[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39318-39320]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-[2015-0343]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 68 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on April 16, 2016. The exemptions
expire on April 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 68 individuals and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 14197. The public comment period closed
on April 15, 2016, and 2 comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 68 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).

    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 68 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 51 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the March 16, 2016, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Crystal Ramos and
an anonymous commenter believe that the exemptions should be granted.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) 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 (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 68 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR
391.64(b)):

Korey D. Adams (MO)
Michael D. Alley (OR)
Jerry J. Altenburg (WI)
Juanita K. Anderson (MN)
Alan D. Bahlmann (IN)
William A. Ball, Jr. (WV)
John F. Beatrice (NH)
Benjamin J. Beitelspacher (SD)
Russell E. Bjerkness (MN)
Chase L. Blankenship (OK)
Samuel E. Bostic (WV)
Eric K. Caldwell (OH)
Michael J. Chevalier, Jr. (NJ)
James R. Cockerham (IN)
Darrell L. Coleman (TX)
Michael R. Conley (WI)
James D. Deardorff (WA)
Ivan R. Edsall (KS)
Steven W. Engel (CO)
Samuel M. Feaganes, Jr. (VA)
Jerry A. Fogel (WI)
William J. Garrett (SD)
Kevin E. Griebel (SD)
Martin R. Hair (CT)
Justin M. Herb (IN)
Terry D. Hescock (OR)
Brandon Heselton (IL)
Arrington Hughes (DC)
Brian K. Hyler (WI)
James A. Iozia (NJ)
Joshua D. Jaramillo (WA)
Jerry M. Kilpatrick (AL)
Rex O. King (IA)
Edward D. Krager (PA)
Kevin K. Leavey (NJ)
Michael P. Leggett (WV)
Thomas J. Liddy (NY)
Gregory S. Luce, Jr. (OH)
Renee N. Lycksell (WA)
Andrew Majkowicz (NJ)
Raymond L. Makings (KS)
Daniel J. Mandell (NC)
John D. McGinley, Jr. (CA)
Denise R. McKelvey (CT)
Gareth L. Miller (OH)
Victor Moore, Jr. (MO)
Jimmy C. Morcom (MI)
Peter J. Niedzwiecki (PA)
Kevin R. OToole (WI)
Robert J. Paitsel (WV)
Kameka D. Palmer (WI)
Neal M. Quinton, Jr. (MA)
Howard G. Rau (MD)
Andrew Reid (IN)
Brett M. Rice (PA)
Mark A. Rinehardt (NC)
Sholom Rub (NY)
Jeremy M. Samson (IA)
David J. Scimecca (NY)
Blane Tor (NJ)
Samuel C. Tracy (WA)
Allen B. Treadwell (AL)
Terry L. Underwood, Jr. (VA)
Aaron M. Vanlanduit (MO)
Paul R. Whitehead (NM)
Grady E. Wilkins (MD)
Joseph A. Wilson, Sr. (MA)
Michael A. Zuke, Sr. (NY)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (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. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: June 10, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14240 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		9/17/2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Michael Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	8/26/14 Meeting with Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator and the Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources on August 26, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.               ATTENDEES

Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator Molly Ward, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22435-22437]
[DOCID:fr13my09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0240; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-015-AD;
Amendment 39-15899; AD 2009-10-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model
DA 40 and DA 40 F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above to supersede an existing AD. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 17, 2009.
    On June 17, 2009, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated
November 17, 2008, listed in this AD.
    As of September 25, 2007 (72 FR 46549, August 21, 2007), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007, listed
in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2009 (74
FR 11505), and proposed to supersede AD

2007-17-06, Amendment 39-15164 (72 FR 46549, August 21, 2007). That
NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of ACG AD A-2005-005, which is superseded, and excludes
aircraft from the applicability that have the improved NLG leg
installed.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 678 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be $54,240 or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $740, for a cost of
$1,140 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 removing Amendment 39-15164 (72 FR
46549, August 21, 2007), and adding the following new AD:

