The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

November 2003 Page 1 of 2 Proposed Priority Auto Salvaging ( SIC 5093 and 5015, NAICS 42193 and 421140)

Universe & Types of Facilities This sector includes auto wreckers primarily engaged in dismantling motor vehicles for the purpose of wholesaling scrap and for the purpose of selling parts ( automotive salvage yards and automotive dismantlers). The automotive recycling businesses employ about 47,000 people at more than 6,700 businesses in the U. S. An estimated 78% of automotive recycling companies are full service and 86% employ 10 or fewer people ( Automotive Recycling Industry Profile  1988). In 1997 alone, approximately 4.7 million vehicles were acquired for recycling in North America.

Geographic Range Nationwide.

Environmental Risks Contamination can arise from the wide range of materials at automotive salvage facilities. These include: petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, transmission fluid, power steering fluid, and brake fluid; engine coolants and additives; chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs); metals such as iron, chromium, lead, copper, and aluminum; battery acid; brake and clutch linings; rubber; sodium azide from un inflated air bags; mercury containing switches, and other materials. Additional potential sources of environmental contamination at salvage yards include a variety of waste products such as scrap metal, Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) containing fluids from heavy electrical equipment ( motors, transformers, and capacitors), appliances, heating and air conditioning systems, hot water tanks, and other heavy waste materials.

At salvage facilities, the contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater is a primary concern. At many sites, the ground is often heavily contaminated with oils, hazardous fluids, and other pollutants due to improper handling. Through infiltration, these fluids can contaminate surface soils, subsurface soils and ultimately the groundwater. Storm water runoff can lead to surface water contamination.

The outdoor operation of metal shredders creates large quantities of fugitive dust. Additionally, approximately 500 pounds of non ferrous automobile shredder residue ( ASR) is produced for each car recycled. Fluff ( one component of ASR), which is made up of the non metal components of a car including glass, ceramics, cloth, rubber, plastic, and foam, may contain sufficient quantities of a variety of toxic substances, including heavy metals ( e. g., cadmium, lead, and mercury) to classify shredder fluff as hazardous waste. The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

November 2003 Page 2 of 2 The release of CFCs not recovered pose a risk to the earth's ozone layer. Mercury, a bioaccumulative, persistent toxic, found in mercury switches in vehicles ( contain 800 mg of mercury), threatens the health of humans and wildlife, even in extremely small quantities. Additional sources of environmental risk include facilities that operate sweat furnaces on site for secondary metal recycling which can release dioxin/ furans if these units are not operated properly ( many of these minor sources are subject to the Secondary Aluminum MACT).

In both urban and rural areas, auto salvage facilities tend to be concentrated in poor and minority neighborhoods and communities, areas typically suffering from pollution from a number of industries and facilities.

Noncompliance Information A number of facilities in this sector have had storm water compliance issues. For example, an EPA storm water initiative in the Anacostia watershed in Washington DC, found significant storm water noncompliance issues at some auto salvage facilities. Additionally, some compliance issues with potentially contaminated fluff were identified. EPA has not had a significant focus on this sector but its limited experience suggests that there is noncompliance with storm water, CFC and other environmental requirements. Many facilities do not have good accounts of the amounts of fluids drained from salvaged automobiles, chemicals found in these fluids or documentation regarding their disposal. There is concern that some of these facilities could require soil remediation.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44400]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-182-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Corporation, ECP ControlCo, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Calpine Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170915-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2493-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended CLGIA & Amended DSA
Windhub Solar Project SA Nos. 686-687 to be effective 11/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170915-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2494-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Amendment No. 5 to Rate
Schedule No. 74 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170915-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 15, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20250 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54865-54868]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0680; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01415-T;
Amendment 39-22146; AD 2022-17-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-22-
03, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and

-300 series airplanes. AD 2020-22-03 required revising the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) to incorporate procedures to be applied if
an engine bleed over-temperature occurs when the associated engine
bleed valve is jammed open, and provided for the optional embodiment of
updated flight warning computer (FWC) software, which terminated the
AFM revision. This AD was prompted by the development of new
maintenance actions and software related to over-temperature failure
conditions. This AD continues to require the actions specified in AD
2020-22-03, requires accomplishing the new maintenance tasks and
corrective actions, and mandates embodiment of the updated FWC software
for certain airplanes, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also
prohibits the installation of affected FWC software. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 13, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0680.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA-2022-0680; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0281, dated December 17, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0281) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, and -243F airplanes, Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -
322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -743L airplanes. Model A330-743L
airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the
U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include
those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-22-03, Amendment 39-21299 (85 FR
66873, October 21, 2020) (AD 2020-22-03). AD 2020-22-03 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2022 (87 FR
36266). The NPRM was prompted by the development of new maintenance
actions and software related to over-temperature failure conditions.
The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions specified in AD
2020-22-03, to require accomplishing the new maintenance tasks and
corrective actions, and to mandate embodiment of the updated FWC
software for certain airplanes, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0281. The
NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected FWC
software.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the possibility of a jammed
engine bleed valve, which could lead to damage of the bleed manifold
and the ducts downstream of the engine bleed system, exposure of the
surrounding structure to heat stress, and possible reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comment

