[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17480-17483]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0719; Product Identifier 2019-NM-137-AD; Amendment
39-19876; AD 2020-05-26]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain

The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of failure of a wing strut leak test due to a missing bolt on
the firewall. This AD requires a one-time leak test of the strut upper
spar areas for the left and right wing struts, and corrective action if
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0719; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is 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: Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing
Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 1, 2019 (84 FR 58636). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of failure of a wing strut leak test due to a missing bolt on
the firewall. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time leak test of the
strut upper spar areas for the left and right wing struts, and
corrective action if necessary.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address a hole in the firewall, which
could allow flammable fluid to leak from the strut compartment to the
engine compartment when the drainage provision is overwhelmed.
Flammable fluid leakage into the engine compartment could result in an
uncontrollable engine fire and consequent structural failure of the
wing.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Two commenters, Patrick Imperatrice and Seth Stewart, indicated
support for the NPRM.

Request To Change the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asked that the current language for the unsafe condition
specified in the proposed AD, which states, in part, ``. . . which
could allow flammable fluid leakage in the strut area. This leakage
could overwhelm the drainage provision, enter the engine compartment .
. .'' be changed to ``. . . which could allow flammable fluid to leak
from the strut compartment to the engine core compartment . . . .''
Boeing stated that the hole in the firewall due to a missing bolt does
not affect the drain provision from the strut system tubing shroud.
Boeing added that a missing bolt does create an unintended drain path
from the strut flammable fluid compartment to the engine core
compartment fire zone.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reason
provided. The FAA has revised the Discussion section and paragraph (e)
of this AD to include the suggested language.

Request To Clarify Certain Language

    Boeing asked that the language specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the
proposed AD, be changed from ``strut upper spar (strut areas . . .)''
to ``systems tubing shroud (area . . .).'' Boeing stated that the water
must be applied in the systems tubing shroud, not to the strut upper
spar. Boeing added that the strut upper spar between the forward and
mid-vapor barriers is a dry bay, but the systems tubing shroud is a
flammable leakage zone.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request to clarify the language
to be consistent with Boeing's terminology. This procedure is also
provided in the Boeing 787 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), specified
as additional guidance in this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (g)(2)
of this AD as suggested by the commenter.

Request To Remove Leak Test Requirement

    Boeing asked that the FAA remove the leak test required by
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and either require or include an
option for a visual inspection for proper installation of the bolt on
the firewall, as specified in planned Boeing Service Bulletin 787-
54A0021-I001. Boeing stated that paragraph (e) of the proposed AD
specified that the unsafe condition was caused by a missing bolt that
plugs a penetration on the strut firewall. Boeing added that a visual
inspection done using the planned Boeing service information will
verify the proper installation of the bolt, and ensure firewall
integrity, in addition to less maintenance time than a leak test,
resulting in lower costs for the airlines. Boeing also stated that the
service bulletin is scheduled for release in June 2020, and will
include instructions to inspect for a missing bolt, as well as
corrective action to correctly install a missing bolt and perform a
leak test to ensure proper drainage.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request, but does not agree to
revise this AD. The leak test required by this AD provides a practical
means to address the unsafe condition, and this method is adequate
since the service information is not yet approved or available. The FAA
may not require any document that does not yet exist in an AD. In
general terms, the FAA is required by Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) regulations for approval of materials incorporated by reference,
as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f), to either publish the service document
contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service
document to the OFR for approval as referenced material, in which case
the FAA may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. Since no
service information for the visual inspection has been provided to the
FAA, the agency is unable to evaluate or approve an inspection method.
The FAA finds that delaying this action is inappropriate in light of
the identified unsafe condition. If service information for this
inspection becomes available later, it may be submitted to the FAA for
approval of an alternative method of compliance under the provisions of
paragraph (h) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify a Procedure

    Boeing asked that the FAA add the language ``remove the tubing
shroud cover'' to the end of paragraph (g)(1) of

the proposed AD to clarify the procedure. Boeing stated that if the
tubing shroud cover is not removed, water cannot be poured into the
systems tubing and side shroud areas.
    The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA
determined that only the steps necessary for properly accomplishing the
leak test--not the general steps necessary to prepare for the test--are
included in the AD requirements. For additional guidance, Note 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD provides information related to the procedures
in the applicable section of the Boeing 787 AMM. That section includes
all relevant general steps for accomplishing the required leak test.
Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request for Correction of a Paragraph Identifier