2009-10-04 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-15899;
Docket No. FAA-2009-0240; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-015-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 17,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-17-06, Amendment 39-15164.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplanes that:
    (1) are certificated in any category; and
    (2) are not equipped with a nose landing gear (NLG) leg part
number (P/N) D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model                          Serial Nos. (S/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA 40.............................  All S/Ns beginning with 40.006.
DA 40F............................  All S/Ns beginning with 40.F001.
                                    All S/Ns beginning with 40.FC001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of ACG AD A-2005-005, which is superseded, and excludes
aircraft from the applicability that have the improved NLG leg
installed.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Inspect the nose landing gear (NLG) leg for cracks within
the next 12 months after September 25, 2007 (the effective date
retained from AD 2007-17-06), or within the next 200 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after September 25, 2007 (the effective date retained
from AD 2007-17-06), whichever occurs later. Do the inspection
following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007, or
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008.
    (2) If any cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of the AD or during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) or (f)(3) of this AD, replace the NLG leg
before further flight. Do the replacement following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No.
MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007; or Diamond Aircraft Industries
GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3,
dated November 17, 2008.
    (i) Replacing a NLG leg with a part number (P/N) D41-3223-10-
00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) terminates the repetitive
inspections required in this AD.
    (ii) Replacing a NLG leg with a P/N D41-3223-10-00 requires
repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD
until a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) is
installed.
    (3) If no cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or a cracked NLG leg is replaced with a
P/N D41-3223-10-00 NLG leg, repetitively inspect thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12 months or 200 hours TIS, whichever occurs
later, until a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) is
installed. Do these repetitive inspections following Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3,
No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008.
    (i) If a repetitive inspection occurs before June 17, 2009 (the
effective date of this AD), then you may use Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No.
MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007.
    (ii) All inspections that occur after June 17, 2009 (the
effective date of this AD), must be done following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No.
MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008.
    (4) After installing a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --
3, etc.) as a replacement part, installing a NLG leg P/N D41-3223-
10-00 is no longer allowed.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2009-0016, dated January 22, 2009; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated
April 25, 2007; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November
17, 2008, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25,
2007; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008,
to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated
November 17, 2008, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) On September 25, 2007 (72 FR 46549, August 21, 2007), the
Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated
April 25, 2007.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Strabe 5, A-2700 Wiener
Neustadt; fax: 43-2622-26620; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 1, 2009.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-10652 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64936]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20305]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98386; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change Related to Notification and Disclosure of Reverse
Stock Splits

September 14, 2023.
    On July 21, 2023, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change related to
notification and disclosure of reverse stock splits. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 3,
2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98014 (July 28,
2023), 88 FR 51376. Comment received by the Commission on the
proposed rule change is available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2023-025/srnasdaq2023025.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is September 17, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates November 1, 2023, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NASDAQ-2023-025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20305 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16288-16290]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66592; File No. SR-BX-2012-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate
the 100MB Connectivity Option and Fee

March 14, 2012.
    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 March 6, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been 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 eliminate 100MB connectivity between the
Exchange and co-located servers, as well as associated fees, as set
forth in Exchange Rule 7034(b). The Exchange will implement the
proposed change on April 1, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the
Exchange's principal office, 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 Exchange 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 these

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 aspects 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 7034(b) to eliminate 100MB
connectivity between the Exchange and co-located servers, as well as
associated fees.\3\ The Exchange currently offers each co-located
customer one 100MB connection to the Exchange at no charge; additional
connections are available for a $50 one-time installation fee and a
monthly fee of $100.\4\ Due to the continuous growth of the size of
consolidated and proprietary market data feeds, use of 100MB
connectivity to the Exchange may result in high data transmission
latencies, a loss of data packets, and a reduction in client service
satisfaction. As a result, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the 100MB
connection option to the Exchange. The proposal to eliminate the 100MB
connection option will eliminate potential latencies and loss of data
that could occur with lower bandwidths, issues that are potentially
damaging to investors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All co-location services are provided by NASDAQ Technology
Services LLC and pursuant to agreements with the owner/operator of
its data center.
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 7034(b), Connectivity to Nasdaq.
    \5\ The 100MB option that is being eliminated--which is used to
connect co-located servers to the Exchange--should be contrasted
with a recently introduced option for customers to establish 100MB
connections between their co-located servers and select external
locations. These external connections are generally combined with
other bandwidth options and are not utilized to transmit the same
volume of data as the 100MB connection between co-located services
and the Exchange. For this reason, the Exchange believes that the
same latency and data loss considerations that are prompting it to
eliminate the 100MB connection to the Exchange do not apply to the
100MB connection to external locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are three co-located customers that utilize 100MB
connectivity to the Exchange. All three customers also have larger
bandwidth connections to the Exchange. While these customers will need
to assess the adequacy of their bandwidth and may need to make
adjustments, the Exchange strongly believes that these changes will be
beneficial to these customers because they will decrease the risk of
latency and data loss. In addition, as the number of customers making
use of 100MB connectivity to the Exchange dwindles, maintaining the
option would require the Exchange to impose associated fixed costs on a
smaller customer base, or upon customers that are not themselves using
this legacy connectivity option. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable and equitable to avoid this result by eliminating the option
and helping customers migrate to more suitable connections.
    To provide all affected customers sufficient time to [sic] from
their 100MB connections to larger bandwidths, the Exchange has proposed
(in a separate filing) to waive installation fees for 10Gb and 40Gb
connectivity until May 31, 2012.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-BX-2012-012 (submitted March 2, 2012). The Exchange
is not proposing to waive fees for migrating to 1GB connectivity,
since the Exchange is concerned that this bandwidth level will prove
inadequate for most members in the near future. Accordingly, rather
than creating a scenario in which customers face repeated concerns
about the adequacy of their bandwidth, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable to use the fee waiver to encourage customers to move
to connectivity options that are likely to be adequate for a more
extended period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the word ``additional''
from the fee schedule in several instances to reflect the elimination
of the 100MB connection that was previously offered at no charge.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act \7\ in general, and with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it
is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removes Impediments and Perfects Mechanism of a Free and Open Market

    The Exchange's proposal is designed to eliminate data transmission
latencies and loss of data risks that are associated with 100MB
connectivity, and thereby provide a more efficient mechanism for
trading. Since the migration to a higher bandwidth option will reduce
the potential disruption and consequently provide greater efficiency of
trading in the marketplace, the effects of this proposal will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, which in turn will protect investors and the
public interest.