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD
is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase
the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0281 specifies procedures for amending the applicable
AFM to incorporate procedures to be applied if an engine bleed over-
temperature occurs when the associated engine bleed valve is jammed
open. EASA AD 2020-0281 also specifies that embodiment of updated FWC
software standard T9 eliminates the need for the AFM amendment. EASA AD
2021-0281 also describes maintenance tasks for failures related to
over-temperature conditions and corrective actions (repair). EASA AD
2021-0281 also specifies procedures for the embodiment of updated FWC
software standard T9-3, and, for certain airplanes concurrent
embodiment of system data acquisition concentrator (SDAC) software
standard C13 or FWC software standard K3-2 and SDAC software standard
C3-0A. Finally, EASA AD 2021-0281 prohibits the installation of
affected FWC software (FWC software standard T9-2 or earlier). This
material is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 115 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product            Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM Revision: 1 work-hour x $85                 $0  $85..........................  $9,775.
 per hour = $85.
Software Update: 3 work-hours x 85               0  $255.........................  Up to $29,325.
 per hour = $255.
Maintenance Tasks: 7 work-hours x              720  $595.........................  $151,225.
 $85 per hour = $595.
Concurrent Actions: Up to 4 work-                0  Up to $340...................  Up to $39,100.
 hours x $85 per hour = Up to $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....              $0             $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that enables the agency to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-22-03, Amendment 39-21299
(85 FR 66873, October 21, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-17-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22146; Docket No. FAA-2022-0680;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01415-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 13, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-22-03, Amendment 39-21299 (85 FR 66873,
October 21, 2020) (AD 2020-22-03).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model airplanes, certificated
in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) though (3) of
this AD.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 75, Air; Code
36, Pnuematic.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that during a certification
exercise, it was identified that there was a risk of an engine bleed
system over-temperature, without the engine bleed valve closing; the
associated engine bleed valve should automatically close. This AD
was also prompted by the development of new maintenance actions and
software related to over-temperature failure conditions. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the possibility of a jammed engine bleed
valve, which could lead to damage of the bleed manifold and the
ducts downstream of the engine bleed system, exposure of the
surrounding structure to heat stress, and possible reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0281, dated December 17, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0281).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0281

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0281 refers to October 1, 2020 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2020-0205), this AD requires using
November 5, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-22-03).
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0281 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0281 specifies to
``inform all flight crews, and, thereafter, operate the aeroplane
accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as those
actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations.
    (4) Where paragraphs (6) and (7) of EASA AD 2021-0281 specifies
actions if ``any discrepancies are detected,'' for this AD
discrepancies include failures related to an over-temperature
situation, hidden failures in equipment for a ``not isolated over-
temperature'' failure condition, cracking on the exchanger outlet
temperature sensor, or dual drift in the exchanger outlet
temperature sensor.

    (5) Where paragraph (11) of EASA AD 2021-0281 specifies that an
airplane with certain modifications is compliant with ``the
requirements of paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0077,'' for this AD
use ``for the corresponding requirements of paragraph (2) of EASA AD
2020-0077 that are required by paragraph (g) of AD 2020-17-16,
Amendment 39-21221 (85 FR 54900, September 3, 2020).''
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0281 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirements

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0281
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Additional FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch/manager
of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information referenced
in EASA AD 2021-0281 contains paragraphs that are labeled as RC, the
instructions in RC paragraphs, including subparagraphs under an RC
paragraph, must be done to comply with this AD; any paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that are not
identified as RC are recommended. The instructions in paragraphs,
including subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not identified as RC
may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the instructions identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to instructions identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0281,
dated December 17, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0281, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 10, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19280 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63237-63238]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63053; File No. SR-EDGA-2010-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

October 6, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 5, 2010, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
the ``EDGA'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c) by
making an amendment to its fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 change the fees and rebates for adding and
removing liquidity. For adding liquidity, the fee is proposed to be
increased from $0.0002 per share to $0.00025 per share. Conforming
amendments have been made to the B, V, Y, 3, and 4 Flags (``add
liquidity'' flags) to reflect this change. For removing liquidity, the
rebate is proposed to be decreased from $0.0002 per share to $0.00015
per share. Conforming amendments have been made to the N, W, and 6 flag
(``remove liquidity'' flags) to reflect this change. In addition, Flag
``I'' (routed to EDGX) is proposed to increased from $0.0029 per share
to $0.0030 per share to reflect the anticipated increase on EDGX for
October for removing liquidity (from $0.0029 per share to $0.0030 per
share). The Exchange believes that these rate changes will enable it to
maintain a competitive position with regards to other away market
centers.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a technical amendment to
footnote 2 to clarify that the rate of $0.0010 applies to when a Member
adds greater than 1,000,000 shares hidden on a daily basis, measured
monthly (emphasis added).
    EDGA Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on October 5, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\5\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive with those
charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the
Exchange rather than competing venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \7\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGA-2010-14 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-EDGA-2010-14. 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,\8\ 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-EDGA-2010-14 and should be
submitted on or before November 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25743 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51726-51727]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0487]

Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee; September 2020
Teleconference

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (Committee)
and its working groups will meet via teleconference to discuss matters
relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of
licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents,
medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of
operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and
medical research. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: Meeting: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and its
working groups will meet by teleconference on Tuesday, September 22,
2020, from 11 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. (EDT). The teleconference may
adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
    Comments and supporting documentation: To ensure your comments are
received by Committee members before the teleconference, submit your
written comments no later than September 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference or to request special
accommodations, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on September 15, 2020,
to obtain the needed information. The number of teleconference lines
are limited and will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the teleconference as time permits, but if you want
Committee members to review your comment before the teleconference,
please submit your comments no later than September 15, 2020. We are
particularly interested in comments on the issues in the ``Agenda''
section below. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email
the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document for alternate instructions. You must include the docket number
[USCG-2020-0487]. Comments received will be posted without alteration
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). If you encounter technical difficulties with comment
submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Docket Search: Documents mentioned in this notice as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following
that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign-up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lalor, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Mariner

Medical Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop
7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax 202-372-
4908 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is
authorized by U.S. Code, Title 46, section 7115. The Committee advises
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related
to: (a) Medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses,
certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical
standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators
of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical
research.

