
Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated November 1,
2021; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0190, dated September
13, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
727-57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin
A3544 RB, dated November 1, 2021, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 707A3544 RB'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-
57A0190 RB, dated September 13, 2021, uses the phrase ``the original
issue date of Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (3) Where Boeing 707 Alert Requirements Bulletin A3544 RB, dated
November 1, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.
    (4) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 727-57A0190 RB,
dated September 13, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean Newell,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5266; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on August 5, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19903 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51879-51880]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP16-480-000; PF15-15-000]

Annova LNG Common Infrastructure, LLC, Annova LNG Brownsville A,
LLC, Annova LNG Brownsville B, LLC, Annova LNG Brownsville C, LLC;
Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 13, 2016, Annova LNG Common
Infrastructure, LLC, Annova LNG Brownsville A, LLC, Annova LNG
Brownsville B, LLC, and Annova LNG Brownsville C, LLC (collectively
Annova LNG), 100 Constellation Way, Suite 500C, Baltimore, MD 21202,
filed an application, in Docket No. CP16-480-000, pursuant to section
3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's
Regulations, requesting authorization to site, construct, modify, and
operate a natural gas liquefaction and liquefied natural gas export
facility, located on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County,
Texas. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Christopher D. Young, Exelon Corporation, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
500C, Baltimore, MD 21202, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to William Harris,
Communications Senior Manager, South/West Region, Exelon Generation, by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, Annova LNG proposes to construct a LNG liquefaction
and export terminal on the Port of Brownsville ship channel. The
terminal will consist of six liquefaction trains with a total capacity
of 0.9 Bcf per day, two LNG tanks capable of storing 6.8 Bcf of LNG,
gas pretreatment facilities, boil-off gas handling system, flare
system, marine transfer facilities, and all necessary ancillary and
support facilities. Natural gas will be supplied by a third party-owned
and operated intrastate pipeline.
    On March 27, 2015, Commission staff granted Annova LNG's request to
use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and
assigned Docket No. PF15-15-000 to staff activities involving the
proposed facilities. Now, as of the filing of this application on July
13, 2016, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From
this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No.
CP16-480-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings

associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 17, 2016.

    Dated: July 27, 2016.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18575 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76398-76399]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40

CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                       File date                       Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP11-515-000................  11-18-11...................  William (Ty) Lane.
    2. ER10-787-000, et al.........  11-18-11...................  Commission Staff.\1\
    3. P-12790-001.................  11-22-11...................  Commission Staff.\2\
    4. P-12790-001.................  11-22-11...................  Sean Elwell, et al.
    5. CP07-444-000................  11-22-11...................  Carolynn Kohout.
    6. P-2512-000..................  11-28-11...................  Lisa LaRue.
Exempt:
    1. P-459-212...................  11-10-11...................  Hon. Darrell Pollock.
    2. EL11-39-000.................  11-17-11...................  Hon. Charles E. Grassley.
    3. P-2144-000..................  11-17-11...................  Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
    4. P-459-212...................  11-17-11...................  Hon. Chuck Purgason.
    5. P-13338-000.................  11-17-11...................  Hon. Charles E. Grassley.
    6. CP07-44-000.................  11-17-11...................  Hon. Jo Bonner.
    7. P-459-212...................  11-21-11...................  Hon. Kris Franken.\3\
    8. P-12715-000.................  11-21-11...................  Commission Staff.\4\
    9. P-2232-000..................  11-22-11...................  Hon. Patrick T. McHenry.
    10. P-1267-000.................  11-23-11...................  Hon. Jim DeMint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Material provided in advance of Technical Conference.
\2\ Email record.
\3\ Notice of Official Record.
\4\ Telephone record.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31386 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6190-6192]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0180]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Quantitative
Data on Tobacco Products and Communications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on ``Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Quantitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 16, 2018. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-N-0180 for ``Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Quantitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information

redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted
on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets
Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information
to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the
cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify
this information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Quantitative Data on Tobacco
Products and Communications