    Boeing stated that there are two paragraph identifiers that are
identical. Boeing noted that paragraph identifier (g)(5)(ii) of the
proposed AD is repeated, and the second paragraph identifier should be
(g)(5)(iii).
    The FAA agrees with the commenter and has corrected the paragraph
identifier accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The agency estimates the following costs to comply with this
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255             $510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
            Labor cost                   Parts cost           product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..  Minimal.............             $85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2020-05-26 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19876; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0719; Product Identifier 2019-NM-137-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 4, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, line numbers 6, 11, 17, 19, 20, 21,
23, 25 through 30 inclusive, and 32 through 38 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
Pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of failure of a wing strut leak
test due to a missing bolt on the firewall. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address a hole in the firewall, which could allow flammable
fluid to leak from the strut compartment to the engine compartment
when the drainage provision is overwhelmed. Flammable fluid leakage
into the engine compartment could result in an uncontrollable engine
fire and consequent structural failure of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Leak Test and Corrective Action

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-
time leak (functional) test of the strut upper spar areas for the
left and right wing struts, by doing the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this test if it can be
conclusively determined from that review that the leak test was
previously accomplished and successfully completed.
    (1) Put a plug in the strut forward drain outlet (this drain
outlet is labeled as ``pylon strut''). Put an empty container below
the strut forward drain outlet to collect water drained through this
outlet.
    (2) Apply 381 to 387 fluid ounces (11.3 to 11.4 liters) of water
in 2.5 to 3.5 minutes, to the systems tubing shroud (area between
the forward and mid-vapor barriers).
    (3) Make sure that no leakage occurred after doing the action
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (4) Remove the plug from the strut forward drain outlet and make
sure that the water is drained through the strut forward drain
outlet only.
    (5) After 3 minutes from accomplishing the action specified in
paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, measure the water collected in the
container, and do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(5)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) If leaks were found, do corrective action before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (ii) If no leaks were found and less than 354 fluid ounces (10.5
liters) of water is collected in the container, do corrective action
before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (iii) Before further flight after accomplishing any corrective
action required by paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (ii) of this AD, repeat
the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD
until successful completion of the test (i.e., no leaks are found
and 354 fluid ounces (10.5 liters) of water or more is measured in
the container).
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Additional guidance for performing the
leak (functional) test can be found in Boeing 787 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM), 54-65-01, Strut Spar--Upper--Functional
Test.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3553; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster
Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-
1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on March 10, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-06459 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1210]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ13-8-000]

City of Anaheim, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 21, 2012, City of Anaheim, California
submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Anaheim 2013 TRBAA Update to
be effective 1/1/2013.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 11, 2013.

    Dated: January 2, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00119 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 86 (Friday, May 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21296]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) is considering a request from the County of Greenwood to waive
the requirement that one parcel (10.11 acres) of surplus property,
located at the Greenwood County Airport be used for aeronautical
purposes. Currently, ownership of the property provides for protection
of FAR Part 77 surfaces and compatible land use which would continue to
be protected with deed restrictions required in the transfer of land
ownership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by prior appointment at
the following location: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Anna
Lynch, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park,
Georgia 30337-2747, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to
the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office,
Attn: Anna Lynch, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220,
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Toby Chappell, County Manager, Greenwood County
at the following address: County of Greenwood, Park Plaza, Suite 102,
Greenwood, South Carolina 29646.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Lynch, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Room 220, College Park,
Georgia 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request under the
provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47151(d), by the County of
Greenwood to release one parcel of surplus property (10.11 acres) at
the Greenwood County Airport. These parcels were originally conveyed to
the County of Greenwood on July 11, 1947 under the powers and authority
contained in the provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944.
Currently, the surplus properties are being used to generate timber
sales but will become the site of a new County Animal Shelter.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Greenwood County Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 17, 2017.
Larry F. Clark
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-09172 Filed 5-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES September 28, 2005 Memorandum SUBJECT: Endothall and Salts: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment of Antimicrobial Uses for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. PC Code 038905, RED Case No. 2245, DP Barcode D313928.