Agenda

    The agenda for the September 22, 2020, teleconference is as
follows:
    (1) Introduction.
    (2) Designated Federal Officer remarks.
    (3) Remarks from the Committee Chairman.
    (4) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.
    (5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
    (6) Report on Status of Working Groups, Determination on
Intercessional Meetings and Discussion of Working Group
recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on
each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the Working
Groups, approve/formulate recommendations and close any completed
tasks. Official action on these recommendations may be taken:
    (a) Task Statement 18-27, Recommendations on Mariner Mental Health;
    (b) Task Statement 18-28, Communication Between External
Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program;
    (c) Task Statement 19-29, Review of CG Forms CG-719K, CG-719K/E,
and CG-719P;
    (d) Task Statement 19-30, Additional Guidance on Conduct of the
General Medical Exam; and
    (e) Task Statement 19-31, Medical Certifications for Military to
Mariner Applicants.
    (7) Update from the National Maritime Center, Medical Evaluations
Division.
    (8) Discussion on transition to the National Merchant Mariner
Medical Advisory Committee (N-MEDMAC).
    (9) Public comment period.
    (10) Committee Member Recognitions.
    (11) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
    (12) Adjournment of meeting.
    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/missions/ports-and-waterways/safety-advisory-committees/ no later than September 15, 2020. Alternatively, you may
contact Mr. Michael Lalor as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.
    During the September 22, 2020 teleconference, a public comment
period will be held immediately after the discussion of the transition
to the N-MEDMAC at approximately 2:00 p.m. Public comments will be
limited to two minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment
periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section,
to register as a speaker.

    Dated: August 17, 2020.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2020-18333 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                                    Attachment D
     Consultations Summary for the Renewal ICR, entitled "Labeling Requirements for Certain Minimum Risk Pesticides under FIFRA Section 25(b) Information Collection Request"
        OMB No. 2070-0187; EPA No. 2475.03; Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0139

  Representatives contacted from the following companies:
 Bonide Products, Inc.
 W. Neudorff GmbH KG
 Spectrum Brands

  EPA received feedback from one company (Bonide Products) during the consultation request period. The questions asked, and the comments received, are provided below.

  Questionnaire and Responses:

   Frequency of Collection

  Products entering the market that are fully compliant with the minimum risk exemption at 40 CFR 152.25(f), including the labeling requirements, are exempt from federal registration requirements. The Agency does not collect information on products that meet all of the minimum risk exemption requirements. However, this collection contains third-party disclosures in the form of product labeling, which is mandated under regulation. Therefore, the frequency of the collection (i.e., labeling requirements) cannot be reduced while maintaining an exemption status.

         EPA assumes this is a one-time burden for labeling new products entering the minimum risk pesticide market. Do you believe that EPA's assumption is correct? If not, please provide an explanation. Agree

 Clarity of Instructions

  This ICR is intended to account specifically for the labeling burdens associated with complying with the minimum risk exemption requirements. In particular, the exemption requires respondents to provide certain information on the label so that the Agency, other regulatory agencies (i.e., the States), and consumers can utilize them.

 Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, guidances, websites, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to label products in order to comply with the federal exemption requirements? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions to help reduce labeling burdens associated with minimum risk exemption compliance? It is difficult to decipher what qualifies as a commonly consumed food
commodity as an inert ingredient. It would be nice to have some further clarification.

 Considering that there is no required labeling format, is it difficult to label products in ways that are clear, logical, and easy to complete?  We did not have any troubles with this.

 Would examples of labels or labeling formats be useful in helping you comply with the labeling requirements of the exemption? An image of exactly how the ingredient statement should be formatted would be helpful.

 Burden and Costs

  Since EPA does not register minimum risk products, the Agency has assumed that the paperwork burdens for labeling new products in this renewal ICR will be similar to those approved in the currently approved ICR.

 Are there other labeling paperwork activities that the Agency has not taken into account for new minimum risk products? If so, what other activities should EPA consider in renewing this ICR? The company that produces the labels imposes a charge for changes that are made. For example, if the ingredient statement is changed, there will be a charge of up to $5,000 dollar in plate changes if the product is packaged in a Polyethylene Bag. These figures can vary depending on the type of label and the label changes but most times these change charges cost significantly more than the labor hours.

 Are the labor wage rates accurate? If you disagree, please provide information to support an alternative estimate.

 The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct? If not, please provide an explanation of the capital costs the Agency has missed in this ICR.

 Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the labeling activities described in this ICR (e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies since this information is not required to be submitted to EPA), are the estimated burden hours and costs per response accurate?  If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's estimates, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

 Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2203]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-44-000]

Duke Energy Field Services, LP; Notice of Application

January 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Duke Energy Field Services,
LP (Duke Field Services) submitted an Application for a Limited
Jurisdiction, Limited-Term Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act. This filing
is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link.

Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number filed to access the document. Questions about this application
should be directed to Katie Rice, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Duke
Energy Field Services, LP, 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver, CO
80202, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Duke Field Services states that the proposed limited jurisdiction,
limited term certificate would permit Duke Field Services to transport
certain of its raw gas supplies from Northern Natural Gas Company's
(Northern Natural) Beaver Wet System in Beaver County, Oklahoma, to the
National Helium Plant in Seward County, Kansas, but that Duke Field
Services' related gas gathering facilities and operations in Oklahoma
and Kansas will not become subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
The pipeline facilities of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company and
Northern Natural would also be used in this transaction. Duke Field
Services says that there would be no jurisdictional rate impact of its
proposal because it will be providing service for itself and thus no
rate authorization is requested nor required, according to Duke Field
Services.
    Duke Field Services is seeking this limited jurisdiction, limited
term certificate for a term of the earlier of one year, or 60 days
after the Commission issues a final order in two pending dockets
involving Northern Natural and Duke Field Services, Docket Nos. CP06-
39-000 and CP06-40-000, respectively. Those two dockets involve the
sale of Northern Natural's Beaver Wet System from Northern Natural to
Duke Field Services. Public notices of those two dockets were
previously issued on December 22, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
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 motion to intervene. All such motions or protests
should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent
applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person
designated on the official service list. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Protests and interventions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the eFiling link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: January 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-274 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24789-24791]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0936; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD;
Amendment 39-18153; AD 2015-09-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes. This AD requires a repetitive
maintenance task for electrical power deactivation on Model 787
airplanes. This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787
airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all
alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control
units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This condition is
caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow
after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent
loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 1, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 1, 2015.
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0936.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0936; 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 this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have been advised by Boeing of an issue identified during
laboratory testing. The software counter internal to the generator
control units (GCUs) will overflow after 248 days of continuous power,
causing that GCU to go into failsafe mode. If the four main GCUs
(associated with the engine mounted generators) were powered up at the
same time, after 248 days of continuous power, all four GCUs will go
into failsafe mode at the same time, resulting in a loss of all AC
electrical power regardless of flight phase.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires a repetitive maintenance task for electrical power
deactivation.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently
developing a GCU software upgrade that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this software is developed,
approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. If the four
main GCUs were