OMB Control Number 0910-0810--Extension

    In order to conduct educational and public information programs
relating to tobacco use as authorized by section 1003(d)(2)(D) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)), FDA's
Center for Tobacco Products will create and use a variety of media to
inform and educate the public, tobacco retailers, and health
professionals about the risks of tobacco use, how to quit using tobacco
products, and FDA's role in regulating tobacco.
    To ensure that these health communication messages have the highest
potential to be received, understood, and accepted by those for whom
they are intended, the Center for Tobacco Products will conduct
research and studies relating to the control and prevention of disease.
In conducting such research, FDA will employ formative pretests.
Formative pretests are conducted on a small scale, and their focus is
on developing and assessing the likely effectiveness of communications
with specific target audiences. This type of research involves: (1)
Assessing audience knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and other
characteristics for the purpose of determining the need for and
developing health messages, communication strategies, and public
information programs and (2) pretesting these health messages,
strategies, and program components while they are in developmental form
to assess audience comprehension, reactions, and perceptions.
    Formative pretesting is a staple of best practices in
communications research. Obtaining voluntary feedback from intended
audiences during the development of messages and materials is crucial
for the success of every communication program. The purpose of
obtaining information from formative pretesting is that it allows FDA
to improve materials and strategies while revisions are still
affordable and possible. Formative pretesting can also avoid
potentially expensive and dangerous unintended outcomes caused by
audiences' interpreting messages in a way that was not intended by the
drafters. By maximizing the effectiveness of messages and strategies
for reaching targeted audiences, the frequency with which tobacco
communication messages need to be modified should be greatly reduced.
    The voluntary information collected will serve the primary purpose
of providing FDA information about the perceived effectiveness of
messages, advertisements, and materials in reaching and successfully
communicating with their intended audiences. Quantitative testing
messages and other materials with a sample of the target audience will
allow FDA to refine messages, advertisements, and materials, including
questionnaires or images, directed at consumers while the materials are
still in the developmental stage.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener....................................         130,500               1         130,500  0.083 (5 minutes).........................          10,831
Self-Administered Surveys...................          27,000               1          27,000  0.33 (20 minutes).........................           8,910
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..........................................          19,741
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The number of respondents to be included in each new survey will
vary, depending on the nature of the material or message being tested
and the target audience. The burden for this information collection
extension is proposed to increase by 12,613 hours since the last OMB
approval. The burden increase is due to an increase in the number of
respondents and the categories of respondents.

    Dated: February 7, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-02852 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12809-12810]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at
the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport under
the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Jeff Fegan, Chief Executive Office, at the
following address: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Executive
Office, P.O. Box 619428, DFW Airport, Texas 75261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rodney Clark, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-651, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650.
    Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    On January 29, 2010, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, submitted by the
Airport, met the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in
part, no later than March 29, 2010.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport requests the release of
137-743

acres of non-aeronautical airport property. The land was acquired by
the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth for use as an airport. The funds
generated by the release will be used to improve the Airport's roadway
system.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, telephone number (972) 973-
5200.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 2, 2010.
Joseph G. Washington,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-5538 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Notices]                [Page 50379-50380] [DOCID:fr26au08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58394; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-85]

  Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a

Proposed Rule Change Adopting a New Order Type

August 20, 2008.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that

on August 19, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially

prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.53 (Certain Types of Orders

Defined) to allow for the submission of attributable orders. The text

of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site

(http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and

at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization

included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the

proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.53 (Certain Types of Orders

Defined) to allow for the submission of attributable orders.\3\ These

orders allow users to voluntarily display their firm IDs on the orders.

