[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7304-7306]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29110; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-35-AD;
Amendment 39-15808; AD 2009-04-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW4090 and PW4090-3
Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4090 and PW4090-3 turbofan engines with front
turbine hub, part number (P/N) 53L601, installed. This AD reduces the
published life limit of those front turbine hubs, from 12,000 cycles-
since-new (CSN) to 9,370 CSN. This AD also removes from service those
front turbine hubs using a drawdown schedule. This AD results from PW
updating the low-cycle-fatigue (LCF) life analysis for front turbine
hubs, P/N 53L601. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained
failure of the front turbine hub, resulting in an in-flight engine
shutdown and possible damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to PW4090 and PW4090-3
turbofan engines with front turbine hub, P/N 53L601, installed. We
published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on October 10, 2007
(72 FR 57502). That action proposed to reduce the published life limit
of those front turbine hubs, from 12,000 CSN to 9,370 CSN. That action
also proposed to remove from service those front turbine hubs using a
drawdown schedule.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Front Turbine Support P/N 53L601 Not Procurable

    United Airlines and the Air Transport Association state that the
front turbine hub, P/N 53L601, has a P/N that is only an internal Pratt
& Whitney P/N, and the part is not procurable. The procurable part is
the next higher assembly, P/N 53L121. They suggest that both the detail
and the assembly part numbers be listed in the applicability section to
cover both identification methods.
    We do not agree. The PW4000 engine manual does not specify a life
limit for the front turbine hub assembly, P/N 53L121. However, in order
to provide additional clarification, we will add a reference to the
front turbine hub assembly, P/N 53L121, similar to what is shown in the
PW4000 engine manual.

Request To Clarify the Compliance

    Japan Air Lines requests that we clarify that ``last-high-pressure-
turbine overhaul'' in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD, would
also include the last-fluorescent-penetrant inspection of the front
turbine hub, P/N 53L601, which would be a more accurate reference point
for them to count compliance cycles. The commenter believes this is
what we intended to state.
    We agree. We changed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) to state that operators
are to remove the front turbine hub from service at the next engine
shop visit (ESV), or before the hub accumulates an additional 6,000
cycles-since-last-fluorescent-penetrant inspection of the front turbine
hub, whichever occurs first, but not to exceed 12,000 CSN.

Request To Remove 3,370 CSN References From Paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(2)

    One commenter, Pratt & Whitney, requests that we remove the
references to front turbine hubs with fewer than 3,370 CSN, and hubs
with 3,370 CSN or more, from compliance paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2),
as they are not needed. The commenter states that there is no need to
drive removal of parts before they have reached the new published life
limit of 9,370 CSN.
    We partially agree. We agree there is no need to remove front
turbine hubs from service before they reached the new published life
limit of 9,370 CSN. However, the purpose of the 3,370 CSN threshold is
to identify those parts that can be removed per the specified drawdown
schedule. We did not change the AD.

Request To Revise Definition of Engine Shop Visit

    Pratt & Whitney, the ATA, and United Airlines request that we
revise the definition of ``engine shop visit.'' Pratt & Whitney
recommends compliance during shop visit at front turbine hub exposure,
and states that their analysis supports this. The ATA and United
Airlines recommend compliance during shop visit when either the ``E''
or ``N'' flange of the engine is separated. They state that compliance
at all shop visits will cause unnecessary engine teardowns for ``quick
change'' engines (fan case module refurbishments) and will result in a
significant cost impact.
    We partially agree. We reviewed Pratt & Whitney's risk analysis and
agree that we can manage the risk within acceptable levels if we change
the definition of shop visit to ``The induction of an engine into the
shop for maintenance involving the separation of any major mating
engine flange aft of the ``B'' flange, except that the separation of
engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without
subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop
visit''. We changed the shop visit definition in paragraph (h) of the
AD.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 94 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
101 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. The prorated cost due to a life
reduction from 12,000 CSN to 9,370 CSN for the front turbine hub is
about $66,460 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of the AD on U.S. operators to be $6,247,240.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative,

on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration 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:

2009-04-02 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-15808. Docket No. FAA-2007-
29110; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-35-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
24, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4090 and PW4090-3
turbofan engines with front turbine hub part number (P/N) 53L601,
(part of assembly P/N 53L121), installed. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777-200 series and 777-300
series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from PW updating the low-cycle-fatigue (LCF)
life analysis for front turbine hub, P/N 53L601. We are issuing this
AD to prevent an uncontained failure of the front turbine hub,
resulting in an in-flight engine shutdown and possible damage to the
airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.
    (f) Remove front turbine hub, P/N 53L601 (part of assembly P/N
53L121), from service and install a serviceable front turbine hub,
as follows:
    (1) For front turbine hubs that have accumulated fewer than
3,370 cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD,
remove from service before the hub accumulates 9,370 CSN.
    (2) For front turbine hubs that have accumulated 3,370 or more
CSN, but fewer than 9,370 CSN on the effective date of this AD, do
the following:
    (i) For engines that have an engine shop visit (ESV) after the
effective date of this AD before the front turbine hub accumulates
9,370 CSN, remove the front turbine hub from service before the
front turbine hub accumulates 9,370 CSN.
    (ii) For engines that do not have an ESV after the effective
date of this AD before the front turbine hub accumulates 9,370 CSN,
remove the front turbine hub from service at the next ESV, or before
the hub accumulates an additional 6,000 cycles-since-last-
fluorescent-penetrant inspection of the front turbine hub, whichever
occurs first, but not to exceed 12,000 CSN.
    (3) For front turbine hubs that have accumulated 9,370 or more
CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove the front turbine hub
from service at the next ESV, or before the hub accumulates 12,000
CSN, whichever occurs first.
    (g) This AD establishes a new reduced published life limit for
the PW4090 turbine front hub, P/N 53L601, of 9,370 CSN. The
following conditions also apply:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (f)(3) of
this AD, no alternative retirement lives may be approved for the
PW4090 front turbine hub, P/N 53L601.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install or
reinstall any PW4090 front turbine hub, P/N 53L601, on any engine if
the hub has accumulated 9,370 CSN or more than 9,370 CSN. Any PW4090
front turbine hub, P/N 53L601, that is installed or re-installed in
any engine after the effective date of this AD must be removed from
service before the hub accumulates 9,370 CSN.