FROM: Tim Leighton, Environmental Scientist Antimicrobials Division Through: Mark Hartman, Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division TO: Ben Chambliss, Chemical Review Manager Antimicrobials Division, and Mika Hunter, Chemical Review Manager Special Review & Reregistration Division The Health Effects Division ( HED) has the lead for the endothall and salts preliminary risk assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document. The antimicrobial use of endothall is based on PC code 038905, mono( N, N dimethylalkylamine) salt of endothall. This memorandum provides a standalone review of the non dietary antimicrobial use of endothall, which is limited to industrial cooling water systems ( i. e., recirculating and once through cooling water systems, EPA Reg. No. 4581 380).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Antimicrobials Division ( AD) assessed the occupational antimicrobial use of endothall and salts using the toxicological data from the Health Effects Division ( HED). For a complete review of the endothall and salts risk assessment, the reader is referred to the HED risk assessment chapter ( D296791). The results of the occupational assessment of the antimicrobial use ( i. e., to control mollusks in industrial water systems) indicates that the inhalation margin of exposures ( MOEs) to the handlers of endothall are not of concern ( i. e., inhalation MOEs are greater than target MOE of 100). No dermal toxicological endpoints were identified. Although postapplication worker exposure to endothall is not expected, there is the potential for swimmer exposure in endothall treated water. Risks to swimmers have been assessed by HED at higher rates than those for the industrial cooling water systems, and therefore, AD has not provided 2 separate estimates. HED's conclusions are that the swimmer risks are not of concern.

1. Introduction The risk assessment for the agricultural uses of endothall has been prepared by the Health Effects Division ( HED). The reader is referred to the HED risk assessment for an in depth analysis of the toxicological and residue chemistry of endothall. This memorandum includes an inhalation assessment of the occupational exposure and risk for the antimicrobial use ( i. e., cooling water). The antimicrobial use that is assessed in this memorandum is classified under the Use Site Category ( USC) industrial processes. Endothall is used to control fresh and salt water mollusks in industrial cooling water systems ( both recirculating and once through). According to the one registered antimicrobial label for endothall ( EPA Reg. No. 4581 380), the product is metered directly into the water system.

No exposure data have been submitted in support of the endothall antimicrobial use. Therefore, a screening level handler assessment has been provided using surrogate data from the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA). Postapplication worker exposure is not expected for industrial cooling water systems.

2.0 Toxicological Endpoints of Concern The toxicological endpoints selected for endothall are summarized in Table 1. For a complete review of the toxicological endpoints selected for endothall, the reader is referred to HED's endothall RED chapter ( D296791). Endothall is not classified for carcinogenic potential.

Table 1: Summary of Toxicology Endpoint Selection for Endothall Pertaining to Antimicrobial Uses Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Short Term Dermal ( 1 to 30 days)

Intermediate ( 1 to 6 months) and Long Term (> 6 months) Dermal No dermal endpoint was selected. A 21 day dermal toxicity study was submitted and reviewed based on dermal irritation and body weight gain inhibition. Body weight losses were observed in females at Days 14 and 20 and therefore a LOAEL of 30 mg/ kg/ day was established for systemic toxicity. No NOAEL for systemic toxicity was established. There were also severe local dermal effects at 30 mg/ kg/ day based on erythema, edema, fissuring of the dose site and sloughing of the skin at the dose sites. No NOAEL for dermal irritation was established. Because of the systemic and local effects were co occurrent, it is more likely that the weight loss was a consequence of the severe local toxicity. Therefore Risk Assessment Review Committee ( RARC) determined that endothall should be regulated as a severe dermal irritant and not on systemic effects, and recommended against conducting a dermal risk assessment because the severe localized irritation effects of endothall on the skin would be self limiting as to dermal exposures. 3 Table 1: Summary of Toxicology Endpoint Selection for Endothall Pertaining to Antimicrobial Uses Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Short Term Inhalation ( 1 to 30 days) Offspring NOAEL = 9.4 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) Residential LOC for MOE = 100 Occupational LOC for MOE = 100 2 generation reproduction study in rats [ adult] LOAEL = 2 mg/ kg/ day based on proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium in both sexes Intermediate ( 1 to 6 months) and Long (> 6 months)  Term Inhalation LOAEL= 2 mg/ kg/ day Residential LOC for MOE = 300 Occupational LOC for MOE = 300 2 generation reproduction study in rats [ adult] LOAEL = 2 mg/ kg/ day based on proliferative lesions of the gastric epithelium in both sexes Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation) Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose ( a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern, NA = Not Applicable The acute toxicity data for endothall are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Acute Toxicity of Endothall Guideline No. Study Type MRID Number Results Toxicity Category 870.1100 ( § 81 1) Acute Oral 42289201 LD50 = males 50.2, females 44.4 mg/ kg I 870.1200 ( § 81 2) Acute Dermal 42289202 LD50 = males > 2000, females > 2000, combined > 2000 mg/ kg III 870.1300 ( § 81 3) Acute Inhalation 42169501 LC50 = males 1.27, females 2.20, combined 1.51 m/ L III 870.2400 ( § 81 4) Primary Eye Irritation 422889203 extremely irritating lethal 4/ 6 rabbits I 870.2500 ( § 81 5) Primary Skin Irritation 42289204 unacceptable study I a 870.2600 ( § 81 6) Dermal Sensitization 41871901 positive N/ A a Endothall has been shown to be a skin irritant in a preliminary range finding study of the dermal absorption study ( MRID 42169503) at single doses of 50