The NASDAQ Options Market, LLC (``NOM'') currently allows its

participants to submit attributable orders (See NOM Chapter VI, Section

(1)(d)(1)). As proposed, the Exchange may limit the systems/processes

for which attributable orders will be available. For example, the

attributable order-type may initially only be available in connection

with certain Exchange auction processes like the Hybrid Agency Liaison

system which ``flashes'' marketable orders for price improvement

executions before those orders are routed to another market center

pursuant to the Options Linkage Plan. This proposal is responsive to

requests by Exchange users who believe that enhanced executions may be

obtained if firm ID information is allowed on orders (on a voluntary

basis).

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

    \3\ A Firm ID is a 1-4 character identification code (letters

and /or numbers). Each CBOE member firm may establish its own unique

Firm ID.

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

2. Statutory Basis

    Since this proposal allows for greater customization by providing

users with an additional order type, the Exchange believes that the

proposal is consistent with the Act \4\ and the rules and regulations

thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the

Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposal is consistent

with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange

be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to

remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open

market and a national market system.

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

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

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

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

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

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the

proposal.

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

Commission Action

    The proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\

thereunder because it effects a change that (i) Does not significantly

affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does

not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its

terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the

filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if

consistent with the protection of

investors and the public interest. 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.

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

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

    The proposal may assist investors by allowing participants the

benefits of attributable orders. Additionally, the Exchange provided

the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposal,

along with a brief description and text of the proposal, prior to the

date of the filing of the proposal.

    For the foregoing reasons, this rule filing qualifies for immediate

effectiveness as a ``non-controversial'' rule change under paragraph

(f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 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-CBOE-2008-85 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-85. 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, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that

are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating

to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,

other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance

with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection

and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official

business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the

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 Number SR-CBOE-2008-85 and should be submitted on or before

September 16, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,

pursuant to delegated authority.\9\

Florence E. Harmon,

Acting Secretary.

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

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

[FR Doc. E8-19785 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

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

EPA Registration Division contact: [Hope Johnson,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Cheminova, Inc.]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Cheminova, Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA
22209-2510] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part
180

by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	[Flutriafol] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [hops, dried
cones] at [20] parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

Plant metabolism.  The nature of the residue in plants is adequately
understood. The major residue in apples, oilseed rape, sugar beet and
cereals treated with flutriafol is the parent compound.

Analytical method.  Adequate enforcement analytical methods for
determining flutriafol in/on appropriate raw agricultural commodities
and processed commodities are available for the established and proposed
tolerances.

Magnitude of residues.  Appropriate residue field trials have been
conducted to support the use of flutriafol on hops as proposed in this
petition.  All raw agricultural commodities in all fied trials were
analyzed for flutriafol and three triazole metabolites –
1,2,4-triazole (T), triazole alanine (TA), and triazole acetic acide
(TAA).  The flutriafol residues reported in these field trials support
the proposed tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

Acute toxicity.  The acute oral LD50 is 1140 mg/kg bw and 1480 mg/kg bw
in male and female rats, respectively. The acute dermal LD50 of
flutriafol is >2000 mg/kg bw in rats. The acute inhalation LC50 in rats
is >5.20 mg/L. Flutriafol displayed mild eye irritation in rabbits. It
is not a skin irritant to rabbits. Flutriafol is not a skin sensitizer.

Genotoxicty.  Flutriafol was evaluated for possible mutagenic/genotoxic
effects in in vitro and in vivo test systems. In these studies
flutriafol was not mutagenic in either bacterial or mammalian cells at
concentrations that were not highly cytotoxic in the presence and
absence of metabolic activation in vitro. No clastogenic potential in in
vitro and in vivo cytogenetic studies was demonstrated, and no induction
of forward mutations was observable in vitro. Furthermore, flutriafol
did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in vivo, and no clastogenicity
was observable in germ cells of mice. Overall, the data indicate that
flutriafol has no genotoxic/mutagenic potential in vitro and in vivo.

In three genotoxicity studies flutriafol was not mutagenic in either
bacterial or mammalian cells at concentrations that were not highly
cytotoxic in the presence and absence of metabolic activation in vitro.
No clastogenic potential in the in vitro chromosome aberration study was
demonstrated. These results are consistent with the conclusions of the
originally submitted genotoxicity studies.

Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  A two-generation reproductive
toxicity study in rats was conducted with flutriafol at doses of 0, 60,
240 or 1000 ppm in the diet. The parental NOAEL was 240 ppm (calculated
by EPA to be 20.6 mg/kg bw/day in males and 21.9 mg/kg bw/day in
females) based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption, and
effects on the liver (increased liver weights, centrilobular hypertrophy
and fatty changes). The NOAEL for developmental and reproductive
toxicity was 240 ppm (20.6 mg/kg bw/day for males and 21.9 mg/kg bw/day
for females) based on reduced litter sizes and effects on the liver
(fatty change/vacuolation).

In a second two-generation reproduction study, flutriafol was
administered to groups of rats at concentrations of 0, 30, 80, 150 and
300 ppm in the diet. In the P and F1 parental generations, dietary
exposure to flutriafol resulted in centrilobular hepatocellular
hypertrophy at 300 ppm. These findings correlated with increased liver
to body weight ratios in P parental animals, which are indicative of an
adaptive change to metabolic activation by a xenobiotic and not a toxic
response due to the administration of flutriafol. At 150 ppm, 80 ppm and
30 ppm, no test item-related effects were noted.

There were no treatment-related differences in reproductive parameters
between treated animals and controls. There were no treatment-related
differences in litter parameters between treated groups and controls.
Based on these results, 300 ppm (15.6 mg/kg bw/day for males and 20.7
mg/kg bw/day for females) is the NOAEL for parental toxicity and is the
NOEL for effects on reproductive function. The NOEL for parental
toxicity is 150 ppm. The results of this new study confirm the earlier
study that flutriafol is not a reproductive toxicant to rats.

In the rat developmental toxicity study, flutriafol was orally
administered at doses of 0, 2, 5, 10 or 75 mg/kg bw/day. The maternal
toxicity NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain and
food consumption. The developmental toxicity NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw/day
based on increased late resorptions and specific
malformations/variations, including hyoid arch absent, interrupted,
and/or misshapen.

In the rabbit developmental study, flutriafol was administered at doses
of 0, 2.5, 7.5 or 15 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was
7.5 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption.
The NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 7.5 mg/kg bw/day based on an
increase in post-implantation losses and a reduction in the number of
viable fetuses.

Flutriafol is neither a reproductive nor developmental toxicant in the
absence of paternal/maternal toxicity.

Subchronic toxicity.  The short-term toxicity of flutriafol was
investigated in several subchronic studies including a 90-day feeding
study in rats and a 90-day study in dogs. A 28-day dermal toxicity study
in rats was also performed.

The 90-day rat feeding study was conducted with dietary concentrations
of 0, 20, 200 or 2000 ppm. The NOAEL of 200 ppm (14 mg/kg bw/day for
males and 22 mg/kg bw/day for females) was based on decreased body
weight gain and food consumption and liver toxicity (increased absolute
and relative liver weights, increased endoplasmic reticulum
proliferation in the male rats and increased APDM activity).

In the 90-day study in dogs, flutriafol was administered at
concentrations of 0, 1, 5 or 15 mg/kg bw/day via capsule. The NOAEL was
5 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain in females, changes in
hematology and clinical chemistry parameters in both sexes, and effects
in the livers of males and females and in the spleens of the males at
the 15 mg/kg bw/day.

In the 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, there was no evidence of
systemic toxicity and the NOAEL was >1000 mg/kg bw/day.

Chronic toxicity.  A one-year oral study in the dog was conducted at
concentrations of 0, 1, 5 or 20 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL was 5 mg/kg
bw/day based on adverse liver findings (increased liver weights,
increased lipid content of hepatocytes, and increased alkaline
phosphatase, albumin and triglycerides), increased adrenal cortical
vacuolation of the zona fasciculate, and increased hemosiderin
deposition in the spleen and liver of both sexes; decreased body weight
gain, and increased adrenal weights in females.