Definition

    (h) For the purposes of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of any major mating engine flange aft of the ``B''
flange, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the
purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance
does not constitute an engine shop visit.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Information on an approved front turbine hub rework
procedure for increased life is available from the manufacturer. See
Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW4G-112-72-290, dated July 2,
2007. The reworked front turbine hub, P/N 53L601-001, (part of
assembly 53L121-001) is not affected by this AD. Contact Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-
7700; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for the service information identified in
this AD.
    (k) Contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 2, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3041 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40516-40517]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-2-000]

Gas Transmission Northwest LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed GTN Xpress
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the GTN XPress Project (Project), proposed by Gas Transmission
Northwest LLC (GTN) in the above-referenced docket. GTN proposes to
modify existing compressor stations in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.
This Project would increase the capacity of GTN's existing natural gas
transmission system by about 150 million standard cubic feet per day
between Idaho and Oregon. According to GTN, the Project is necessary to
serve the growing market demand its system is experiencing.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of
modifying and installing new facilities at the existing compressor
stations in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval
of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in
the EIS, would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but none
that are considered significant. Regarding climate change impacts, this
EIS is not characterizing the Project's greenhouse gas emissions as
significant or insignificant because the Commission is conducting a
generic proceeding to determine whether and how the Commission will
conduct significance determinations going forward.\1\ The EIS also
concludes that no system or other alternative would meet the Project
objectives while providing a significant environmental advantage over
the Project as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas
Infrastructure Project Reviews, 178 FERC ] 61,108 (2022); 178 FERC ]
61,197 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is participating as
cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. A cooperating agency
has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources
potentially affected by the proposal and participates in the NEPA
analysis.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Indian tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the Project
area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) select ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last
three digits (i.e. CP22-2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so.
Your comments should focus on the draft EIS' disclosure and discussion
of

potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of
your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that
the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on August 22, 2022.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-2-
000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/how-intervene. Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the
Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and
others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good
cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14457 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8611]
[DOCID:fr25fe09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 31, 2008, vol. 73, no. 212, page
65003. 14 CFR Part 298 requires air carrier operators to obtain a
certificate of public convenience and necessity from the DOT, with the
exception of air taxi and commuter air operators.

DATES: Please submit comments by March 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Exemptions for Air Taxi and Commuter Air Carrier Operations.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0633.
    Form(s) OST Form 4507.
    Affected Public: An estimated 2,040 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 30 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 1,026 hours annually
    Abstract: 14 CFR Part 298 requires air carrier-operators to obtain
a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the DOT, with
the exception of air taxi and commuter air operators.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

    Comments Are Invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 18, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E9-3907 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES March 17, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Human Studies Review Board: Final Weight of Evidence Comparison of BMD Estimates from Human and Animal Toxicology Studies of Oxamyl and Methomyl for the Interspecies Extrapolation Factor in the N Methyl Carbamate ( NMC) Cumulative Risk Assessment.

DP Barcode D321872. TXR No.: 0054127 PC Codes: 103801, 090301 FROM: Elissa Reaves, Ph. D., Toxicologist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THROUGH: William Hazel, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Tina E. Levine, Ph. D., Director Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

This document presents the rationale for the integration of RBC ChE inhibition data from the methomyl and oxamyl human studies ( MRIDs 44721401, and 44912301) for the extrapolation of the interspecies factor of methomyl and oxamyl in the N Methyl Carbamate ( NMC) Cumulative Risk Assessment. Page 2 of 12 Integration of Methomyl and Oxamyl Human Studies into the N methyl Carbamate ( NMC) Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment 1. Background:

The Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) was passed by Congress in 1996. The FQPA made key changes to the approaches used by EPA to assess pesticide chemicals. One of these changes was the requirement to consider cumulative risk to those pesticides which act by a common mechanism of toxicity. Pesticides are determined to have a " common mechanism of toxicity" if they act the same way in the body that is, the same toxic effect occurs in the same organ or tissue by essentially the same sequence of major biochemical events. OPP established the N methyl carbamate pesticides ( NMCs) as a common mechanism group and in accordance with FQPA has developed a preliminary cumulative risk assessment for this group of pesticides ( USEPA, 2005). Methomyl and oxamyl are members of the NMC common mechanism group.

OPP has developed a guidance document for developing cumulative risk assessments under FQPA ( USEPA, 2002). This guidance indicates that when developing a multi chemical hazard assessment, comparison of toxic potency should be made using a uniform basis of comparison, by using to the extent possible a common response derived from a comparable measurement methodology, species, and sex for all the exposure routes of interest. In the preliminary cumulative risk assessment, the Agency considered RBC and brain ChE inhibition as potential endpoints. Plasma cholinesterase data were not considered since the primary enzyme in plasma is butylcholinesterase and not acetylcholinesterase. Ultimately, brain ChE data from acute rat toxicity studies measured at or near the time of peak effect have been used by EPA to estimate a relative potency factor ( RPF) and to develop the points of departure ( PoD) for extrapolating cumulative risk. For instance, the brain BMD10 has been used to calculate the RPF while the brain BMDL10 establishes the PoD in the preliminary cumulative risk assessment. Brain data have been selected over RBC data as brain ChE inhibition represents a direct measure of the target tissue ( as opposed to blood data which is considered a surrogate measure) and brain ChE inhibition data tend to have less variation and thus confer less uncertainty on cumulative risk estimates.

Because data from rat studies provide the basis for potency determination, the Agency must consider interspecies extrapolation ( ie, animal to human) in its cumulative risk assessment. As such, human data may be used by the Agency to inform the pesticide specific interspecies extrapolation. In the specific case of methomyl and oxamyl MRIDs 44721401 and 44912301 are available, respectively. Page 3 of 12 2. Executive Study Summaries:

Methomyl:

TABLE 1. Study design Doses of methomyl administered ( mg/ kg bw) and number of male volunteers Session Numbers 0 ( Placebo) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 ( dropped)*

4 1 5 Total Volunteers = 19 4 5 5 5 0 Data obtained from p. 34, MRID 44721401. * No dosing at 0.5 mg/ kg occurred in Session 3 as > 40% RBC inhibition was obtained.