Not Unfairly Discriminatory

    The proposal to eliminate the 100MB connectivity option applies to
all Exchange members that have voluntarily elected this service option.
Currently, there are three co-located customers that utilize 100MB
connectivity to the Exchange. All three clients also have larger
bandwidth connections to the Exchange. While these customers will need
to assess the adequacy of their bandwidth and may need to make
adjustments, the Exchange strongly believes that these changes will be
beneficial to these customers because they will decrease the risk of
latency and data loss. In addition, as the number of customers making
use of 100MB connectivity to the Exchange dwindles, maintaining the
option would require the Exchange to impose associated fixed costs on a
smaller customer base, or upon customers that are not themselves using
this legacy connectivity option.
    To assist co-located customers with migration to larger bandwidths,
the Exchange has proposed (in a separate filing) to waive installation
fees for 10Gb and 40Gb connectivity until May 31, 2012.\9\ Given the
ever-increasing size of market data, the Exchange decided to apply the
waiver of installation fees only to the 10Gb and 40Gb connection
instead of offering the waiver for the next available bandwidth, the
1Gb connection. This will provide the clients the opportunity to
migrate to a bandwidth that will more efficiently sustain the client's
business needs over a longer period of time. The co-located customers
that currently have the 100MB connectivity to the Exchange have until
March 31, 2012 to migrate from the 100MB connection to a larger
bandwidth. Furthermore, eliminating the 100MB connectivity to the
Exchange is consistent with the connections offered by other
exchanges,\10\ and the Exchange does not believe that it would be
unfairly discriminatory to eliminate a connectivity option that is not
routinely offered by other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, supra note 6.
    \10\ See http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/NYSEArca_Equities_Fees.pdf,
page 13, for NYSE Equities, Inc. Fee Schedule where the bandwidth
starts at 1Gb. See also http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf, page 9, for the
International Securities Exchange Fee Schedule where the bandwidth
also starts at 1Gb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that eliminating the 100MB connectivity service
option will not burden competition since the 100MB connectivity option
is not routinely offered by other exchanges. In fact, requiring the
Exchange to continue to offer this option would unfairly burden
competition by requiring it to incur costs that are not typically
incurred by any of its competitors.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-
operative waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\13\ The
Exchange represents that investors and the public interest are best
served by waiving the pre-operative delay to minimize potential risks
of market disruption associated with the use of lower bandwidth at a
time of increasing data traffic. For these reasons, the Commission
believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay, and hereby grants
such waiver.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2012-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2012-018. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-BX-2012-018 and should be
submitted on or before April 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6617 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: Richard Gebken,<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:

OAT AGRIO., LTD

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from OAT AGRIO CO., LTD. 1-3-1 Kanda Ogawa-machi, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101-0052, Japan c/o Landis International, Inc, PO Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126 requesting, 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

(Options (pick one)

   	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	Cyflumetofen (2-methoxyethyl α-cyano-α-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-β-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate) for the import commodity coffee at 0.08 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

	1. Plant metabolism. Metabolism studies on fruit crops (mandarin, apple, and eggplant) were conducted with a single foliar application of [14]C-cyflumetofen, either labeled on the butylphenyl ring (label A) or the benzoyl ring (label B) at a rate of 600 g ai/ha (~1.5x the maximum seasonal label application rate of 0.54 lbs ai/acre). In all three plant metabolism studies, the major part of the total radioactive residue (TRR) remained on the surface of fruits and leaves (56% to 97% TRR) and was easily removed by solvent rinses.  The parent cyflumetofen was identified as the major component, accounting for 67% to 87% TRR on fruit and leaves 7 days after application, and 44% to 81% TRR after 30 days.  Degradation compounds were recovered at a level lower than 10% TRR, except for the metabolite B-1 (2-trifluoromethylbenzoic acid) resulting from the cleavage of the parent molecule and representing up to 11% TRR in mandarin (0.06 ppm) and 15% TRR in eggplant (0.06 ppm).  In addition, B-1 conjugates (metabolites U1 and U2) were detected up to 16% TRR in eggplant fruit at a PHI of 14 days.  In all three plant metabolism studies, the metabolic profile and pathways were comparable. Consequently, sufficient data are available to extrapolate the nature of the residue in other crops.

