[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 47808-47809]
[DOCID:fr09au10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13819-000]

Verde Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

August 2, 2010.
    On July 21, 2010, Verde Hydro, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Verde Hydroelectric Project,
located in Maricopa County, in the State of Arizona. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant

the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following developments:
    (1) The existing 308-ft in height concrete Bartlett Dam with an
823-ft length at crest and hydraulic head of 251-ft; (2) two existing
72-inch diameter steel penstocks; (3) the existing Bartlett Reservoir
having a surface area of 2,815 acres and a storage capacity of 178,000
acre-feet and maximum water surface elevation of 1,798 feet mean sea
level; (4) a proposed powerhouse containing three new pump/turbine
generating units having an installed capacity of 10- to 15-megawatts;
(5) a proposed 12.5 kV interconnection from the transformer near the
powerhouse proceeding east to within the existing 345 kv transmission
line right-of-way. The proposed development would have an average
annual generation of 40,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Thom A. Fischer, P.E., Tollhouse Energy Company,
3633 Alderwood Avenue; Bellingham, WA 98225.
    FERC Contact: Mary Greene,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``eComment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13819) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19522 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13267]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certificated
Training Centers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. To determine regulatory compliance, there is a need for
airmen to maintain records of certain training and recency of
experience; a training center has to maintain records of student's
training, employee qualification and training, and training program
approvals.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0570.
    Title: Certificated Training Centers--Simulator Rule, Part 142.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 142.73 requires that training centers
maintain records for a period of one year to show trainee
qualifications for training, testing, or checking, training attempts,
training checking, and testing results, and for one year following
termination of employment the qualification of instructors and
evaluators providing those services. The information is maintained by
the certificate holder and subject to review by aviation safety
inspectors (operations), designated to provide surveillance to training
centers to ensure compliance with airman training, testing, and
certification requirements specified in other parts of the 14 CFR.
    Respondents: Approximately 108 training centers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1,177.6 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 127,180 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-5468 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44127-44128]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14572]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098; FRL-10582-03-OCSPP]

Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of
Findings for March, April, and May 2023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to
publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its
review of certain TSCA submissions when EPA makes a finding that a new
chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such
statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial
activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs)
submitted to EPA under TSCA. This document presents statements of
findings made by EPA on such submissions during the period from March
1, 2023 to May 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Rebecca Edelstein, New Chemical
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> email address:
[email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action provides information that is directed to the public in
general.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after
review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical
substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document
presents statements of findings made by EPA during the reporting
period.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) and make one of several specific findings pertaining to
whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical
substance or significant new use is not likely to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA
Section 5(a)(3)(C).
    TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a
statement of its findings after its review of a submission under TSCA
section 5(a) when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or
significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to PMNs,
MCANs, and SNUNs submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.
    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new
chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any
manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical
substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a
notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new
chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding
of ``not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or
manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding
any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

D. Does this action have any incremental economic impacts or paperwork
burdens?

    No.

II. Statements of Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent
that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this
period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the
new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
    The following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the
TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if
the specific name is claimed as CBI).
     J-23-0004, Genetically modified microorganism for the
production of a chemical substance (Generic Name).
     P-22-0118, Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 1,2,3-
propanetriol and 1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-trione, 3-methyl-3-buten-1-yl ester, CASRN 2760410-72-
6.
     P-22-0127, Urea, N,N'-bis-[3-[[(4-
methylphenyl)sulfonyl]oxy]phenyl]-, CASRN 2292123-68-1.
    To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the ``not
likely to present an unreasonable risk'' finding made by EPA under TSCA
section 5(a)(3)(C), look up the specific case number at https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/chemicals-determined-not-likely.

(Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.)

    Dated: July 5, 2023.
Shari Barash,
Acting Director, New Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-14572 Filed 7-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


U. S. Borax Inc. 26877 Tourney Road Valencia, CA 91355 ( 661) 287 5400 Nathan Mottl Chemical Review manager US EPA ( 7508C) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 December 22, 2005 Re. Boric Acid/ Sodium Salts: HED Chapter of the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision Document ( TRED)

Dear Mr. Mottl,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the TRED risk assessment document prior to posting for public comments. You have requested that Borax Inc. reply on: 1) Errors such as mathematical, computational and typographical 2) Confidential business information ( CBI) and 3) Pertinent completed, pending, or planned studies and other sources of information In reply we have noted typographical and computational errors as well as presenting comments regarding pertinent data. We do not see any confidential business information in this report. We do have additional comments we would like to submit, but they may not be appropriate for this stage of the review process.

Borax Inc. has copies of most of the public literature references mentioned in this reply. Should you have any questions feel free to contact me.