powered up at the same time, after 248 days of continuous power, all
four GCUs will go into failsafe mode at the same time, resulting in a
loss of all AC electrical power regardless of flight phase. Loss of all
AC electrical power can result in loss of control of the airplane.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2015-0936 and
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B,
dated April 19, 2015; and Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-
0248-01B(R1), dated April 20, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for electrical power deactivation of Model 787 airplanes.
This service information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0936. Or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service
information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 28 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost          Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical power deactivation  1 work-hour x $85                 $0   $85 per deactivation  $2,380 per
                                per hour = $85 per                     cycle.                deactivation cycle.
                                deactivation cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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):

2015-09-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18153; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0936; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-058-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 1, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that a Model 787
airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose
all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator
control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This
condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that
will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing
this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Maintenance Task: Electrical Power Deactivation

    At the latest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, accomplish electrical power
deactivation on

the airplane, in accordance with step 2) in ``DESIRED ACTION'' of
Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19,
2015; or Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1),
dated April 20, 2015. The main and auxiliary power unit (APU)
batteries do not need to be disconnected when performing the
electrical power deactivation. Repeat the electrical power
deactivation thereafter at intervals not to exceed 120 days.
    (1) Within 120 days after the last electrical power deactivation
in accordance with step 2) in ``DESIRED ACTION'' of Boeing Multi
Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated April 19, 2015; or
Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1), dated April
20, 2015.
    (2) Within 120 days after the date of issuance of the original
certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness.
    (3) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) 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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B, dated
April 19, 2015. The date appears only on the first page of this
document.
    (ii) Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-15-0248-01B(R1),
dated April 20, 2015. The date appears only on the first page of
this document.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 23, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10066 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Powdered corn cobs
								DP Number(s): 394414
PC Code: 006154 cellulose
(corn cob doesn't have PC code) 						EPA Reg. or File Symbol No: 84889-E

       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       		     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLUTION PREVENTION/OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		4/25/12

SUBJECT:	Science review of Rodetrol performance against rats and mice.  The active ingredient in the product is powdered corn cobs, containing 45.1% w/w cellulose.

            Decision Number: 	447148
            DP Number: 	394414
            EPA File Symbol Number: 	84889-E
            Chemical Class: 	Biochemical
            PC Code: 006154 cellulose (corn cob doesn't have PC code)
            CAS Number:  9000-11-7 cellulose (corn cob doesn't have CAS No.)
            Active Ingredient: powdered corn cobs
            Tolerance Exemptions: Non-food
				MRID Numbers: 484335-05; 484335-17 to 484335-24, and 484335-39

FROM:		Clara Fuentes, Ph.D. Entomologist
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

TO:			Leonard Cole, Regulatory Action Leader
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

ACTION REQUESTED

Rodetrol, LLC. is requesting registration of Rodetrol to be used as a rodenticide against rats and mice.  In support of registration, the registrant has submitted summaries of product performance

studies in MRIDs 484335-17 in 484335-24, conducted on the same formulation under laboratory conditions to support indoor use of the product.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Product Performance:  Acceptable.  Sufficient information is provided in MRIDs 484335-17 to  484335-24 showing that the proposed product kills rats and mice when fed exclusively on the product for a period of approximately 7 days for rats and 3 days for mice.  The submitted efficacy data are summary of laboratory studies conducted on the same formulation under different trade names.  The product causes physical disruption of the feeding mechanism in rats and mice.  Mortality is caused by dehydration and malnutrition, however, several postulated pathological pathways were investigated and none were established as the physiological mechanism leading to these lethal outcomes.  It is unknown how normal food consumption in addition to Rodetrol would have influenced product performance since the mortality effects of Rodentrol were tested by feeding the rodents exclusively on the product.

MRIDs 484335-39 and 484335-05 are supplemental.

Note to RAL:

Label language restrictions concerning efficacy claims supported by data:

Experimental results correspond to experimental conditions of feeding caged rodents exclusively on the product over different periods.  In reality, free rodents are most likely to feed on additional food items so, the minimum periods for maximum efficacy reported on label and supported by data are the outcome of artificial rather than real conditions.  Therefore, it is uncertain whether the minimum period of 8 and 3 days for maximum efficacy on rats and mice, respectively, reflect actual performance of the product on free rodents.  The label should clarify that those measures of efficacy reflect ideal conditions and that optimal product performance may differ under actual conditions of food consumption by free rodents.  Due to the above explanation plus results from supplemental field tests in MRIDs 484335-39 and 484335-05, the word "control" should not be allowed on the label.  Data indicates that the product reduces rodent population in infested areas but there is no conclusive proof that it kills 100% of free rats or mice infesting structures within 8 or 3 days, respectively.  To test that, the researcher would have to conduct a different experiment designed to determine the optimal consumption level of Rodetrol in a mixed diet.

STUDY SUMMARIES

MRID484335-17:  Efficacy of Eradirat against Sprague-Dawley laboratory rats and Assessment of mode of Action and Effects.