In a non guideline, ascending acute oral toxicity study ( MRID 44721401), 19 healthy human male volunteers, ages 18  40 years, were each given a single oral dose of a methomyl formulation ( Lannate ® SP, approximately 89% a. i., batch #: T 101397 00) in a capsule at doses of 0, 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 a. i. mg/ kg bw following a " standard" breakfast, and observed for two nights and one follow up visit 7 ( ± 2) days post dose. Volunteers were admitted to the clinic the afternoon prior to the morning dosing and were requested to fast for 9 hours prior to breakfast. The study was conducted as a double blinded ascending dose escalation clinical trial, and each male was treated at one of four dosing sessions. All volunteers remained under close medical and nursing supervision throughout the study. Parameters evaluated were physical examination and urinalysis at screening and 24 hours post dosing; vital signs ( i. e., blood pressure and heart rate), salivary quantity by weight ( secreted within 5 minutes), and pupillometry at screening, 16 hours pre dosing, 30 minutes pre dosing, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 24 hours post dosing; oral temperature at screening, 16 hours predosing 30 minutes pre dosing, 2, 4, and 24 hours post dosing; 12 lead electrocardiogram ( ECG) recorded at screening, 30 minutes pre dosing, 30 minutes post dosing, and 2, 3, and 24 hours post dosing; continuous ECG monitoring from 30 minutes pre dosing through 3 hours post dosing; hematology and clinical chemistry at screening, 30 minutes pre dosing, and 24 hours postdosing and plasma and red blood cell ( RBC) cholinesterase activities at screening, 16 hours pre dosing, 30 minutes pre dosing, every 15 minutes for the first 2 hours post dosing, and then hourly through 8 hours, at 24 hours, and one week later.

Four volunteers ( one volunteer at each concentration) throughout the 4 Sessions demonstrated a greater than 40% inhibition of RBC cholinesterase activity from that individual's baseline ( Session 1: 0.1 mg/ kg,  43.5% at 8hrs post dose; Page 4 of 12 Session 2: 0.2 mg/ kg,  40.6% at 45 minutes post dosing and headache at 105 minutes post dosing; Session 3: 0.3 mg/ kg,  43% at 45 minutes post dosing; Session 4: 0.2 mg/ kg,  41% at 75 minutes post dosing). RBC cholinesterase activity returned to baseline by 6 hours post dosing in all volunteers with the exception of one volunteer receiving 0.1 mg/ kg ( 8 hrs post dosing).

A dose response relationship was observed in all dose groups for plasma and RBC cholinesterase activity. In addition, cholinesterase activity for both plasma and RBC was consistent for timing of peak effect and time to recovery. In the high dose group, the mean percent change in RBC cholinesterase activity was statistically significantly decreased compared to placebo activity from the first time point at 15 minutes ( 18.6%) to 4 hours post dosing ( 5.0%), with peak inhibition at 45 minutes ( 35.2%) and recovery at 6 hours post dosing. At the mid dose, mean percent change in RBC cholinesterase activity was statistically significantly decreased compared to placebo activity beginning at 45 minutes post dosing ( 20.0%) until 2 hours post dosing ( 16.2%), with peak inhibition at 1 hour and 30 minutes ( 27.9%) and recovery at 3 hours post dosing. The mean percent change in RBC cholinesterase activity for the low dose ( 0.1 mg/ kg) was statistically similar to placebo activity at all time points. However, at 60, 75, and 90 minutes post dosing, the percent change in mean RBC cholinesterase activity was  14.6% ,  19.0%, and  10.5% of the mean group baseline level, respectively. The timing of the mean RBC cholinesterase activity coincides with the inhibition of RBC cholinesterase activity in the mid and high dose groups.

The mean percent change in plasma cholinesterase activity was statistically significantly decreased compared to placebo activity in the high dose ( 0.3 mg/ kg) beginning at 15 minutes post dosing ( 9.8%) until 4 hours post dosing ( 8.1%), with peak inhibition at 45 minutes ( 21.1%) and recovery at 6 hours post dosing. In the mid dose group ( 0.2 mg/ kg) the mean percent change from baseline plasma cholinesterase activity compared to placebo was statistically significantly decreased beginning at 45 minutes post dosing ( 11.5%) until 2 hours postdosing ( 10.3%) with peak inhibition at 1 hour 45 minutes ( 13.5%) and recovery at 3 hours post dosing. Mean percent change in plasma cholinesterase activity for the low dose ( 0.1 mg/ kg) was statistically similar to placebo activity at all time points. Plasma cholinesterase activity was only statistically significantly decreased at 2 hours post dosing ( 7.2%) when outliers were excluded.

Increases in saliva weight were dose related at the one hour timepoint, with the 0.3 mg/ kg volunteers at 60.3% above baseline weight, suggesting a potentially cholinergic response to the treatment.

Three volunteers had increased total bilirubin at least once during the study. The first volunteer ( 0.1 mg/ kg) had increased total bilirubin at 30 minutes pre dosing only. The second ( 0.2 mg/ kg) and third ( 0.3 mg/ kg) volunteer had increased total bilirubin at screening, 30 minutes pre dosing, and 24 hours post dosing. Page 5 of 12 No dose group had changes in pupillary size, respiratory rate, ECGs, vital signs, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, or clinical signs of cholinergic effects ( with the exception of the 0.3 mg/ kg individual who complained of a transient headache, and the early increase in salivation).

Under the conditions of this ascending oral study, the NOAEL for methomyl in humans is < 0.1 mg/ kg. The LOAEL is 0.1 mg/ kg, based on decreased peak RBC cholinesterase activity ( 19%).

The Agency generated BMD and BMDL estimates based on the RBC ChE data from this study. The resulting BMD10 is 0.035 mg/ kg with BMDL10 of 0.015 mg/ kg. ( Please refer to Table 3).

Oxamyl:

TABLE 2. Study design Doses Administered ( mg/ kg bw) and number of male volunteers Session Numbers 0 ( Placebo) 0.005 0.015 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.15 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 6 1 4 1 7 1 4 8 1 1 9 1 4 Total Volunteers= 40 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 Data obtained from p. 20, MRID 44912301.