In a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study, flutriafol was
administered in the diet to rats at doses of 0, 20, 200 or 2000 ppm. The
NOAEL was 200 ppm (calculated by EPA to be 10.0 mg/kg bw/day in males
and 12.2 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on reduced body weight, body
weight gain, and food consumption in both sexes and adverse liver
effects (increased liver weights, fatty change, bile duct
proliferation/cholangiolarfibrosis, hemosiderin accumulation in Kupffer
cells and centrilobular hypertrophy) and clinical chemistry findings.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in this study.

In a two-year oncogenicity study, flutriafol was administered in the
diet to mice at doses of 0, 10, 50 or 200 ppm. The NOAEL was 50 ppm
(calculated by EPA to be 5.9 mg/kg bw/day in males and 7.4 mg/kg bw/day
in females) based on reduced body weight and body weight gain in males
and females, increased liver weight, and hepatocellular hypertrophy and
centrilobular fatty change in the liver. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in this study.

Neurotoxicity.  In an acute neurotoxicity study, rats were administered
flutriafol by gavage at doses of 0, 125, 250 or 750 mg/kg bw. EPA
concluded that the systemic NOAEL was 250 mg/kg bw based on decreased
body weight gain and food consumption and clinical signs of toxicity
indicative of a moribund condition. The neurotoxicity NOAEL was >750
mg/kg bw.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity study, flutriafol was administered in the
diet to rats at doses of 0, 500, 1500 or 3000 ppm. The systemic NOAEL
was 1500 ppm (84.3 mg/kg bw/day in males and 97.6 mg/kg bw/day in
females) based on decreased body weight gain and decreased absolute and
relative food consumption. The neurotoxicity NOAEL was >3000 ppm (>172.1
mg/kg bw/day in males and >185.0 mg/kg bw/day in females).

Immunotoxicity.  In an immunotoxicity study, flutriafol was administered
to 10 Crl:CD1(ICR) female mice/group in the diet at dose levels of 0,
50, 250, 500 and 1000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 9.8, 46.8, 94.0 and 208.0
mg/kg bw/day, respectively) for 28 consecutive days. Immunotoxicity was
evaluated by assessment of the spleen IgM antibody response to the
T-dependent antigen, sheep red blood cells (sRBCs). The NOAEL for
general toxicity in female CD-1 mice was 50 ppm (9.8 mg/kg bw/day) based
on increased absolute and relative liver weights and hematology effects
(decreased mean corpuscular volume). There were no significant effects
on absolute and relative spleen weights, spleen cell number and spleen
IgM antibody response to the T cell-dependent antigen, sheep
erythrocytes at any dose level. Therefore, the immunotoxic NOEL is 1000
ppm (208 mg/kg bw/day), the highest dose tested.

Animal Metabolism.  Based on a series of studies, flutriafol is
extensively metabolized in the rat and the metabolic processes are well
understood.

Flutriafol was quantitatively absorbed after oral administration to rats
and the extent of absorption was in the range of 90% to 99% of the
administered dose. Flutriafol is rapidly distributed, metabolized and
eliminated in rats for all dosing regimens after oral administration.
After single oral administration 78% and 91% of the dose given was
excreted in urine and bile/feces within 72 hours and 47% to 79% of the
dose was eliminated with bile. Only 0.8% to 10.4% of the dose given was
directly excreted with feces. After repeated oral administration,
excretion in urine and feces 24 hours after the first and last dose was
comparable. The major route of excretion was urinary accounting for
approximately 50% to 61% of the daily dose excreted within 24 hours
after dosing, while fecal excretion accounted for approximately 30% to
40%. Residues in carcass 168 hours after the last of 14 daily doses of
flutriafol were found to be less than 3% of administered doses.
Flutriafol is distributed systemically resulting in highest tissue
levels in whole blood, kidneys, liver, and muscle within the range of
0.7% to 1.46 % of daily dose.