The report is a summary of a lab test conducted to assess the effectiveness of the Eradirat in causing mortality inlaboratory rats, and to investigate its mode of action.  Eradirat formulation is substantially similar to the proposed product, Rodetrol.  The test organism was the Sprague-Dawley rat, Rattus norvegicus. Twenty two rats of equal sex ratio were acclimated for 2 weeks prior to study initiation.  The rats were 6 weeks old when testing began.  A group of 16 rats, 8 males and 8 females, were fed Eradirat for 8 days in the absence of other food.  A control group of 6 rats, half males and half females, were fed with rodent diet for the same time period.  Consumption was measured daily.  Body weight was recorded following treatment.  Blood samples were collected daily and analyzed for haematological and biochemical paramaters used in clinical diagnosis.   All rats fed Eradirat died within 6 days (ranging between 4 to 8 days) of treatment.  Consumption of the product was  low relative to consumption of rodent diet by rats in the control group.  Treatment rats lost an average of 34.8% body weight following treatment while control rats gained 20.5% on average.  Haematological analyses indicated elevated concentrations of red blood cells and haemoglobin, and decreasing concentrations of other blood parameters (mean cell volumes, white blood cells, and mean corpuscular haemoglobin.  Biochemical analyses of serum samples indicated elevated concentration of other parameters in treated rats.  Treated rats dehydrated and emaciated, with evidence of internal haemorrhage.  Bladder contained no urine, and small intestine contained undigested solid material from bait.  The researchers concluded that consumption of the bait caused dehydration through several proposed and unconfirmed mechanisms.  Dehaydration triggers a cascade of physiological events that culminate in death by heart failure.
The report includes a list of references from the scientific literature.  No information on animal husbandry and ambient laboratory conditions is provided.   The report includes post mortem reports of pathology, and a couple of diagrams describing postulated lethal physiological pathways.  Treatment means, with their associated standard deviations, for haematological parameters, body mass, food and water consumption are presented in graphs.

MRID 484335-18:  Efficacy of Eradirat against Sprague-Dawley Rats

This is a laboratory study designed to determine the effectiveness of Eradirat in causing mortality in laboratory-reared Sprague-Dawley rat, Rattus norvegicus.  The study is a duplicate of another study conducted by Celsis Laboratory Group (Kable, 2002) designed to meet the same objective.
Twenty four rats, half males and half females, 4 weeks old and weighing approximately 123 g. that ranged from 108 to 136 g, were received from Hercus Taeri Resource Unit in New Zealand, and acclimated for 7 days prior to test initiation.  Rats were caged individually in rack-mounted cages of 1,400 cm[2] area.  The animals were maintained at temperature of 21.6 C° +- 2 C°, RH 27-48 % and light cycle of natural photoperiod.   All rats were fed Purina Lab Diet and provided with water at libitum.  Eighteen rats, half males and half females, were randomly divided into treatment and control groups. Twelve rats were assigned to treatment group, and 6 others to control (50:50 sex ratio).  Treatment rats were fed exclusively on Eradirat until death of all rats, which took 5 days for the last rat in the treatment group.  Control rats were fed Purina lab diet throughout the test period.
The following parameters were measured to assess efficacy: mortality, behavior, body weight, food and water consumption, and pathology.  Observations were recorded twice daily, in the morning and afternoon always at the same time.  Body weights were recorded on days 1, 2, 4 and 7 during acclimatization and at the end of study.  Food and water consumption were measured daily from third day of study initiation and always at the same time.  All treated, plus one pair of male and female control rats were autopsied for determination of gross pathology.  The data was analyzed by comparison of treatment means.  Standard deviations of the means were reported.   All rats died between 3.5 and 5 days.of daily feeding exclusively on Eradirat.  The average for both sexes was 4 days.  The time period between the first symptoms and death was 12 hours.  The symptoms were piloerection followed by progressive lethargy and deteriorating coordination.  At death, most rats had traces of blood aroud snout and urogenital area.  There was no mortality or abnormal behavior among control group rats.  All treatment rats experienced 20 to 25% weight loss while control rats increased their weights 10 to 20% in 5 days.  Rats in treatment group showed an abrupt decline in food consumption of 5 to 7 g. while food consumption remained stable among controls, 20 g. for males and 15 g. for females throughout the test.  The same trend was observed among treated and control rats regarding water consumption.  Pathological examination revealed poor conditions among treated rats.  Visible behavioral symptoms appear only at the final half day before death.  The researchers concluded that the product caused rat mortality most likely from dehydration.  The study reports a couple of minor deviations from the Celsis (Kable, 2002) study regarding rats mean body weights, controlled temperature and RH that are unlikely to compromise test results.  Raw data are not included in the study report.  The study report provides identification of the test substance as Eradirat, a pellet bait consisting of plant material with no conventional pesticides.

MRID 484335-19:  Confirming Effects of Eradirat on Rats when Fed ad libitum

The study was conducted under laboratory conditions to confirmed the performance of Eradirat, formulation 3, on Sprague Dawley rats fed at libitum with the product for a period of 14 days.  Test animals were individually caged and fed Purina Rodent Chow for 7 days acclimatization period.  Animals were observed daily for general health, food consumption.  Twenty and 10 healthy rats (50:50 sex ratio) were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups, respectively.   Rats age are not reported.  Initial weights ranged from 115 to 132 g. in females, and 99 to 123 g. in males.  Observations included food and water consumption and body weights, recorded daily.  Clinical and behavioral observations were recorded twice daily.  Dead or euthanized rats were examined for gross necropsis.  Results show that all 20 rats died in the treatment group after 5 days of treatment.   Only data summaries are reported.  Treatment means were not subject to statistical analysis for comparison.