g/ cm2 and higher and in the 21 day dermal toxicity study ( MRID 43465201) after one application at doses of 30 mg/ kg or higher. This information is considered sufficient to classify endothall as a severe dermal irritant.

3.0 Handler Assessment All of the endothall antimicrobial applications are for industrial cooling water systems 4 ( recirculating and once through) to control mollusks, EPA Reg. No. 4581 380. There are no residential use patterns for the antimicrobial uses. The label directions indicate that the product should be applied to achieve a 0.3 to 3.0 ppm endothall ( 2.4 to 24 gallons of a 2 lb endothall per gallon product per 1,000,000 gallons of water). The label also indicates that the continuous feed should be maintained for 6 to 144 hours. Although a continuous feed is a daily operation, handlers treating water systems are expected to apply endothall ( i. e., change couplers for containers of endothall) on a limited basis ( 1 to 6 days based on label directions) and are believed to be represented by a short term ( 1 to 30 days) exposure duration ( e. g., applications to control mollusks should not be a monthly occurrence). Clarification should be added to the label providing some indication on how often this treatment should be applied ( e. g., yearly).

At this time, a screening level assessment has been developed for the recirculating use as well as the once through use. Recirculating cooling water systems can vary tremendously in volume and are believed to be generally less than 50 million gallons. The range of volume assessed for the large scale once through power generators ( label does not restrict the product to power generators but they represent the high end) includes 2 to 500 million gallons. The 2 million gallons were selected as the low range based on it representing the " de minimus" flow for EPA's Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule ( 40CFR125.90). Although a few power generators may have water flows of approximately 1 to 3 billion gallons, these few utilities are atypical. EPA assumed that if the large utilities apply endothall it would be applied as a continuous feed over 6 days as per the label recommendations ( i. e., 500 million gallons treated/ 6 days = 83.3 million gallons of water treated per day).

EPA does not have a specific surrogate exposure scenario for once through or recirculating cooling water systems, however, exposure data for pumping liquids are available. The exposure data for pumping liquids that are available to EPA include data from the CMA study. The pumping liquids data in the CMA study are used to develop a screening level assessment. The most representative scenario available from the CMA data base for pumping liquids into large water systems is for the pulp & paper industry.

Since no dermal toxicological endpoints of concern were identified for endothall, dermal exposures are not estimated. The inhalation unit exposure ( UE) for pumping liquids in the pulp & paper scenario is 0.000265 mg/ lb ai. The exposures are assessed for various amounts of endothall potentially handled because the volume of water in industrial water systems can vary tremendously. Table 3 presents the potential inhalation exposure for pumping liquids into recirculating systems as well as a range of once through systems. Inhalation MOEs are also provided ( only inhalation risks have been presented because no dermal toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified). 5 Table 3. Potential Short term Exposure and Risk to Endothall During Closed Loading into Industrial Water Systems.