The metabolites identified indicated that the 2-fluorophenyl ring of
flutriafol was the main site for biotransformation. The initial
metabolic step probably involved epoxidation followed by either
rearrangement to form the dihydrodiol isomers of flutriafol or to form
hydroxy or dihydroxy metabolites. The hydroxyl groups on these primary
metabolites may then be either conjugated with glucuronic acid or
methylated. A second, minor route, for the metabolism of flutriafol was
via the removal of the triazole ring to form 1-(2
fluorophenyl)-1-(4-fluorophenyl)-ethandiol, which is then conjugated
with glucuronic acid.

The results demonstrated that absorption, distribution, metabolism, and
excretion of flutriafol was comparable in both sexes and also similar
after single low, single high, or repeated low-dose scenario. The data
indicate that flutriafol and/or its metabolites do not bioaccumulate.

Metabolite Toxicology.  Data regarding the potential toxicity of the
three metabolites common to triazoles have been developed and submitted
by the US Triazole Task Force. The Task Force has entered into a data
access agreement with Cheminova A/S by which it has authorized Cheminova
to rely on all of the studies, data and information that the Task Force
has submitted to EPA. This includes the comprehensive risk assessment of
these three metabolites. Cheminova hereby incorporates and relies on the
Task Force studies, data and information in support of its pesticide
action. This includes relying on the T-D metabolite risk assessment
submitted to the EPA by the Task Force.

Endocrine Disruption.  All guideline studies conducted to characterize
the toxicological profile showed no endocrine-related toxicity or
tumorigenicity.

C. Aggregate Exposure

Dietary exposure.  A tolerance is proposed for residues of flutriafol on
hops, dried cones.  For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary
(food and drinking water) exposure, an exposure assessment including
hops, dried cones in addition to all of the registered and pending crops
was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food
Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) software, consumption data
derived from the 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES), assuming tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated
in treated commodities and calculated anticipated residues in livestock
commodities.  Estimated potential concentrations in drinking water were
incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessments to provide
total aggregate dietary exposure estimates.

For the purpose of dietary exposure assessment, it is assumed that the
residues of concern for all commodities are parent flutriafol and the
three triazole metabolites designated as T, TA and TAA.  Adjustment
factors to account for potential residues of conjugated or defluorinated
flutriafol metabolites are included as appropriate in risk assessment
calculations for corn, cotton, peanut, wheat and triticale commodities.

Acute Dietary Exposure.  The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for
females 13-49 years old is 0.075 mg/kg bw (NOAEL of 7.5 mg/kg/day from
the rabbit developmental toxicity study with a 100-fold uncertainty
factor).  The aPAD for other subpopulations is 2.5 mg/kg bw (NOAEL of
250 mg/kg from the acute neurotoxicity screening battery with a 100-fold
uncertainty factor).  These endpoints were used to characterize the risk
associated with acute dietary exposures.  Cheminova has conducted an
acute dietary exposure Tier 1 analysis with DEEM-FCID using the proposed
temporary tolerances that are the subject of this petition in addition
to all previously registered and pending tolerances.  Additional
assumptions included 100% crop treated and default processing factors,
where appropriate.  To account for total residues of concern for risk
assessment purposes in animal diets (i.e., free and conjugated
flutriafol and defluorinated flutriafol), residues in grain sorghum,
corn (field, pop and sweet), cotton, peanut, and wheat commodities were
multiplied by a factor of 2.2.  Maximum reasonable dietary burdens for
livestock were calculated using median or highest average field trial
(HAFT) residues in feed commodities, as appropriate.  Anticipated
residues in livestock commodities were calculated based on the resulting
maximum total residue dietary burdens.  For purposes of risk assessment,
secondary residues of flutriafol in meat and milk were estimated using
tissue:feed ratios from the feeding studies, and then factors derived
from the goat metabolism study were used to account for all of the
residues of concern in livestock tissues.  Potential residues in water
were included using the peak concentration in ground water modeled with
PRZM-GW (version 1.07, dated May 14, 2014) of 152 ppb based on the
pending use pattern on cotton (one at-plant in-furrow application at
0.26 lb ai/A and two foliar applications at 0.114 lb ai/A).  The acute
dietary assessment was conducted for the overall US population and
select subpopulations (i.e., all infants <1 year old, children aged 1-2
years old, children aged 3-5 years old, children aged 6-12 years old,
youths aged 13-19 years old, adults aged 20-49 years old, adults 50+
years old, and females aged 13-49 years old).  The results of this Tier
1 acute analysis indicate that the most highly exposed population is
children 1-2 years old, with an estimated acute exposure of 0.061006
mg/kg bw at the 95th percentile, which corresponds to 2.44% of the aPAD
of 2.5 mg/kg bw.  For the overall US population, the acute exposure at
the 95th percentile is 0.026195 mg/kg bw, which corresponds to 1.05% of
the aPAD.  For females 13-49 years old, the acute exposure at the 95th
percentile is 0.021614 mg/kg bw, which corresponds to 28.82% of the
population-specific aPAD of 0.075 mg/kg bw.