	2. Analytical method. In Study No. EAS S17-04257, cyflumetofen in the samples of green coffee bean and roasted coffee bean were extracted with acetonitrile on a shaker. After centrifugation, the extract was diluted with water, filtered and analyzed by Liquid Chromatography coupled with Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in a positive ionization mode.  Metabolite B-1 in the samples of green coffee bean and roasted coffee bean were extracted with H2O: acetonitrile (7:3, v:v), followed by acetonitrile on a shaker. After centrifugation, the extract was diluted with water, filtered and analyzed by LC-MS/MS in a negative ionization mode.  Cyflumetofen and B-1 in the samples of instant coffee were extracted with 0.02% formic acid in acetonitrile on a shaker. After centrifugation, the extract was diluted with water, filtered and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. The method performance was verified before and during sample analysis by determining the recoveries from control samples fortified with cyflumetofen/B-1 at 0.01/0.01 ppm (Limit of Quantitation, LOQ) and 0.1/0.1ppm (10x LOQ) for green coffee bean, roasted coffee bean and instant coffee. The LOD (Limit of Detection) for cyflumetofen and B-1 was calculated as 0.0029 ppm and 0.0017 ppm for green coffee bean, 0.0025 ppm and 0.0017 ppm for roasted coffee bean, and 0.0019 ppm and 0.0011 ppm for instant coffee.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Cyflumetofen 20% suspension concentrate (Okay(TM) 200 g/L) was applied to coffee to determine residue levels in five field trials conducted in several distinct geographic areas of Brazil (Nepomuceno, MG; Laranjal Paulista, SP; Sooretama, ES; Espirito Santo Pinhal, SP; Abatiá, PR) in which coffee is grown commercially (Study No. EAS S17-04257). An application rate equivalent to 0.18 lbs ai/A was applied to the test crops twice with a 14-day retreatment interval. Samples of coffee berries were collected from trial plots at maturity, 14 days after the last test substance application (DALA). At one decline trial, samples were also collected at 0, 7, and 21 DALA. Coffee berry samples were harvested by hand from the plot, field dried for 19-46 days, and then peels were mechanically removed to obtain the green coffee beans. After removing the peel to obtain the green coffee beans, samples were collected, bagged and frozen on the same day. All samples were placed directly into separate, pre-labeled, sample containers.  One trial for generation of processed commodity matrices included an additional plot treated with Okay 200 g/L at a 5X exaggerated rate. At that trial, a bulk sample of green coffee berries was collected, peeled to obtain the green coffee beans, frozen and transferred to a processor. The green bean samples were stored frozen for 16-29 days and used to produce roasted coffee beans and instant coffee.

Cyflumetofen average residues in green coffee bean samples collected at 14 DALA were 0.026 (decline trial), 0.031, <LOQ (<0.01), 0.045 and 0.019 ppm.   Average residues of metabolite B-1 in samples collected at 14 DALA were 0.017 (decline trial), 0.022, 0.035, <LOQ (0.01) and 0.014 ppm.  Average residues of cyflumetofen in samples collected at 0, 7 and 21 DALA were 0.065, 0.048 and 0.016 ppm (with outlier of 0.0635 ppm excluded), respectively.  Average residues of metabolite B-1 in samples collected at 0, 7 and 21 DALA were 0.08, 0.023 and 0.011, respectively.  Average residues of cyflumetofen and metabolite B-1 were found at 0.247 and 0.102 ppm, respectively, in the RAC green coffee beans from the 5X treated plot from which the processed fractions were generated. No residues of cyflumetofen were detected in either the roasted beans or instant coffee processed fractions. However, average residues of metabolite B-1 were detected in roasted beans at 0.127 ppm and in instant coffee at 0.0457 ppm. Therefore, there is no concentration (concentration factor <0.04) of cyflumetofen residues observed in roasted coffee beans or instant coffee. No concentration of metabolite B-1 residues was observed for instant coffee (concentration factor <0.5), but a slight concentration of residues was observed in the roasted coffee beans (concentration factor of 1.2).  The Brazilian label provides directions to apply approximately 0.18 lb ai/A twice with a 14-day retreatment interval and a 14-day pre-harvest interval.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Cyflumetofen has favorable acute toxicity. Study results place technical cyflumetofen in toxicity category III for acute oral and in toxicity category IV for both acute dermal and acute inhalation toxicity. Cyflumetofen was determined to be a dermal sensitizer. Cyflumetofen was not acutely neurotoxic.