In a non guideline, ascending acute oral toxicity study ( MRID 44912301), 40 healthy human male volunteers, aged 19  39 years, were each given a single oral dose of oxamyl technical ( approximately 97.6% a. i., batch #: DPX D140 196) in a gelatin capsule at doses of 0, 0.005, 0.015, 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, or 0.15 a. i. mg/ kg bw. Volunteers were admitted to the clinic the afternoon prior to the morning dosing. The volunteers were fasted for 9 hours prior to breakfast. Study volunteers were dosed approximately 5 minutes following a " standard" breakfast, and observed for two nights and one follow up visit 7 ( ± 2) days post dose. All volunteers remained under close medical and nursing supervision throughout the study. The study was conducted as a double blind ascending dose escalation Page 6 of 12 clinical trial, and each male was treated at one of nine dosing sessions. Volunteers received a complete screening physical examination, testing for Hepatitis B, C, and HIV infection, and drug screening of urine within 14 days of study commencement. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at screening ( within 14 days prior to dosing), 16 hours pre dose ( admission), 30 minutes pre dose, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 , and 24 hours post dose. Oral temperature was recorded at screening, 16 hours and 30 minutes pre dose, and 2, 4, and 24 hours post dose. A 12 lead ECG was obtained at screening, 30 minutes predose and 30 minutes, 1, 2, and 24 hours post dose. Hematology and clinical chemistry testing was performed at screening, 30 minutes pre dose, and 24 hours post dose. Urinalysis was conducted at screening and 24 hours postdose Pupillometry was performed 16 hours and 30 minutes pre dose, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 24 hours post dose. Saliva was collected and quantified by weight 16 hours and 30 minutes pre dose, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 24 hours post dose. Plasma and red blood cell cholinesterase activity were assayed at screening, and 2 days, 16 hours, and 30 minutes pre dose, and at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours post dose, and at 7 ( ± 2) days postdose

Clinical signs were reported by a total of 7 individuals from both the placebo ( 3 volunteers) and oxamyl dose groups ( 4 volunteers). These clinical observations did not correspond with peak ChE inhibition and were therefore not considered to be treatment related. Clinical observations from the placebo volunteers included bleeding gums, headache, fever, tremor, muscular pains, and right sided groin pain. Symptoms reported by the two volunteers in the 0.015 mg/ kg dose group included headache ( pre dose), brief nausea ( 57 minutes post dose to 61 minutes), and abdominal pain ( 46 hours post dose to 46.5 hours post dose). Examination of the volunteer with the brief nausea revealed no inhibition of cholinesterase activity or effects on pupil size or salivation and so was deemed unlikely related to the test compound. An earache was noted by one volunteer ( 46 hours post dose to 46.5 hours post dose) of the 0.03 mg/ kg dose group. At 0.15 mg/ kg, one volunteer experienced a headache ( 6 hours 50 minutes lasting 15 hours 15 minutes) and increased generalized sweating ( 10 hours 50 minutes lasting 3 hours 55 minutes). Both of these symptoms were considered possibly related to study compound but further investigation revealed the time course of symptoms were not consistent with the cholinesterase activity inhibition observed. Therefore, the adverse events were not likely to be truly related to the test compound.

The mean percent change in plasma cholinesterase activity was statistically decreased compared to placebo in the high dose ( 0.15 mg/ kg) beginning at the first time point ( 14%, 15 min) until 3 hours post dosing ( 8%), with peak inhibition at 45 minutes post dosing ( 43%, p< 0.001). Plasma cholinesterase activity returned to baseline by 6 hours post dosing. For the group exposed to 0.09 mg/ kg, plasma cholinesterase activity was significantly inhibited starting at 75 minutes post dosing ( 12% peak, p= 0.026) until 2 hours post dosing ( 10%, Page 7 of 12 p= 0.039) with recovery at 3 hours post dosing. Within the 0.06 mg/ kg dose group, the maximum plasma cholinesterase inhibition was  7% at 75 minutes post dosing ( non statistical, p= 0.22). Plasma cholinesterase activity was similar to placebo in the 0.005, 0.015 and 0.03 mg/ kg dose groups at all time points. However, when the linear trend was tested for dose at each time point, the test was significant for every time point except at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours, and 7 days post dosing. The inclusion or exclusion of outlying values did not alter the results for plasma cholinesterase activity.

The mean RBC cholinesterase activity of the high dose group ( 0.15 mg/ kg) was inhibited significantly beginning at 30 minutes ( 23%, p< 0.001) with peak inhibition at 45 and 60 minutes ( 28% and  27%, respectively with p< 0.001 for both) until 2 hours post dosing ( 8%, p= 0.011) and recovery to baseline by 3 hours post dosing. For the 0.09 mg/ kg dose group, the mean RBC cholinesterase activity was significantly decreased only at 30 minutes ( 7%, p= 0.016) with recovery following at 45 minutes post dosing. RBC cholinesterase activity was statistically similar to placebo at all time points in the 0.005, 0.015, 0.03, and 0.06 mg/ kg dose groups. Analysis of a linear trend for RBC cholinesterase activity by dose at varying time points indicated significance from 30 minutes until 105 minutes post dosing.

Saliva weight when examined with outliers was increased in the two highest dose groups at 1 hour post dosing compared to the placebo group. A linear trend was observed for saliva weight ( change from baseline), which increased with increasing dose and was only significant ( p= 0.002) at the 1 hour time point. The significance of saliva weight and dose was not achieved at any other time point during the study.

There were no significant decreases in minimum pupil size and recovery pupil size relative to baseline between any dose level and placebo, at any of the time points. Significant increases in recovery pupil size were observed at 2,4, 8 and 24 hour post dosing in the 0.005 mg/ kg group when compared to placebo. However, increases in pupil size are contrary to the expected response to cholinergic stimulation by the test substance.

Under the conditions of this ascending oral dose study in humans, 0.09 mg/ kg/ day represents a level where 7 12% plasma and RBC ChE inhibition was observed. Three of 5 volunteers at this dose ( 0.09 mg/ kg/ day) exhibited greater than 20% plasma ChE inhibition. Therefore, 0.06 mg/ kg/ day is considered the NOAEL.

The Agency generated BMD and BMDL estimates based on the RBC ChE data from this study. The resulting RBC BMD10 is 0.083 mg/ kg with BMDL10 of 0.069 mg/ kg. ( Please refer to Table 3). Page 8 of 12 3. Summary of Oxamyl and Methomyl Study Results:

The human toxicity studies for both oxamyl and methomyl were performed in a dose escalating fashion that provides dose response data for RBC and plasma ChE. Samples were taken and ChE activity measured every 15 minutes for the first two hours post dosing, then hourly through 8 hours, at 24 hours, and one week later. The multiple sampling over time showed the progression of inhibition of ChE activity until peak inhibition and then demonstrated enzyme recovery.

The human toxicity studies do not provide brain ChE data, for obvious reasons, and lack plasma and RBC ChE inhibition data in females. The blood ChE activity ( plasma and RBC) provided in the human studies are considered appropriate surrogate measures of potential effects on peripheral nervous system ( PNS) acetylcholinesterase ( AChE) activity, and of potential effects on the central nervous system ( CNS) when brain ChE data are lacking ( USEPA 2000). AChE is the target enzyme for the cumulative risk assessment and is the primary form of ChE found in RBCs. Butylcholinesterase ( BChE), on the other hand, is the primary form of ChE found in plasma. BChE is considered a measure of exposure but has not been shown to be of toxicological significance. RBC ChE data, therefore, is being utilized by the Agency to inform the pesticidespecific interspecies extrapolation.