Chronic Dietary Exposure.  The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD)
of 0.05 mg/kg bw/day (NOAEL of 5 mg/kg/d from the one-year feeding study
in the dog with a 100-fold uncertainty factor) was used to characterize
risk associated with chronic dietary exposures.  Cheminova has conducted
a dietary exposure Tier 1 analysis with DEEM-FCID using the proposed
temporary tolerances that are the subject of this petition in addition
to the previously registered and pending tolerances.  Additional
assumptions included 100% crop treated and default processing factors,
where appropriate.  To account for total residues of concern for risk
assessment purposes in animal diets (i.e., free and conjugated
flutriafol and defluorinated flutriafol), tolerances for grain sorghum,
corn (field, pop and sweet), cotton, peanut, and wheat commodities were
multiplied by a factor of 2.2.  Maximum reasonable dietary burdens for
livestock were calculated using median or HAFT residues in feed
commodities, as appropriate.  Anticipated residues in livestock
commodities were calculated based on the resulting maximum total residue
dietary burdens.  For purposes of risk assessment, secondary residues of
flutriafol in meat and milk were estimated using tissue:feed ratios from
the feeding studies, and then factors derived from the goat metabolism
study were used to account for all of the residues of concern in
livestock tissues.  In addition, potential residues in water were
included using the post-breakthrough average concentration in ground
water modeled with PRZM-GW (version 1.07, dated May 14, 2014) of 137 ppb
based on the pending use pattern on cotton (one at plant in-furrow
application at 0.26 lb ai/A and two foliar applications at 0.114 lb
ai/A).  The chronic dietary assessment was conducted for the overall US
population and select subpopulations (i.e., all infants <1 year old,
children aged 1-2 years old, children aged 3-5 years old, children aged
6-12 years old, youths aged 13-19 years old, adults aged 20-49 years
old, adults 50+ years old, and females aged 13-49 years old).  The
results of this Tier 1 chronic analysis indicate that the most highly
exposed population is children aged 1-2 years old, with an estimated
chronic exposure of 0.028747 mg/kg bw/day, which corresponds to 57.5% of
the cPAD.  For the overall US population, the chronic exposure is
calculated to be 0.009533 mg/kg bw/day, which corresponds to 19.1% of
the cPAD.

Non-dietary exposure.  Flutriafol is currently not registered for use on
any residential non-food site.  Therefore, residential exposure to
flutriafol residues will be through dietary exposure only.