	2. Genotoxicity. The mutagenic potential of cyflumetofen, its metabolites, and an impurity was tested in in vitro and in vivo studies. There was no concern for mutagenicity for the parent, the metabolites or the impurity.  Cyflumetofen was negative for inducing mutations in an in vitro mutation (Ames) test and did not induce chromosome aberrations in Chinese hamster lung cells in studies that were conducted with and without metabolic activation. Cyflumetofen was shown to be genotoxic at precipitating and/or cytotoxic concentrations in an in vitro mouse lymphoma test (using L5178Y cells) both with and without metabolic activation. However, cyflumetofen was not genotoxic in an in vivo DNA-repair assay and no evidence of clastogenicity was observed in an in vivo micronucleus test. Overall, the weight of the evidence demonstrates that cyflumetofen is not genotoxic.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In the developmental toxicity study in rats, an increased incidence of wavy ribs was noted at the high dose (1000 mg/kg/day), while an increased incidence of incompletely ossified sternal centra was observed at the mid- and high-dose levels. These incidences occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, delays in skeletal ossification were observed at the mid- and high-doses where the maternal toxicity was observed. The only adverse external alteration observed was a downward flexion of the forepaws (2 fetuses from one litter) or hind paws (1 fetus from one litter) in the high-dose (1000 mg/kg/day) group with observed maternal toxicity. The incidences were slightly above historical controls and were considered a treatment-related adverse effect. There were no treatment related adverse effects observed in maternal animals at the highest dose tested.
In the rat reproduction study, adrenal effects (increased weight and histopathology) were observed in the parental and offspring animals at the mid- and high-doses. Serum hormone concentrations were measured in the F1 parental rats. The FSH, progesterone, and 17 β-estradiol levels in the mid- and high-dose female groups were significantly lower than the corresponding values in the control groups. No hormonal effect was observed in the F1 male rats at any dose level. Overall reproductive performance showed that there were no corresponding changes in reproductive performance at any dose level.
There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the rat 2-generation reproduction study; however, the rat and rabbit developmental studies indicate susceptibility in the pups.  There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the rabbit developmental toxicity study, since developmental effects (changes in ossicification, paw flexion, and decreased fetal body weights) at the limit dose were observed where no maternal toxicity was present.  There is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental toxicity study as developmental effects (increased incidence of incompletely ossified sternal centra) were seen at the same dose that caused an increase in adrenal weights and organ-to-body weight ratio in the maternal animals.  Notwithstanding, the degree of concern for these effects in infants and children is low because the rat and rabbit developmental effects have clearly defined NOAEL/LOAELs and the dose selected for chronic risk assessment is protective of these effects. Therefore, the PODs based on adrenal effects in rat are health protective of all life stages.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a rat 28-day feeding study, the NOAEL was determined to be 500 ppm (37.6/40.8 mg/kg/day in males/females). The LOAEL was 1000 ppm (75.1/79.8 mg/kg/day in males/females) based on increased adrenal weight and histopathology. Adverse findings in the adrenal gland were observed across species in rats, mice and dogs in subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies. This consisted of increased organ weight and vacuolation and hypertrophy of adrenal cortical cells. At high doses a vacuolation of the interstitial cells of the ovary was also observed in rats.
A 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats is available; however, no adverse effects were seen at the highest dose tested of 1000 mg/kg/day, including the endpoints of concern (adrenal effects).  Although developmental/reproductive effects (not assessed in the dermal study) were observed in the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, the effects occurred at dermal equivalent doses above the limit dose or in the presence of parental toxicity.  Therefore, since no effects were observed in adults at the limit dose, no developmental or reproductive effects would be expected to occur due to parental dermal exposure.

 A route-specific subchronic inhalation toxicity study is not available for cyflumetofen. However, the Agency has determined that the requirement for this study is not needed at this time.  For short-and intermediate-term inhalation risk assessments, an oral NOAEL was selected from three studies as described in the chronic dietary section below.  These studies are appropriate for the duration since there is no progression of toxicity over time. The point of departure of 16.5 mg/kg/day (NOAEL) was selected from the 90-day and the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity rat studies, which have similar NOAELs and LOAELs. The LOAEL of 30.6 mg/kg/day was selected from the 2-generation reproduction study.  Since an oral study was selected, absorption via inhalation is presumed to be equivalent to oral absorption.   There is no proposed long-term use; therefore, risk assessment for long-term inhalation exposure is not required. Cyflumetofen was determined to be not neurotoxic in a subchronic neurotoxicity study.

A 100X uncertainty factor is applied (interspecies factor of 10X and intraspecies factor of 10X) for chronic dietary risk assessments.  For inhalation risk assessment, the level of concern (LOC) is a margin of exposure (MOE) of 100, based on the combined interspecies (10X) and intraspecies (10X) uncertainty factors. Cyflumetofen was determined to be non-immunotoxic.

	5. Chronic toxicity. In a rat chronic toxicity study, the NOAEL was determined to be 500 ppm (16.5/20.3 mg/kg/day in males/females). With a LOAEL of 1500 ppm (49.5/61.9 mg/kg/day in males/females) which was based on increased adrenal weights, hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the adrenal cortex in both sexes, and luminal dilatation of the gland in the uterine horn in females.