The measured RBC ChE activity from the human studies is adequate for estimation of BMD and BMDL estimates. The male RBC ChE data from both the methomyl and oxamyl human studies were utilized in the dose response model in the same manner as the acute rat data ( brain and RBC) that are available for the NMCs of the cumulative hazard assessment ( USEPA 2005). The BMD10 and BMDL10 estimates for both the rat ( RBC, brain) and human ( RBC) are included in Table 3 below. Although no female volunteers were measured in the human studies, the rat data indicate no sex differences in ChE activity in either compartment ( brain, RBC). Dose response RBC ChE data from both human studies indicate a lower BMD estimate when compared to rat data. For example, the oxamyl human RBC BMD10 is 0.08 mg/ kg with 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.07 mg/ kg to 0.11 mg/ kg. The corresponding oxamyl RBC BMD10 in the rat is 0.28 mg/ kg with 95% CI of 0.14 0.54 mg/ kg. Likewise, the human methomyl RBC BMD10 is 0.04 mg/ kg with 0.01 0.10 mg/ kg 95% CI. The methomyl rat data indicate a RBC BMD10 of 0.34 mg/ kg with 0.25 0.45 mg/ kg 95% CI. As such, the estimates from the dose response modeling provide useful information into the sensitivities of RBC ChE inhibition of rats compared to humans. Page 9 of 12 Table 3. Oral BMD10s And BMDL10s Generated from Rat ChE ( RBC, Brain) and Human ChE ( RBC) Data for Oxamyl and Methomyl.

Rat Human Brain RBC RBC Chemical BMD10 ( mg/ kg) BMDL10 ( mg/ kg) BMD10 ( mg/ kg) BMDL10 ( mg/ kg) BMD10 ( mg/ kg) BMDL10 ( mg/ kg) Oxamyl F= 0.14 M= 0.18 F= 0.11 M= 0.14 0.28 0.16 0.08 0.07 Methomyl 0.49 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.04 0.02 BMD estimates are presented as a single estimate when there are no differences between sexes. BMD estimates for the human studies are for males only. Human RBC data obtained from MRIDs 44721401 and 44912301 for methomyl and oxamyl, respectively. Methomyl rat brain and RBC data obtained from MRIDs 44472001, 44487501, Padilla et al. 2005. Oxamyl rat brain and RBC data obtained from MRIDs 44254401, 44472001, Padilla et al. 2005.

4. Discussion There are a variety of quality studies that provide ChE inhibition information from both the rat and human studies for oxamyl and methomyl, which provide information about dose response. For purposes of the cumulative risk assessment, the difficulty lies in extrapolating information across compartments ( blood brain) and potential uncertainty surrounding ChE information solely from males. The preliminary NMC cumulative risk assessment relies on rat brain ChE data for the relative potency factors ( RPFs) and points of departure ( PoDs). The FIFRA SAP supported the Agency's use of brain ChE data in August 2005 ( FIFRA SAP 2005).

By reviewing and outlining the available data for oxamyl and methomyl, it becomes apparent that a couple of approaches are available to apply the interspecies extrapolation factor for the preliminary cumulative risk assessment. Tables 4 and 5 below highlight for oxamyl and methomyl the method of BMD10 ratio, interspecies factor, confidence interval, and the pro's and con's or uncertainties surrounding these options for interspecies refinement. The first approach is the use of the Agency's default 10X factor for interspecies extrapolation. The second approach is to use the ratio of RBC BMD10 rat ( both sexes) to RBC BMD10 for human ( male). The uncertainties surrounding both of these approaches are highlighted in the tables below. It should also be noted that an additional approach is the ratio of rat brain BMD10 to human RBC BMD10. This option would compare brain data relied on in the cumulative risk assessment with available RBC data from the human studies. This ratio does not compare ChE data from the same compartment and, therefore, is less appropriate for interspecies extrapolation for either methomyl or oxamyl.

At the present time, there is no indication from the available rat data for either oxamyl or methomyl to suggest a sex difference, i. e. that female volunteers Page 10 of 12 would respond differently than males to these pesticides. Given the similarity between brain and RBC ChE in rats, the Agency is not aware of any biological or physiological reason that human brain ChE would be more sensitive than the rat brain. The Agency, therefore, proposes to use the RBC BMD10 ratios for rats and humans for oxamyl and methomyl that results in an interspecies extrapolation of 3X ( 95% CI of 2 7) for oxamyl and 10X ( 95% CI of 3 29) for methomyl. These interspecies extrapolation factors are in addition to the other uncertainty factors for the cumulative risk assessment including 10X for intraspecies variability ( human variability) and FQPA safety factor. Comparative cholinesterase assays are available for both oxamyl and methomyl in which specific factors will be developed for the protection of potential sensitivity in the young. Page 11 of 12 Table 4. Comparison of the Alternative Choices and the Resulting Uncertainties Surrounding the Refinement of the Interspecies Extrapolation Factor for Oxamyl in the NMC Cumulative Risk Assessment Option of Refinement for Interspecies Factor Resulting Interspecies Factor Confidence Interval Pro's Con's or Uncertainties 1. Default Factor for Risk Assessment 10X NA 1. Standard uncertainty factor for interspecies extrapolation.

2. Accounts for uncertainty regarding lack of ChE brain data in humans.

3. Accounts for uncertainty regarding lack of ChE data in female volunteers. 1. Ratio of RBC BMDs indicate 4X factor.

2. No RBC ChE data in human females.

2. Ratio of RBC BMD10 rat vs. human RBC BMD10 3X 2X to 7X 1. BMD10 ratio is based on the specific data from same compartment ( RBC) in rat ( both sexes) and human ( male).

2. Inhibition of RBC ChE in rats is similar between sexes. 1. Uncertainty remains regarding lack of RBC ChE data in females.

2. Uncertainty remains regarding lack of brain ChE data in human volunteers. Page 12 of 12 Table 5. Comparison of the Alternative Choices and the Resulting Uncertainties Surrounding the Refinement of the Interspecies Extrapolation Factor for Methomyl in the NMC Cumulative Risk Assessment Option of Refinement for Interspecies Factor Resulting Interspecies Factor Confidence Interval Pro's Con's or Uncertainties 1. Default Factor for Risk Assessment 10X NA 1. Standard uncertainty factor for interspecies extrapolation.