Use Inhalation Unit Exposures ( mg/ lb ai) a Concentration of Endothall ( ppm) b Application Rate ( lb ai/ million gallons water) c Volume of Cooling Water d Daily Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) e Short term Inhalation MOE f Recirculating Water Systems 0.3 4.8 0.0009 10,000 Liquid Pump 0.000265 3 48 Less than 50 million gallons 0.009 1,000 Once Through Cooling Water Systems 0.3 4.8 3.6E 5 260,000 3 48 2 million gallons 0.00036 26,000 0.3 4.8 0.0015 6,200 Liquid Pump 0.000265 3 48 500 million gallons over 6 days 0.015 620 a Inhalation Unit Exposure ( UE) is from the CMA data base for pulp & paper. b Concentration of endothall in cooling water based on the range reported in EPA Reg. No. 4581 380 ( i. e., 0.3 to 3 ppm). c Application rate is based on EPA Reg. No. 4581 380 where 0.3 or 3 ppm requires 2.4 or 24 gal of product x 2 lb endothall per gal of product per 1,000,000 gallons of cooling water. d Volume of cooling water based on a range of flow from large power generation utilities. e Inhalation Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = Inhalation UE ( mg/ lb ai) x pounds endothall per million gallons of water x number of million gallons per day x 1/ 70kg BW. f Inhalation MOE = NOAEL / Dose. Where short term NOAEL is 9.4 mg/ kg/ day based on an oral study. Target MOE is 100. 6 4.0 Postapplication Assessment 4.1 Occupational The potential for postapplication inhalation exposure to endothall is expected to be negligible because of the relatively low vapor pressure ( 2.09 x 10 5 mm Hg at 24.3 degrees C) and aerosol generation is not expected in the vicinity of workers.

4.2 Residential/ Bystander The potential for short term postapplication exposure ( i. e., during swimming in treated rivers/ lakes) to adults and/ or children exists for the once through cooling water use. HED has presented a swimmer risk assessment for the endothall surface water applications ( D296789, see Section 3.2.2 in HED's report). HED's assessment is based on the labeled aquatic herbicide use applied directly to surface water at a concentration of 5 ppm. HED estimated the oral exposure to children in the 6 to 10 age group and adults using the SWIMODEL. HED's assessment is believed to represent the high end of the risk for the once through cooling water application because of the direct application assessed ( i. e., no dilution assumed) and the aquatic use has a higher application concentration ( i. e., 5 ppm versus 3 ppm for the once through use). The estimated short term MOEs for the oral route are 280 and 900 for the children and adults, respectively. These short term MOEs are not of concern ( i. e., target MOE is 100). Only the short term assessment is believed to be relevant for the once through use because of the intermittent nature of the application and dilution in surface water bodies. Inhalation exposure is expected to be minimal because of the low vapor pressure.

5.0 Risk Characterization Chemical specific exposure data were not available to assess the antimicrobial uses of endothall. Therefore, surrogate data from the CMA data base were used to generate screeninglevel occupational handler risk estimates. The surrogate data available to assess the handlers is believed to be representative of the closed metering system, but confirmatory exposure data are needed to verify the accuracy of extrapolating to large scale closed systems. The section below summarizes the uncertainties in the assessment.

Summary of Uncertainties AD has used the best available surrogate exposure data from CMA to develop a screening level assessment for the handlers of endothall. The following uncertainties should be considered by the regulatory risk managers during the decision making process:

$ Specific inhalation unit exposures are not available for once through cooling water systems ( i. e., large volumes of chemical). Nonetheless, the data from CMA for pulp & paper is a reasonable surrogate for this type of closed loading system. Although the 7 CMA data are only represented by 7 replicates, the exposure values are similar to closed loading of pesticides in the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED)   CMA data are 3x higher than the PHED value, and therefore, more conservative. Additional exposure data should be collected to confirm the estimates for large scale continuous feed closed loading applications.

$ The once through cooling water flow volumes for power generation are large ( e. g., 500 million gallons assessed). It is unknown if these utilities actually use endothall but there are not label restrictions on flow volumes. Nonetheless, this screening level assessment and the inhalation risks are not of concern at these higher flows.

$ The toxicological endpoints selected by the Health Effects Division ( EPA/ OPP/ HED) have been used in this assessment. Any changes to the HED endpoints in the future will need to be incorporated into this review.