In a supplemental rat chronic toxicity study, the LOAEL was 6000 ppm (250/319
mg/kg bw/day in males/females) based on increased adrenal weights accompanied by gross pathology and histopathology lesions noted in both sexes, vacuolation of the interstitial gland cell of the ovary and hyperplasia of the interstitial cell of the testes. Only one dose was tested.

In a dog chronic toxicity study, the NOAEL was determined to be 30 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL was 300 mg/kg/day, based on vacuolation and histopathology findings in the adrenals.

For the chronic dietary, three studies were selected as co-critical studies for endpoint selection. These studies are appropriate for the duration and populations of concern since there is no progression of toxicity over time. The NOAEL and LOAEL selected were based on the weight of evidence from the three studies which had similar target organ toxicities. The point of departure of 16.5 mg/kg/day (NOAEL) was selected from the 90-day and the chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity rat studies, which have similar NOAELs and LOAELs based on effects on the adrenals.  In the 2-generation reproduction study, a lower NOAEL of 9.2 mg/kg/day was identified with a LOAEL of 30.6 mg/kg/day based on effects on the adrenals; however, this NOAEL of 9.2 mg/kg/day was not selected as the POD for risk assessment since it is considered to be a function of calculated compound intake (based on food consumption) rather than a lower NOAEL/LOAEL per se.  The POD of 16.5 mg/kg/day selected is still protective of similar effects seen at 30.6 mg/kg/day in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study, the 28-day rat study at LOAEL of 75 mg/kg/day, the chronic mouse study at LOAEL of 537/483 mg/kg/day (M/F), and the chronic dog study at LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day.

In accordance with the EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March, 2005), the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) classified cyflumetofen as "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential". This classification is based on the presence of a single tumor type (thyroid c-cell) in one sex (male) and one species (rat), and the lack of concern for mutagenicity. When there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, the Agency does not attempt a dose-response assessment as the nature of the data generally would not support one. Therefore, the Agency has determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e. the chronic reference dose) will adequately protect for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to cyflumetofen.

	6. Animal metabolism. There were a series of metabolism studies conducted for cyflumetofen. [14]C-cyflumetofen was rapidly absorbed following administration of the low dose, with plasma levels of radioactivity peaking at 1 hour post-dosing.  Absorption was slightly slower following administration of the high dose, with peak plasma levels attained at 2-4 hours post-dosing indicating saturation of absorption.  At the high dose, females demonstrated higher Cmax and area under the curve (AUC) values than males.
At 72 hours post-dosing, the gastrointestinal tract, carcass, liver and kidney contained the highest proportions of radioactivity.  Most of the radioactivity excreted in urine from low dose rats (90-96%) was eliminated within 24 hours after dosing, whereas at the high dose, excretion was slower with only 74-88% eliminated within 24 hours of dosing.  At both low and high doses, 60-89% of the radioactivity excreted in feces was eliminated within 24 hours of dosing.

The unchanged parent was not detected in the urine of any test group. Metabolite AB-3 was identified as a major metabolite in the urine of female rats but was a minor urinary metabolite in males. Metabolite AB-2 was a minor metabolite in urine of all test groups except females from the low dose group, in which residues for this metabolite reached 4% of the administered dose.

The major metabolites detected in the bile from all test groups were the glucuronic acid conjugates of metabolites AB-1 and AB-3.  Metabolite AB-2 was also detected at lower levels in the bile from all test groups.  Unique metabolites identified in the bile of rats administered the A-ring or B-ring label included the glucuronic acid conjugate of A-6 and the glutathione conjugate of B-1, respectively.

[14]C-cyflumetofen was metabolized in the rat primarily by hydrolytic cleavage of the trifluoromethylbenzoyl moiety resulting in metabolite B-1 (trifluoromethylbenzoic acid) and A-18.   Another minor pathway included successive hydroxylation of the tert-butyl side chain.

The metabolism of cyflumetofen was investigated in lactating goats following repeated oral administration of [14]C-cyflumetofen, labeled either in the benzoyl ring (benzoyl label) or in the tert-butylphenyl ring (butylphenyl label).  Cyflumetofen was administered by gavage (two animals per label) for twelve (benzoyl label) or ten (butylphenyl Label) consecutive days at a nominal dose of 12 ppm feed (~171x the maximum reasonably balanced diet (MRBD)). There are no poultry feedstuffs associated with the proposed uses. Therefore, a poultry metabolism study is not required and was not submitted.

Cyflumetofen and its metabolites were rapidly excreted by lactating goats, mainly via feces and urine.  For both labels, only low portions of the administered dose were retained in edible tissues and organs.  In edible tissues, parent cyflumetofen was only identified in fat of the benzoyl label treated samples.  Metabolite B-1 was identified in all matrices of the benzoyl label as the sole benzoyl label-specific metabolite.  The major metabolic pathway of cyflumetofen in lactating goats comprises hydrolytic cleavage of the trifluoromethylbenzoyl moiety resulting in metabolite B-1.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Toxicity studies were conducted with metabolites B-1 and B-3. The acute oral LD50 for B-1 was >2000 mg/kg. B-1 was negative for inducing mutations in an in vitro mutation (Ames) test and did not induce chromosome aberrations in human lymphocytes in studies that were conducted with and without metabolic activation. B-1 is not genotoxic.