2. Is supported by the ratio of RBC BMD10s in option 2 below.

3. Rat RBC ChE data similar between sexes and as sensitive as brain ChE. 1. Does not rely on species specific information.

2. Uncertainty remains for lack of RBC ChE data in female volunteers.

3. Uncertainty remains for lack of brain ChE data in humans ( male and female).

2. Ratio of RBC BMD10 rat vs. human RBC BMD10 9.5X 3X to 29X 1. BMD10 ratio is based on the specific data from same compartment ( RBC) in rat ( both sexes) and human ( male).

2. Inhibition of RBC ChE in rats is similar between sexes 3. RBC ChE as sensitive as brain ChE in rats. 1. Uncertainty remains for lack of brain ChE inhibition in humans ( male and female)

2. Uncertainty exists for RBC ChE inhibition in females.

FIFRA SAP ( 2005). Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Held August 23 26, 2005. SAP Minutes No. 2005 04. Preliminary NMethyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment. October 13, 2005.

Padilla S. et al. ( 2005). Time Course and Dose Response Assessment of Cholinesterase ( ChE) Inhibition in Adult Rats Treated Acutely with Carbaryl, Methomyl, Methiocarb, Oxamyl, or Propoxur. Presented at the 44 th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology; New Orleans, LA.

USEPA ( 2000). " The Use of Data on Cholinesterase Inhibition for Risk Assessments of Organophosphorous and Carbamate Pesticides"; August 18, 2000. Available: http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ trac/ science/ cholin. pdf USEPA ( 2002). " Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity." January 14,

2002. ( 67 FR 2210; January 16, 2002) http:// www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ trac/ science/# common USEPA ( 2005) Preliminary N Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment. Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ index. htm# sept


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 37852]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14976]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Notice of Exempt Preliminary Roll-Up Communication, OMB Control
No. 3235-0452, SEC File No. 270-396.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Exchange Act Rule 14a-6(n) [17 CFR 240.14a-6(n)] requires any
person that engages in a proxy solicitation subject to Exchange Act
Rule 14a-2(b)(4) [17 CFR 240.14a-2(b)(4)] to file a Notice of Exempt
Preliminary Roll-Up Communication (``Notice'') [17 CFR 240.14a-104]
with the Commission. The Notice provides information regarding
ownership interest and any potential conflicts of interest to be
included in statements submitted by or on behalf of a person engaging
in the solicitation. The Notice is filed on occasion and the
information required is mandatory. All information is provided to the
public upon request. We estimate the Notice takes approximately 0.25
hours per response and is filed by approximately 4 respondents for a
total of one annual burden hour.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: June 19, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14976 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 19271-19274]
[DOCID:fr09ap08-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57620]

Order Modifying the Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades
from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934

April 4, 2008.

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to Rule 611(d)\1\ of Regulation NMS \2\ under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), by order, may exempt from the
provisions of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (``Rule 611'' or ``Rule''),
either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any
person, security, transaction, quotation, or order, or any class or
classes of persons, securities, quotations, or orders, if the
Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of
investors.\3\ On August 31, 2006, the Commission granted an exemption
for qualified contingent trades from Rule 611(a) (``QCT
Exemption'').\4\ As discussed below, the Commission is modifying the
QCT Exemption to remove the minimum size limitation that was included
in the exemption as originally granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.611(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.600 et seq.
    \3\ See also 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1) (providing general authority
for Commission to grant exemptions from provisions of Exchange Act
and rules thereunder).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31, 2006),
71 FR 52829 (September 7, 2006) (``QCT Exemptive Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The Commission adopted Regulation NMS in June 2005.\5\ Rule 611
addresses intermarket trade-throughs of quotations in NMS stocks.\6\
The Rule applies only to quotations that are immediately accessible
through automatic execution. On August 31, 2006, the Commission granted
the QCT Exemption for any trade-throughs caused by the execution of an
order involving one or more NMS stocks (each an ``Exempted NMS Stock
Transaction) that are components of a qualified contingent trade.\7\ In
the QCT Exemptive Order, the Commission defined a ``qualified
contingent trade'' as a transaction consisting of two or more component
orders, executed as agent or principal, where:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \6\ An ``NMS stock'' means any security or class of securities,
other than an option, for which transaction reports are collected,
processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46) and (47).
    \7\ QCT Exemptive Order, 71 FR at 52831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) At least one component order is in an NMS stock;
    (2) all components are effected with a product or price contingency
that either has been agreed to by the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent;
    (3) the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution
of all other components at or near the same time;
    (4) the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g.,
the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined at
the time the contingent order is placed;