$ In a letter from Elf Atochem ( Davis 2000), dated January 17, 2000, Mr. Davis indicated that the following statement would be removed from the label: " EVAC Biocide has also shown potential for treating service water, auxiliary water, waste water, influent and fire protection water systems." However, the current label, dated October 10, 2002, still has this statement. These uses have not been assessed in this risk assessment because they are believed to be on the label in error and the label contains no application rates to assess the use. This statement should be deleted from the label.

6.0 References Davis C. 2000. EVAC Biocide, EPA Reg. No. 4581 380, Application for Label Amendment. In a letter from Christopher Davis ( Elf Atochem North America, Inc.) to Marshall Swindell, PM33 ( USEPA/ OPP/ AD), dated January 17, 2000.

USEPA. 2005. Endothall: HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED), draft dated January 3, 2005. PC Code: 038901, 038904, and 038905, Case #: 2245, DP Barcode: D296791.


[Federal Register: November 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 62719-62721]
[DOCID:fr06no07-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56726; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-96]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Rule 80A (Index Arbitrage Trading Restrictions)

October 31, 2007.
    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 October 25, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The NYSE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to rescind NYSE Rule 80A (Index Arbitrage
Trading Restrictions) to eliminate order entry restrictions on certain
index arbitrage orders entered on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site (http://www.nyse.com
), at the NYSE, 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 is proposing to rescind NYSE Rule 80A (Index Arbitrage
Trading Restrictions) and thereby eliminate the ``collar'' provisions
of the rule. Currently, NYSE Rule 80A(a) and (b) require that, for any
component stock of the S&P 500 Stock Price Index\SM\, whenever the NYSE
Composite Index[supreg] (``NYA'') \5\ advances or declines by a
predetermined value from its previous day's closing value, all index
arbitrage orders to buy or sell (depending on the direction of the move
in the NYA) must be entered as either ``buy minus'' or ``sell plus.''
\6\ The tick restrictions are imposed based upon a ``two-percent
value'' change in the NYA from its prior day's closing value, where the
``two-percent change'' is two percent of the average closing value of
the NYA for the last month of the previous calendar quarter, rounded
down to the nearest ten points. The order entry conditions are lifted
if the NYA recovers to within one percent of the previous day's closing
value, and can be reimposed if the average moves away by two percent
again during a trading session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The trigger values were originally based on movement in the
value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, but were changed in 2005.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52328 (August 24, 2005), 70
FR 51398 (August 30, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-45).
    \6\ NYSE Rule 13 defines a ``buy minus'' order as an order to
buy a stated amount of stock provided that the price to be obtained
is not higher than the last sale if the last sale was a ``minus'' or
``zero minus'' tick, and is not higher than the last sale minus the
minimum fractional change in the stock if the last sale was a
``plus'' or ``zero plus'' tick. A ``sell plus'' order is defined as
an order to sell a stated amount of a stock provided that the price
to be obtained is not lower than the last sale if the last sale was
a ``plus'' or ``zero plus'' tick, and is not lower than the last
sale plus the minimum fractional change in the stock if the last
sale was a ``minus'' or ``zero minus'' tick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Rule 80A
    NYSE states that NYSE Rule 80A was formulated as one of the
responses to the market break of October 1987 to reduce market
volatility and promote investor confidence.\7\ In its initial form, the
rule used a measure of a 50 point move in the Dow Jones Industrial
AverageSM to activate restrictions on order entry in S&P 500
stocks into Exchange systems.\8\ The restrictions were triggered on
relatively few occasions throughout the early 1990s (for example, only
9 times in 1993), but were increasingly invoked as volatility
heightened later in the decade (366 times in 1998). The basis for the
restrictions calculation was changed in 1999 from 50 points to the two
percent value discussed above.\9\ This had the effect of reining in the
imposition of the restrictions; in fact, they were imposed only once
during 2004-2005. They have been imposed 15 times so far in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 80A was originally approved by the Commission in April
1988. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25599 (April 19,
1988), 53 FR 13371 (April 22, 1988) (SR-NYSE-88-02).
    \8\ ``Dow Jones Industrial Average'' is a service mark of Dow
Jones & Co., Inc.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41041 (February 11,
1999), 64 FR 8424 (February 19, 1999) (SR-NYSE-98-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is making this change since it does not appear that
the approach to market volatility envisioned by the use of these
``collars'' is as meaningful today as when the rule was formalized in
the late 1980s. In the Exchange's view, volatility is neither
restrained nor enhanced by the imposition of the collars. It is as
likely that markets will reverse trends whether or not Rule 80A is
invoked. In addition, NYSE Rule 80A addresses only one type of trading