MRID 484335-20:  Efficacy of Eradimouse against Norway Rats

This is a laboratory study to assess the effectiveness of Eradimouse against non-acclimatized feral Norway rats; specifically, the project is designed to investigate the mode of action of the product through pathological observations and microbiological cultures.  It is postulated that certain type of bacteria might be involved in the cause of death.  In particular, Clostridium perfringes was identified by Coerze (1999) as a possible mortality agent.  The test material used was Eradimouse, `formulation 3,' which is the same formulation as Eradirat in smaller pellet.  Wild-trapped rats were caged in 1,400 m[2] metal cages in the lab and kept at 20 to 25 C°,  RH = 30 to 35 %, and natural summertime photoperiod.  Twenty five wild rats were brought into captivity but not acclimatized before testing to avoid the possibility that key intestinal bacteria may be lost during acclimation to the sterile conditions of the laboratory environment.  Twenty rats were randomly assigned to treated and control groups. The treatment group consisted of 20 rats, 12 males and 8 females.  The control group consisted of 5 rats, 4 males and 1 female.  Treatment rats were fed exclusively on Eradimouse while control rats were fed on rodent diet pellets.  Daily food consumption was estimated to the nearest 0.1 g.  from the weight of food remaining after each 24 hours period.   Body weights were recorded at beginning of trial and on death or end of testing.  Doses of ingested product were calculated dividing total consumption (corrected for weight changes in control samples) by mean values of beginning and ending body weights.  Post-mortum examination was conducted for gross pathology and bacterial cultures.  Sixteen rats died after consuming doses from 0.05 to 0.34 g of product/g of body weight.  There was no mortality among control rats.  Control rats consumed on average five times more food than treated rats.  Wild rats showed considerable variability in their susceptibility to the Eradimouse.  Blood loss from the stomach was the only consistent symptom.  Gross pathology and intestinal micro-organisms were normal.  Eradimouse killed most rats in less than 14 days, approximately within 5.6 days of treatment.  On average, treatment rats weighed less than controls (start weight of treated rats = 153  +- 15.1g., n = 20; start weight of controls = 203.6 +- 22.6 g., n = 5).  Average final weight among treated rats = 121.9 +- 12.8 g.  Average final weight among controls = 237.3 +- 26.7 g.  On average, treated rats lost 21.4% of their initial weight by the end of the trial while controls gained 10. 9% by end of trial.  Average food consumption among controls was 169.2 (average dose = 0.75 g/g).  Average food consumed among treated rats was 18.7 g (average dose = 0.14g/g).  Minimum lethal dose ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 g/g b.w.  The lethal mechanism of the product remains unclear.  Rats ate very little of the product and loss considerable weight.  Use of wild rats did not result in unusual proliferation of intestinal bacteria.

MRID 484335-21:  Efficay of Eradimouse against Wild House Mice

This is a laboratory study to assess the efficacy of Eradimouse pellets against wild house mice, Mus musculus; specifically, the project is designed to investigate the mode of action of the product through pathological observations and microbiological cultures.  It is postulated that certain type of bacteria might be involved in the cause of death.  In particular, Clostridium perfringes was identified by Coerze (1999) as a possible mortality agent.  Thirteen wild caught mice were acclimatized for 4 weeks in captivity.  Mice were caged individually in 1,400 cm[2] area cages and maintained at temperature ranging from 20 to 25 °C, RH = 30  -  50%, and light cycle of natural summertime photoperiod.   All mice were fed on standard rodent diet during acclimatization period.  Ten mice, half male and half female, were randomly assigned to the treatment group and fed exclusively on Eradimouse for 14 days trial.  The control group consisted of 3 female mice fed on rodent dietary pellets throughout the trial.  Daily food consumption was estimated to the nearest 0.1 g. from the weight of food remaining in feeding containers every 24 hours.  Body weights were recorded at beginning of trial and at the end.  Doses of ingested product were calculated dividing total consumption (corrected for weight changes in control samples) by mean values of beginning and ending body weights.  Post-mortum examination was conducted for gross pathology and bacterial cultures.  Mortality was 100% among treated mice.  The lowest lethal dose was 0.3 g/g body weight.  There was no mortality among the control mice.   On average, control mice consumed about 3 to 6 g. of food daily while treated mice consumed approximately 1 to 3 g of product daily.  Treated mice lost 28.8% of body weight in around 3.8 days from beginning of trial while controls lost 5.5% body weight over 14 days since test initiation.   The lethal mechanism of the product was not established without indication of Clostridium perfringes as a possible mortality agent.

MRID 48433522:  Effects of Eradimouse on Mice when Fed ad libitum

The study was conducted under laboratory conditions to confirm the effectiveness of the product to cause mortality on lab-reared mice, Non-Swiss Albino, fed on the product for 14 days.  Ambient laboratory conditions are not reported.  The report indicates that the animals were maintained according to the Guide for the Care of Laboratory Animals (NRC, 1996).  Twenty mice, half male and half females were randomly assigned to the treatment group.  The control group consisted of 10 mice, half males and half females.  Treated mice were fed exclusively on the product while control mice were fed Purina Rodent Chow throughout the test.  All mice were individually caged and fed on certified Purina Rodent Chow for 7 days prior to beginning of testing.  During the acclimatization period, food and water consumption were monitored daily.  All mice were observed daily for health and suitability to testing.   After the acclimatization period, the initial body weight of female mice ranged from 24 to 30 g. and from 26 to 32 g. for males.  Feed and water consumption were estimated daily throughout the test period.  From day 1 to day 7 of testing, mice were observed towice a day for pathological and behavioral symptoms.  From day 7 of testing, control mice were observed once daily.  Body weight was recorded daily.  Post-mortum examination for gross necropsy was conducted on all mice at the end of the test.  No Microbiology or histology was performed for this study.  Death occurred within 7 days among treated mice.  Necropsy observations were normal among test and control animals.  Data on body weights, food and water consumption, were summarized and tabulated.  No statistical analysis for comparison of treatment means is reported.