B-3 was negative for mutagenicity in most strains tested in an in vitro (Ames) assay but was positive with Salmonella typhimurium strain T A 100 both with and without metabolic activation.

No effects were observed when B-3 was tested in an in vitro chromosome aberration assay with human lymphocytes. B-3 was positive in an in vitro mouse lymphoma test (L5178Y cells) without activation but was negative with metabolic activation. There were no effects observed in an in vivo rat liver UDS test with B-3.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Cyflumetofen does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system. There is no evidence that cyflumetofen has any effect on endocrine function in developmental, reproduction or developmental neurotoxicity studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine system is targeted by cyflumetofen.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to acute and chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and sub-populations to residues of cyflumetofen in food and drinking water. The dietary exposure assessment for cyflumetofen was conducted using tolerance level residues, 100% crop treated factors, and processing factors from EPA guideline studies. The crops and residue values used in the assessment were: tomato= 0.4 ppm, pome fruit crop group 11-10 = 0.3 ppm, grapes = 0.6 ppm, strawberry = 0.6 ppm, citrus fruit crop group 10-10 = 0.3 ppm, citrus oil= 16 ppm, tree nuts crop group 14 = 0.01 ppm, tea = 40 ppm, and coffee = 0.08 ppm. The chronic dietary endpoint is based on a NOAEL of 16.5 mg/kg bw/day with a safety factor of 100 which resulted in a cPAD = 0.17 mg/kg bw/day.

	i. Food.
Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment
No acute dietary exposure and risk analysis was performed since there were no appropriate studies identified in the toxicology database that demonstrated evidence of toxicity attributable to a single dose.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment
The chronic dietary exposure is shown in the table below. The exposure includes all food commodities. The dietary food only exposure used less than 5.0 % of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population (Children 1-2).

Table 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Considering All Current and Proposed Tolerances for Cyflumetofen. The assessment includes food only.
Population Subgroups
Exposure Estimate
%cPAD
U.S. Population
0.001682
1.0
All Infants
0.002831
1.7
Children 1-2 years
0.007234
4.3
Children 3-5 years
0.004962
2.9
Children 6-12 years
0.002228
1.3
Youth 13-19 years
0.001232
0.7
Adults 20-49 years
0.001200
0.7
Adults 50+ years
0.001317
0.8
Females 13-49 years
0.001237
0.7
%cPAD =percent of chronic population adjusted dose.

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values, 100% CT for all crops/commodities and experimentally determined default processing factors. The results indicate that the exposures for cyflumetofen are well below the EPA level of concern.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)
The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of cyflumetofen from food and water. The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 2. Summary of the Chronic Aggregate Exposure for Cyflumetofen. The assessment includes food and water.
Population Subgroups
Exposure Estimate
%cPAD
U.S. Population
0.001689
1.0
All Infants
0.002856
1.7
Children 1-2 years
0.007243
4.3
Children 3-5 years
0.004969
2.9
Children 6-12 years
0.002234
1.3
Youth 13-19 years
0.001237
0.7
Adults 20-49 years
0.001206
0.7
Adults 50+ years
0.001323
0.8
Females 13-49 years
0.001243
0.7

	ii. Drinking water. Since this is an import tolerance petition, no impact to the drinking water is expected from the use of cyflumetofen on coffee.  The existing water residue profile will not change; therefore, the previous dietary contribution for water from all direct and indirect sources was 0.00033 ppm.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Since this is an import tolerance petition, non-dietary exposure is not expected from the use of cyflumetofen on coffee.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to cyflumetofen and any other substances and cyflumetofen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of cyflumetofen from food and water. The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on the proposed new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

	2. Infants and children. Based on this risk assessment, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from the aggregate exposure to cyflumetofen.