    (5) the component orders bear a derivative relationship to one
another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or
involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to
merge that have been announced or since cancelled;\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Transactions involving securities of participants in mergers
or with intentions to merge that have been announced would meet this
aspect of the exemption. Transactions involving cancelled mergers,
however, would constitute qualified contingent trades only to the
extent they involve the unwinding of a pre-existing position in the
merger participants' shares. Statistical arbitrage transactions,
absent some other derivative or merger arbitrage relationship
between component orders, would not satisfy this element of the
definition of a qualified contingent trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged (without
regard to any prior existing position) as a result of the other
components of the contingent trade;\9\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A trading center may demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock
Transaction is fully hedged under the circumstances based on the use
of reasonable risk-valuation methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction that is part of a contingent
trade involves at least 10,000 shares or has a market value of at least
$200,000 (``Size Condition'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(9) (defining ``block size'' with
respect to an order as at least 10,000 shares or $200,000 in market
value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'') has requested
that the Commission modify the QCT Exemption by removing the Size
Condition.\11\ According to the CBOE Exemption Request, market
participants find contingent trades to be an efficient means to effect
coupled executions in an option and the underlying stock based on the
pricing spread between the two instruments. CBOE notes that a large
percentage of these contingent trade orders end up unexecuted due to a
variety of factors. CBOE states that one of the factors impeding the
execution of contingent trades is the Size Condition. Contingent trades
involving a stock size under 10,000 shares (or $200,000) cannot be
executed if the stock leg would trade through an automated trading
center's protected quote.\12\ CBOE notes that, due to the need to price
the trade based on the spread between the option and stock leg more so
than on current market quotations for the stock, a contingent trade of
a modest size may still have the stock leg priced outside of a
protected quotation. In CBOE's experience, the Size Condition is a
factor that will continue to make it more difficult to complete
smaller-sized contingent trades. CBOE believes that this impediment has
a greater impact on individual investors who want to effect a buy-write
transaction of modest size than on institutional investors, who tend to
trade in much larger share amounts.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Edward J. Joyce, President and Chief Operating Officer, CBOE, dated
November 28, 2007 (``CBOE Exemption Request'').
    \12\ See CBOE Exemption Request at 3.
    \13\ Id. A buy-write transaction, for example, involves the
execution of a stock transaction and a corresponding options
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE states that, if the Size Condition is removed, the other
conditions--conditions (1) though (6) above--in the QCT Exemption would
continue to ensure that eligible contingent trades are not used in an
abusive manner to avoid compliance with Rule 611. CBOE believes that
the Commission primarily focused on these conditions when it found that
the exemption was narrowly drawn to encompass only those trades most in
need of relief to remain part of a viable trading strategy and where
execution of the NMS stock component at a trade-through price is
reasonably necessary to effect the contingent trade. CBOE notes that
the Commission believed that conditions (1) through (6) of the
exemption require a close connection between any Exempted NMS Stock
Transaction and the other components of a qualified contingent trade,
and that this close connection should both significantly limit the
number of Exempted NMS Stock Transactions and help assure that the
exemption applies only to those trades most in need of flexibility to
be executed efficiently. Finally, CBOE believes that a key rationale
behind the Qualified Contingent Trade Exemption is that contingent
trades are not priced based on current market quotations, but rather
the pricing relationship between two related instruments. CBOE believes
that the rationale holds as true for a small contingent trade that
meets all the requirements of the exemption as it does for a large
trade. In this regard, CBOE notes that the Commission recently approved
a proposed rule change of the options exchanges to amend the definition
in the Intermarket Linkage Plan of ``complex trade'', which is exempt
from trade through liability, to include stock-option trades.\14\ CBOE
states that the rule change does not set a size minimum for a stock-
option trade to be exempt from trade through liability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56761 (November 7,
2007), 72 FR 64094 (November 14, 2007).
    \15\ CBOE Exemption Request at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE therefore believes that the QCT Exemption, even without the
Size Condition, would continue to be in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors. In this regard, CBOE
believes that the proposed modification to the exemption would not
change the many benefits that contingent trades provide to the market.
At the same time, CBOE states that the remaining conditions from the
exemption will continue to ensure that the exemption is narrowly drawn
to prevent evasion of Rule 611 and that the exemption is limited to a
small number of transactions. CBOE believes that removing the Size
Condition will not result in a large increase in the number of
transactions being exempted from Rule 611 because smaller contingent
trades represent a very small portion of the overall amount of stock
executions in listed stocks.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful consideration and for the reasons discussed in this
order, the Commission hereby modifies the QCT Exemption by removing the
Size Condition. A ``qualified contingent trade'' now is defined as a
transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as
agent or principal, where:
    (1) At least one component order is in an NMS stock;
    (2) all components are effected with a product or price contingency
that either has been agreed to by the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent;
    (3) the execution of one component is contingent upon the execution
of all other components at or near the same time;
    (4) the specific relationship between the component orders (e.g.,
the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined at
the time the contingent order is placed;
    (5) the component orders bear a derivative relationship to one
another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or
involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to
merge that have been announced or since cancelled;\17\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Transactions involving securities of participants in
mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced would
meet this aspect of the exemption. Transactions involving cancelled
mergers, however, would constitute qualified contingent trades only
to the extent they involve the unwinding of a pre-existing position
in the merger participants' shares. Statistical arbitrage
transactions, absent some other derivative or merger arbitrage
relationship between component orders, would not satisfy this
element of the definition of a qualified contingent trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged (without
regard to any prior existing position) as