MRID 484335-23:  Efficacy of Eradimouse against Feral House Mice

The test was conducted in the laboratory to assess the efficacy of Eradimouse against feral house mice, Mus musculus, and investigated the mode of action of the product through pathological observations and microbiological cultures.  Thirteen wild trapped mice were acclimatized to captivity for 4 weeks.  They were  individually caged in 1,400 cm[2] area cages at ambient controlled temperature ranging from 20 to 25 °C, RH = 30 to 50%, and natural summer time photoperiod.  Ten mice, half male and half female, were randomly assigned to the treatment group.  The control group consisted of 3 males.  Treated mice were fed exclusively on the product.  Control mice were fed rodent dietary pellets.  The trial lasted 14 days.  Daily food consumption was estimated daily from the weight of food remaining after each 24 hour period.  Body weights were recorded at beginning and end of trial or upon death.  Doses of product were estimated by dividing the total consumed (corrected for weight changes in control samples) by the mean value of beginning and ending body weights.  Two dead mice from treatment group were submitted to post-mortum examination for gross pathology and bacterial cultures from the upper and lower intestine.  Mortality was 100% among treated mice.  The lowest lethal dose was 0.3 g/g body weight (about 6 g/20 g body weight).  There was no mortality among controls.  Control mice consumed an average of 3 to 6 g of food daily.  Treated mice consumed an average of 1 to 3 g of product per day.  Control mice lost an average of 5.5 % body weight during 14 days of trial.  Treated mice died around 3.8 days post treatment, and lost 28.8% body weight.  Cause of death was not established.

MRID 484335-24:  Trials to Support Registration of Rode-Trol Time to Death Efficacy (Rats and Mice)

This is a laboratory test conducted on rats and mice to determine the time it takes for the product to cause mortality in rats and mice when fed exclusively Rodettrol followed by rodent food pellets.
 The species of rats tested was Ratus norvegicus obtained from lincesed supplier Harlam, USDA.  The mice were not derived from a  specific strain, and no information is provided about their source.  The same husbandry procedures were followed for rats and mice.  Only healthy young adult rats, never tested before, were selected for the experiment.  Their initial weight ranged from 115-125 for males, and 115-125 for females  (+- 20% of average weight).   Upon their arrival to the test facility, the rats were paired with others of the same sex, and assigned to clean stainless steel wire mesh cages in a temperature controlled room. No information is provided on the size of the cages or ambient conditions such as temperature, light cycle, and relative humidity.

The rats were allowed to acclimate to the testing facility for 10 days prior to test initiation.  The control group was fed Purina rodent feed (guinea pig pellets), and the experimental group was fed on Rodetrol Rat pellets.  Water was available at libitum.  The experimental design is described as having 5 treatments, replicated 4 times.  Each replicate consisting of  2 cages, each cage containing 1 pair of male and female rats per cage for a total of 16 rats (8 males and 8 females).  The total number of male and female rats employed in the experiment was 80; 40 of either sex.  Treatments from 1 to 5 differ in number of days rats were fed Rodetrol.  Rats in treatment 1 were fed Rodetrol for 6 days.  Rats in treatments 2, 3, 4, and 5 were fed Rodetrol daily for 7, 8, 9 and 10 days, respectively.  There were 2 controls.  One control was fed Purina rodent pellets, and the other was kept unfed.  Observation lasted for 20 days.

The same experimental procedure was conducted on mice weighing approximately 30 grams (+- 10%) at beginning of the experiment.  No information is provided on the source of the mice, their age or health status.  Each experimental and control group was replicated 4 times as described on the above paragraph.  Each replicate consisted of 1 cage housing 1 pair of same sex mice per cage.  As described, individual pairs of same sex mice per cage were randomly assigned to each treatment replicate for a total of 8 mice (4 of either sex) per control treatment. Experimental treatments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5consisted of mice fed daily on Rodentrol for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 days, respectively.

Results are tabulated on separate tables for time to death for rats and mice.  Rat mortality was the highest, around 100%, at treatments 3, 4, and 5 for rats fed daily on Rodetrol for 8, 9 and 10 consecutive days.  There was no mortality among control rats fed on Purina rodent pellets.  Mortality was 50% among unfed control rats.

Experimental and control mice show the comparable results.  Mortality was the highest, around 100%, at treatments 3, 4, and 5 for rats fed daily on Rodetrol for 3, 4 and 5 consecutive days.  There was no mortality among control mice fed on Purina rodent pellets.  Mortality was 50% among unfed control mice.

The researcher concludes that Rodetrol induces mortality in cage rats and mice over time of consecutive feeding exclusively on the product.  It takes a minimum of 8 and 3 days of continuous feeding to induce mortality in rats and mice, respectively.

cc: Clara Fuentes, RAL , BPPD Chron File, IHAD/ARS
	FT, PY-S: 4/25/12


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 53890]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Rescindment of system of records notices.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) proposes to rescind 2 existing systems
of records notices. Specifically, the following SORNS are being
proposed for rescindment: (1) FERC-44: Request for Commission
Publications and Information; and (2) FERC-45: Commission's Requested
Records Tracking System (RRTS). The basis for rescindment is explained
below.

DATES: Comments on this rescindment notice must be received no later
than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If
no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or
unless otherwise published in the Federal Register by FERC, the
rescindment will become effective a minimum of 30 days after the date
of publication in the Federal Register. If FERC receives public
comments, FERC shall review the comments to determine whether any
changes to the notice are necessary.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in writing to Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or
electronically to [email protected]. Comments should indicate that they
are submitted in response to Request for Commission Publications and
Information (FERC-44) and Commission's Requested Records Tracking
System (RRTS) (FERC-45).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Supervisory Records and Information
Management Specialist, Office of the Secretary, Records Management
Team, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two systems were identified for rescindment
from the FERC's Privacy Act systems of records inventory. SORNs were
identified for rescindment because the SORNs are duplicative and
covered by another FERC system of records. OMB requires that each
agency provide assurance that systems of records do not duplicate any
existing agency or government-wide systems of records. Accordingly, two
SORNs were identified for rescindment.
    First, FERC-44: Request for Commission Publications and Information
is duplicative of and shares the same purpose as the records in SORN
FERC-61: Requests for Commission Publications and Information, 75 FR
17978 (March 28, 2014). Second, FERC-45: Commission's Requested Records
Tracking System (RRTS) is duplicative of and shares the same purpose as
the records in SORN FERC-61: Requests for Commission Publications and
Information, 75 FR 17978 (March 28, 2014).