D. Cumulative Effects

Flutriafol is a member of the triazole class of fungicides.  Other
members of this class are registered for use in the United States.
Although flutriafol and other triazoles may have similar fungicidal
modes of action, there are no available data to determine whether
flutriafol has a common mechanism of mammalian toxicity with other
triazoles or information on how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  Therefore, for the purposes of this
tolerance petition no assumption has been made with regard to cumulative
exposure with other compounds having a common mode of action.

E. Safety Determination

U.S. population.  Using the conservative exposure assumptions described
above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be
concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to flutriafol from
all registered, pending and proposed crop uses will be 1.05% of the aPAD
and 19.1% of the cPAD for the overall US population.  For females 13-49
years old, the population-specific aPAD is 0.075 mg/kg bw and estimated
acute dietary exposures accounted for 28.82% of the aPAD.  EPA generally
has no concern for exposures below 100% of the PAD because the PAD
represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposures will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Thus, it can be concluded
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to residues arising from the proposed tolerances that
are the subject of this petition and all approved and pending uses of
flutriafol.

Infants and children.  Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it
can be concluded that total food and drinking water exposure to
flutriafol from all proposed crop uses will be <2.44% of the aPAD and
<57.5% of the cPAD for infants and children.

In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and
children to residues of flutriafol, the data from developmental toxicity
studies in both the rat and rabbit and a reproduction study in rats have
been considered.

The developmental toxicity studies evaluate potential adverse effects on
the developing animal resulting from pesticide exposure to the mother
during prenatal development.  The reproduction study evaluates effects
from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating
animals through two generations, as well as any observed systemic
toxicity.

EPA has concluded that there is no increased quantitative sensitivity to
infants and children based on the developmental and reproductive studies
conducted with flutriafol.  Therefore, infants and children are
adequately protected and an additional uncertainty factor for infants
and children is not warranted.

F. International Tolerances

Codex Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) are established for residues of
flutriafol for the following commodities:  banana (0.3 ppm); coffee
beans (0.15 ppm); grapes (0.8 ppm); peanut (0.15 ppm); peanut fodder (20
ppm); peppers, sweet (including pimento or pimiento) (1 ppm); peppers
chili, dried (10 ppm); pome fruits (0.3 ppm); raisin (2 ppm); soya bean
(dry) (0.4 ppm); wheat (0.15 ppm); wheat bran, unprocessed (0.3 ppm);
and wheat straw and fodder, dry (8 ppm). Codex MRLs are under review for
grapes (0.8 ppm) and dried grapes (2 ppm). There are no established
tolerances for flutriafol on any crops in Canada and Mexico.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19270-19271]
[FR Doc No: E9-9613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-17984;
FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2007-27333]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

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

DATES: This decision is effective May 31, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before May 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7918;
FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14223;
FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333, using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 24 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 24 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl W. Adams                         Raymond G. Hayden                     Steven A. Proctor
Charles C. Chapman                    Robert E. Hendrick                    Frederick G. Robbins
Jeffrey W. Cotner                     Gene A. Lesher, Jr.                   Manuel H. Sanchez

Everett A. Doty                       Wallace F. Mahan, Sr.                 Jose C. Sanchez-Sanchez
John K. Fank                          Anthony R. Miles                      David M. Stout
Bobby G. Fletcher                     Kenneth L. Nau                        Kenneth E. Suter, Jr.
Heather M.B. Gordon                   David W. Peterson                     Thaddeus E. Temoney
Randolph D. Hall                      Randel G. Pierce                      Daniel R. Viscaya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 24 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 33404; 65 FR 57234; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 12265; 72 FR
27624; 65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 70 FR 14747; 65 FR 78256;
66 FR 16311; 72 FR 11426; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 62741; 71 FR
62147; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR 7812; 68 FR 10301;
68 FR 19596; 70 FR 16886; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR
2705; 72 FR 1056; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 71
FR 63379; 72 FR 1020; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831). Each of these 24
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 28, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 24 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on April 21, 2009.
Charles A. Horan,
Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-9613 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P