F. International Tolerances

	Cyflumetofen is currently registered in the US for use on citrus, pome fruit, grapes, strawberries, tomatoes, tree nuts and ornamentals.  Compliance with the tolerance levels for cyflumetofen is to be determined by measuring only cyflumetofen, 2-methoxyethyl α-cyano-α-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-β-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzenepropanoate, in or on the commodity. Per 40 CFR §180.677 cyflumetofen has the following tolerances for residues:

Commodity					Parts per million
Almond, hulls					4.0
Citrus, oil					16
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10			0.30
Fruit, pome, group 11-10			0.30
Grape						0.60
Nut, tree, group 14-12				0.01
Strawberry					0.60
Tomato					0.40

In addition, cyflumetofen has the following CODEX MRLs:

Commodity					MRL (mg/Kg)
Almond hulls					4.0
Citrus fruits					0.3
Citrus oil, edible				36
Dried grapes (currants, raisins, sultanas)	1.5
Edible offal (mammalian)			0.02
Grapes						0.6
Mammalian fats (except milk fats)		0.01
Meat (non-marine)				0.01
Milks						0.01
Pome fruit					0.4
Strawberry					0.6
Tomato					0.3
Tree nuts					0.01


[Federal Register: August 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 51816-51817]
[DOCID:fr31au06-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0051; FRL-8215-9]

Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools; State Request for
Waiver From Requirements; Reopening of Comment Period; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed approval and request for comments; reopening
of comment period and correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the comment period for a proposed approval
and request for comments published June 1, 2006, (71 FR 31183) where
EPA proposed to waive the requirements of the Federal asbestos-in-
schools program for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In the June 1, 2006,
document the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) docket number was
incorrectly referenced. This document corrects the docket number and
provides the opportunity to comment and/or request a public hearing.

DATES: Written comments under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0051
must be received by October 30, 2006. Each comment must include the
name and address of the submitter. Any request for a public hearing
must be in writing, be received on or before October 30, 2006, and
detail specific objections to the grant of the waiver. If, during the
comment period, EPA receives such a request for a public hearing, EPA
will schedule a public hearing in Kentucky following the comment
period. EPA will announce the date of the public hearing in the Federal
Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0051, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Docked ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0051, Asbestos
Coordinator, Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: John Hund, Asbestos Coordinator,
Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0051. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' systems,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the Asbestos Coordinator, Region 4, Environmental
Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: John Hund, Asbestos Coordinator,
Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; telephone number: (404)
562-8978; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is reopening the comment period and
making a correction to the document published on June 1, 2006, (71 FR
31183) proposing to waive the requirements of the Federal asbestos-in-
schools program for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The FDMS docket
number ``EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0096'' in the June 1, 2006, document was
incorrect. The FDMS docket number in the heading, DATES and ADDRESSES
(twice) section in the third column on page 31183, the first full
paragraph in the first column of page 31184 and the last paragraph
before the signature block in the second column on page 31186 of the

document should read as follows: ``EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0051.''

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

    Dated: August 22, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 06-7324 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41747-41749]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0176; FRL-8448-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; EPA ICR No. 1591.24, OMB Control No. 2060-0277

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to

submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on October 31, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0176 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR -2007-0176, Mail Code:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0176. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online
at: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose Solar, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency,
12000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number
(202) 343-9027; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0176, which is available for online viewing at:
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and

Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft

collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; evaluate
the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
    (ii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iii) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider when 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 and provide specific
examples.
    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. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    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.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Apply to?

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
Refiners, Oxygenate Blenders, and Importers of Gasoline; Requirements
for Parties in the Gasoline Distribution Network.
    Title: Reformulated Gasoline and Conventional Gasoline:
Requirements for Refiners, Oxygenate Blenders, and Importers of
Gasoline; Requirements for Parties in the Gasoline Distribution
Network.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1591.24, OMB Control No. 2060-0277.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on 10-31-07.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by

publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Gasoline combustion is the major source of air pollution
in most urban areas. In the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act),
section 211(k), Congress required that gasoline dispensed in nine areas
with severe air quality problems, and areas that opt-in, be
reformulated to reduce toxic and ozone-forming emissions. (Ozone is
also known as smog.) Congress also required that, in the process of
producing reformulated gasoline (RFG), dirty components removed in the
reformulation process not be ``dumped'' into the remainder of the
country's gasoline, known as conventional gasoline (CG). The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations at 40 CFR
80, Subpart D--Reformulated Gasoline, Subpart E--Anti-Dumping, and
Subpart F--Attest Engagements, implementing the statutory requirements,
which include standards for RFG (80.41) and CG (80.101). The
regulations also contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
the production, importation, transport and storage of gasoline, in
order to demonstrate compliance and facilitate compliance and
enforcement. The program is run by the Compliance and Innovative
Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office
of Air and Radiation. Enforcement is done by the Air Enforcement
Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. This program excludes California, which has
separate requirements for gasoline.
    The United States has an annual gasoline consumption of about 130
billion gallons. About 30% is RFG. In 2005 EPA received reports from
258 refineries, 58 importer facilities/facility groups, 44 oxygenate
blending facilities, 19 independent laboratory facilities, and the RFG
Survey Association, Inc. under this program.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1
hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents: 1,190.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly, Annually, on Occasion.
    Estimated Total Average Number of Responses for Each Respondent:
100 to 130.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 96,625.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $29,745,357. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $24,786,000 and an estimated cost of $4,800,00
for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval?

    There is an increase due to update in labor costs.

What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 26, 2007.
Margo T. Oge,
Office Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
 [FR Doc. E7-14725 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P