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER: Request for Commission Publications and
Information--FERC-44 & Commission's Requested Records Tracking System
(RRTS)--FERC-45
HISTORY:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Federal Register citation and
        System of records number                 publication date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-44................................  65 FR 21757 (April 24, 2000).
FERC-45................................  65 FR 21757 (April 24, 2000).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 2, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16972 Filed 8-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lead and Copper Rule
The purpose of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is to protect public health by minimizing lead and copper levels in drinking water. Lead and copper enter drinking water mainly from corrosion of lead and copper containing plumbing materials. The rule establishes action levels (AL) for lead and copper based on a 90th percentile level of tap water samples. An action level exceedance is not a violation but triggers other requirements to minimize exposure to lead and copper in drinking water, including water quality parameter monitoring, corrosion control treatment, source water monitoring/treatment, public education, and lead service line replacement. All community water supplies and nontransient noncommunity water supplies are subject to the LCR requirements.

General Information
Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act 399
Michigan Safe Drinking Water Rules - Supplying Water to the Public
Types of Public Information Required Under Act 399 (PDF)
2018 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
 Summary (PDF)
 General Infographic (PDF)
 Detailed Infographic (PDF)

Lead and Copper Tap Sampling
Sample Site Selection
Site selection criteria were updated in 2018 to place more emphasis on sites with lead service lines. Review the updated sample site selection criteria to confirm the sites in your sampling pool still meet proper tiering criteria.
            Sample Site Selection Criteria (PDF)
Lead and Copper Sampling Plan (Sampling Pool)
Water supplies must submit to EGLE a Sampling Plan that contains a pool of properly tiered lead and copper tap sampling sites.
     Sampling Plan Instructions and Guidance
            Steps for Completing the Lead and Copper Sampling Plan (PDF)
            March 2019 - Site Selection and Sampling Plan Memo (PDF)
     Videos
            Sampling Plan Overview (10-minute video)
            How-to Complete the Sampling Plan Form (3-minute video)
     Sampling Plan Forms
            Lead and Copper Sampling Plan Form (PDF)
            Lead and Copper Sampling Plan Form (Word DOCX)
Tap Sampling Checklist
To avoid missing steps or deadlines, use this checklist as you prepare for and conduct lead and copper tap sampling and report results to EGLE.
            Lead and Copper Tap Sampling Checklist  (PDF)
Sampling Instructions
Samples MUST be collected according to very specific instructions.  Water supplies may use the following instructions to inform operators and/or homeowners on proper sample collection
     Sites WITHOUT lead service lines
            Sampling Instructions Non LSL(PDF)
            Sampling Infographic Non LSL(PDF)
            Sampling Video Non LSL
     Sites WITH lead service lines
            Sampling Instructions LSL (PDF)
            Sampling Infographic LSL (PDF)
            Sampling Video LSL
Lead and Copper Report and Consumer Notice Certificate
            Form A  --  Supplies WITH lead service lines: Form A (PDF) and Form A (Word)
            Form B  --  Supplies WITHOUT lead service lines: Form B (PDF) and Form B (Word)

Water Quality Parameter (WQP) Tap Sampling
Use these WQP report templates to report sampling results to EGLE. Choose the appropriate template based upon whether or not your system has corrosion control treatment.
 Water Quality Parameter Report for Systems WITH Corrosion Control Treatment (Word)
 Water Quality Parameter Report for Systems WITHOUT Corrosion Control Treatment (Word)

Distribution System Materials Inventory (DSMI)
     Distribution System Materials Inventories: Summary Data by Water Supply
     DSMI Instructions and Guidance
     April 2019 - Preliminary Distribution System Materials Inventory Memo (PDF)
     Videos
      DSMI Overview (7-minute video)
      How-to Complete the DSMI Form (5-minute video)
     DMSI Forms
            Preliminary DSMI Reporting Form (PDF)
            Preliminary DSMI Reporting Form (Word)

Service Line Information
Building owner/occupant service line material notification
      Service line material notification guidance
      Template notice of KNOWN lead service line: Notice 1 (PDF) Notice 1 (Word)
      Template notice of LIKELY lead service line: Notice 2 (PDF) Notice 2 (Word)
      Template of UNKNOWN service line material: Notice 3 (PDF) Notice 3 (Word)
      Template Enclosure - Reducing Potential Exposure to Lead: PDF Word

Training Materials
      LCR Overview and Changes (PDF)
      LCR Distribution System Materials Inventory (PDF)
      LCR Service Line Replacement (PDF)
      LCR Site Tiering and Sampling Pool (PDF)
      LCR Monitoring (PDF)
      LCR Reporting (PDF)

Additional information
 Please visit Michigan.gov/MILeadSafe for information on exposure to lead in drinking water, the latest drinking water test results and more.
 EGLE's Lead and Copper in Drinking Water for other reference materials for water supplies and the public.
 For more information on the EPA Lead and Copper Rule, including the final rules and the Quick Reference Guide visit the Web site of the U.S. EPA at https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.
 University of Michigan's "What you need to know about Michigan's 2018 Lead and Copper Rule"


[Federal Register: November 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 67875]
[DOCID:fr17no08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1795-DR]

Indiana; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1795-DR), dated September 23, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of September 23, 2008.

    LaPorte County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance).
    Daviess County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-27164 Filed 11-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P