a result of the other components of the contingent trade.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A trading center may demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock
Transaction is fully hedged under the circumstances based on the use
of reasonable risk-valuation methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that a trading center must meet all of the
foregoing elements of a qualified contingent trade to qualify for the
exemption. The exemption is not restricted to dealers or the over-the-
counter market. It can be used by any trading center that meets the
terms of the exemption.
    The Commission recognizes that contingent trades can be useful
trading tools for investors and other market participants, particularly
those who trade the securities of issuers involved in mergers,
different classes of shares of the same issuer, convertible securities,
and equity derivatives such as options. Those who engage in contingent
trades can benefit the market as a whole by studying the relationships
between the prices of such securities and executing contingent trades
when they believe such relationships are out of line with what they
believe to be fair value. Contingent trades therefore are one example
of a wide variety of trades that contribute to the efficient
functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery process.
    As discussed in the QCT Exemptive Order,\19\ the Commission
believes that qualified contingent trades potentially could become too
risky and costly to be employed successfully if they were required to
meet the trade-through provisions of Rule 611. Absent an exemption,
participants in contingent trades often would need to use the Rule's
intermarket sweep order exception and route orders to execute against
protected quotations with better prices than an NMS stock component of
the contingent trade. Any executions of these routed orders could throw
the participants ``out of hedge'' and necessitate additional
transactions in an attempt to correct the imbalance. As a practical
matter, the difficulty of maintaining a hedge, and the risk of falling
out of hedge, could dissuade participants from engaging in contingent
trades, or at least raise the cost of such trades. The elimination or
reduction of this trading strategy potentially could remove liquidity
from the market. The Commission therefore determined to exempt
qualified exempted trades from Rule 611.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 71 FR at 52831.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize the effect of the QCT Exemption on the objectives of
Rule 611, it was narrowly drawn to encompass only those trades most in
need of relief to remain part of a viable trading strategy and where
execution of the NMS stock component at a trade-through price is
reasonably necessary to effect the contingent trade. In particular,
elements (1) through (6) of the exemption, as set forth above, require
a close connection between any Exempted NMS Stock Transaction and the
other components of a qualified contingent trade. This close connection
both significantly limits the number of Exempted NMS Stock Transactions
and helps assure that the exemption applies only to those trades most
in need of flexibility to be executed efficiently. For example, the
execution of one component of the transaction must be contingent upon
the execution of all other components at or near the same time, and the
Exempted NMS Stock Transaction must be fully hedged (without regard to
any prior existing position) as a result of the other components of the
contingent trade.\21\ In addition, there must be a specified
relationship between the instruments involved in the component orders.
The component orders must bear a derivative relationship to one
another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or
involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to
merge that have been announced or since cancelled.\22\ The QCT
Exemption does not apply to contingent trades, such as statistical
arbitrage transactions, if their components do not involve instruments
with a specified relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The requirement that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction be
fully hedged should significantly limit the scope of the exemption.
For example, a contingent trade would not qualify for the exemption
if an NMS stock transaction was the purchase or sale of 50,000
shares, and the only other component was the purchase or sale of a
small quantity of options on the NMS stock. A trading center may
demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged
under the circumstances based on the use of reasonable risk-
valuation methodologies.
    \22\ Transactions involving cancelled mergers would be qualified
contingent trades only to the extent that they involve the unwinding
of a pre-existing position in the merger participants' shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the QCT Exemptive Order,\23\ the Commission noted that the Size
Condition further limited the QCT Exemption to those transactions where
an exemption is likely to be most needed to facilitate the trading
strategies of informed customers. As a national securities exchange
with extensive experience in executing contingent options and stock
transactions, CBOE notes that the Size Condition in practice has served
to inhibit retail investors from engaging in buy-write transactions of
modest size.\24\ This type of options strategy can be suitable for a
broad range of investors, and the Commission does not wish
unnecessarily to inhibit retail investors from engaging in useful
investment strategies that are available to those who trade in larger
size. In addition, there are existing duties that brokers owe their
customers, such as suitability and best execution of contingent stock
and options transactions. The Commission therefore has decided to
remove the Size Condition from the QCT Exemption to enable the use of a
wider range of options strategies for retail investors. In this way,
buy-write strategies, as well as other contingent trade strategies,
will not be hampered by the terms of the QCT Exemption and will be more
readily available to those for whom such strategies are useful and
appropriate. In addition, removing the Size Condition, by expanding the
range of investors who can take advantage of the QCT Exemption,
potentially could promote competition among trading centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 71 FR at 52831.
    \24\ CBOE Exemption Request at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that removing the Size Condition
will result in the use of contingent trades to evade the requirements
of Rule 611. Elements (1) through (6) of the exemption, as set forth
above, are sufficient to encompass only those trades most in need of
relief to remain part of a viable trading strategy and where execution
of the NMS stock component at a trade-through price is reasonably
necessary to effect the contingent trade.
    Accordingly, the QCT Exemption, as modified, should provide
appropriate relief in those circumstances where compliance with Rule
611 could be most difficult as a practical matter, but also is limited
to a small number of transactions that should not unduly undermine the
objectives of Rule 611.\25\ In this regard, the Commission notes that
the exemption, as discussed in the QCT Exemptive Order, is premised on
an expectation that qualified contingent trades will continue to be
used for essentially the same valid trading purposes as they are
currently. A material change in the nature or frequency of such trades
could cause the Commission to reconsider the terms of the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CBOE Exemption Request at 4 (representing that removal
of the Size Condition will not result in a large increase in the
number of transactions being exempted from Rule 611 because smaller
contingent trades represent a very small portion of the overall
amount of stock executions in listed stocks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that removing the
Size Condition from the QCT Exemption

is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent
with the protection of investors.

IV. Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS,
that the Size Condition is removed from the QCT Exemption.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7446 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 47938-47939]
[DOCID:fr18se09-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-16-000]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System; Notice
of Public Meeting

September 10, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2009, the Commission Staff will
hold a public meeting to present research conducted by the faculty of
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sponsored by the Commission, on
Topological and Impedance Element Ranking (TIER) of the Bulk-Power
System. Commission Staff will convene this meeting, beginning at 10
a.m. and ending at 12 noon (EDT), at the offices of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Office of Electric Reliability (OER) initiated
this project to develop, for purposes of section 215 of the Federal
Power Act, a methodology to aid in identifying and ranking the

elements of the Bulk-Power System in the United States. Specifically,
OER staff is seeking: (1) Develop a process to distinguish those
facilities that should not be considered part of the Bulk-Power System
from those facilities that should be considered part of the Bulk-Power
System; (2) identify the elements needed to operate each of the
electric interconnections; and (3) rank the importance of those
elements. This project may lead to a methodology that could be utilized
in future proceedings to aid in refining the scope of what constitutes
the Bulk-Power System subject to section 215 of the Federal Power Act.
    The University of Wisconsin-Madison, in conjunction with OER staff,
has developed and tested a mathematically-based model intended to
reflect the physics of the Bulk-Power System. Dr. B. Lesieutre, Dr. C.
DeMarco and Mr. D. Schwarting, faculty of the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, will give the presentation.
    The TIER report will be made available on the FERC Web calendar
page for this event and on eLibrary when it is released. The Commission
will accept comments on this report within 30 days after it is posted
on the FERC Web site. An agenda and Power Point presentation will be
posted on the FERC Web calendar page closer to the time of the
presentation.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    A free Web cast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://
www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will
contain a link to its Web cast. The Capitol Connection provides
technical support for the free Web casts. It also offers access to this
event via television in the Washington, DC area and via phone-bridge
for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Perkowski or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transcripts of the presentation will be available immediately for a
fee from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-336-6646).
    For further technical information please contact Robert V. Snow at
(202) 502-6716.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22471 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 220-221]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-507-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Sea Robin Pipeline
Company, LLC; Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Request
for Extension of Time

    Take notice that on December 22, 2021, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Houston, Texas
77056, requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until December 31, 2022, in
order to complete abandonment activities as authorized in Transco's
VR22 to Shore Abandonment Project (Project) in the March 18, 2021 Order
Granting Abandonment \1\ (March 18 Order). The March 18 Order, Ordering
Paragraph (C) required Transco \2\ to complete abandonment of the
facilities within one year of the order date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 174 FERC ]
62,169 (2021).
    \2\ Transco is the operator of the pipeline facilities proposed
to be abandoned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transco's request for an extension of time until December 31, 2022
to complete abandonment of the Project facilities, due the timing of
the issuance of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources' Office
of Coastal Management--Coastal Use Permit, which is anticipated to be
received early 2022. Transco estimates that it will submit a Notice-to-
Proceed request during the first quarter of 2022. Transco states that
its extension request is also due to the challenging nature of offshore
activities. Transco asserts that the extended time will allow
flexibility in scheduling around weather events that may delay
abandonment activities.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Transco's request for
an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will be
considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the

proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the comment date
stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.10).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\4\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\5\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\6\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the certificate order, including whether the
Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience
and necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for
the certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\7\
At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\8\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all of those extension requests that
are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \5\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \6\ Id. at P 40.
    \7\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \8\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2022.

    Dated: December 28, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28475 Filed 1-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P