strategy, namely index arbitrage, whereas the number and types of
strategies have increased markedly in the last 20 years and may as well
contribute to the increase in or lack of volatility. Indeed, in
approving the Exchange's expansion of the collars to the two percent
level in 1999, the Commission stated that ``[i]t may make little sense
to single out index arbitrage, which ensures that markets are aligned
economically, from all other types of program trading.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 8246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As markets have continually and significantly evolved in the years
since the original rule was adopted, similar regulatory constraints on
trading have been removed. For example, earlier this year, the
Commission ended price tick restrictions on short sales by removing
Rule 10a-1,\11\ a regulation adopted almost 70 years ago.\12\ In doing
so, the Commission discussed the practice of applying different price
tests to trading in different securities and markets. This is true in
NYSE Rule 80A as well since its tick restrictions apply only to index
arbitrage orders in S&P 500 component stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.10a-1.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55970 (June 28,
2007), 72 FR 36348 (July 3, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
remove the order entry restrictions of NYSE Rule 80A.
Definitions in NYSE Rule 80A
    Definitions in NYSE Rule 80A.40(a) and (b) for the terms ``index
arbitrage'' and ``program trading'' are proposed to be repositioned in
NYSE Rule 132B (Order Tracking Requirements) as they continue to be
part of the Exchange's regulatory agenda.\13\ The definition of
``account of an individual investor'' in NYSE Rule 80A.40(c) is
proposed to be made part of NYSE Rule 92.40 as this rule currently
refers to this definition in NYSE Rule 80A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Earlier this year, the Exchange advised its member
organizations of new reporting requirements for program trading
activities, including index arbitrage activities. See NYSE
Regulation Information Memo No. 07-52 (June 11, 2007). If the
proposed relocation of the definitions of ``index arbitrage'' and
``program trading'' is approved, the Exchange will inform member
organizations of these reporting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Rule Amendments
    Conforming amendments to two other Exchange rules are proposed as a
consequence of the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 80A.
    NYSE Rule 123C--This rule details the procedures for ``market on
close'' (MOC) and ``limit on close'' (LOC) order entry, publication of
imbalances and closing prints. Generally, MOC or LOC orders are not
cancelable after 3:40 p.m., except to correct certain errors or to
comply with the order entry requirements of NYSE Rule 80A, if the two
percent collars are in effect. References to the NYSE Rule 80A
provisions are proposed to be removed in Rule 123C (1) and (2).
    NYSE Rule 123C(7)--This rule establishes procedures for exceptions
to NYSE Rule 80A's entry restrictions for MOC index arbitrage orders on
so-called ``expiration days'', i.e., the day when expiring stock and
index option and futures products' pricing is established, usually the
third Friday of the month. It is proposed that this section be
rescinded entirely.
    NYSE Rule 476A--This rule establishes procedures to enable the
Exchange to impose appropriate sanctions for less serious violations of
Exchange rules. References to violations of NYSE Rule 80A contained in
the list of rules subject to these procedures are proposed to be
deleted.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ that an exchange have
rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days after the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay.\17\ The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because rescission of NYSE Rule 80A would remove restrictions
on index arbitrage, the appropriateness of which the Commission has
previously questioned.\18\ For this reason, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with
the Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires
the self-regulatory organization to give the Commission notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41041, supra note
18, at 8426. There, the Commission also noted that it ``may make
little sense to single out index arbitrage, which ensures that
markets are aligned economically, from all other types of program
trading. Indeed, the restrictions on index arbitrage may tend to
disconnect the securities and futures markets and impose unnecessary
costs on market participants.'' Id.
    \19\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-YSE-2007-96 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-96. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-96 and should be
submitted on or before November 27, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21773 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75527-75528]
[DOCID:fr15de06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5124-000]

Hubbard, Frederick L.; Notice Of Filing

December 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on November 29, 2006, Frederick L. Hubbard filed
an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant
to the section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, Part 45 of Title 18 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, and Order No. 664.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.

    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 pm eastern time on December 29, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21415 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P