Tracy Branch Product Safety Manager ( 661) 287 5435 Trcay. branch@ borax. com The following references are attached:

MRID 53400701, Wnorowski, G. Acute inhalation toxicity limit on boric acid MG Test Product Safety Labs, US, East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816, Study  5257. Unpublished report to U. S. Borax. 1997 plus Robust summary Wnorowski, G., ( 1994), Acute inhalation toxicity limit test on boric acid. Product Safety Labs, US, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 0881; Study  3311. Unpublished report to U. S. Borax. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 2 of 9 Robust Summary Acute Toxcity Inhalation Boric Acid . doc Robust Summary Subchronic 2 year Dogs Boric acid. doc Robust Summary Subchronic 2 year Dogs Tetraborates. doc Robust Summary Chronic rat Boric acid. doc Robust Summary Chronic Rat Tetraborates. doc Bakke J P ( 1991). Evaluation of the potential of boric acid to induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in the in vitro hepatocyte DNA repair assay using the male F 344 Rat. SRI International, Study No. 2389 V500 91, 23 August 1991; plus Amendment 1 to the Original Report, May 20, 1992, Menlo Park, CA. Unpublished Report to US Borax Inc.

Hui, X, Wester, RC and Maibach, HI, ( 1996) In Vivo Percutaneous Absorption of Boric Acid, Borax and Octaborate Tetrahydrate ( DOT) in Man. Unpublished Report to U. S. Borax Inc., Study Number H832 11830 01, November 12. ***

Rainey, C. J., Nyquist, L. A., Christensen, R. E., Strong, P. L., Culver, B. D., and Coughlin, J. C. 1999. Daily boron intake from the American diet. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 99( 3), 335 340.

*** submitted in hard copy only  file is too large to submit electronically Typographical Errors 1. Appendix 3 which provides additional detailed information for the MOE calculation also lists the wrong NOAEL ( e. g. 8.9 mg B/ kg day) in the footnote ( d) for determining the MOE rather than the defined value of 8.8 mg B/ kg day.

2. Footnote " a" in table 6.3c that summarizes oral exposure ADD does not provide all the terms. It is missing a term for water concentration ( Cw).

3. Also, the footnotes in table 6.3d are not correctly assigned ( footnotes c and d) between the exposure scenario and label description.

Computational Errors 1. <IP_ADDRESS> Residential Handler Exposure Scenarios

Residential Handler Inhalation Exposure Calculations for exposure provided in Table 6.3a are correct except for the final step to calculate MOE. It appears, from back calculating the values, that the MOE values were developed by using a NOAEL of 400 mg B/ kg day rather than 8.8 mg B/ kg day as defined in the toxicology section and in the table footnote ( b). MOE has been recalculated for each scenario and are provided in the accompanying excel spreadsheet ( worksheet: Residential Handler Exposure). The new values ranged between 800 and 5,600,000. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 3 of 9 2. There are regular inconsistencies in both table 6.3b and corresponding Appendix ( 4) that provides input and output information for the Consumer Exposure Model. For example:

In table 6.3b, the Adjusted ADR ( acute dose rate) for sodium tetraborate decahydrate and sodium tetraborate appears to be divided by the boron content (%) rather than multiplied.

In table 6.3b, the Frequency of Use ( events/ yr) values of 52 are for dermal exposure and not inhalation which is the defined exposure pathway for this table. The correct values should be 312 for the two scenarios that list 52.

A recalculation of LADD, ADD or ADR for the different exposure scenarios ( Appendix 4) using the Consumer Exposure Model ( CEM) that is referenced by http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ exposure/ docs/ efastman. pdf provided estimated values different than those used to calculate the MOE by orders of magnitude. See Examples A and B below.

Example A The estimated ADD for scenario 1; sodium tetraborate decahydrate and general purpose cleaner.

ADD = 0.0103 mg/ m3 * 0.55 m3/ hr * 300 events/ yr * 0.667 hrs/ event * 57 yrs * 0.07 / 71.8 kg body weight * 57 yrs * 365 days/ yr ADD = 0.00000303 mg/ kg day Example B The estimated ADR for scenario 1; sodium tetraborate decahydrate and general purpose cleaner.

ADR = 0.00221 mg/ m3 * 0.55 m3/ hr * 300 events/ yr * 1.42 hrs/ event * 57 yrs * 0.13 / 71.8 kg body weight * 1 day ADR = 0.053 mg/ kg day Adjusted ADR = 0.053 mg/ kg day * 11.34% B Adjusted ADR = 0.006 mg B/ kg day MOE = 8.8 mg B/ kg day / 0.006 mg B/ kg day MOE = 1467

Although the MOE appear to be correct, the corresponding ADD values provided in table 6.3d appear to be calculated using an additional factor of 50% as all of the values presented are half of what they should be. See attached excel document, Table: Children Mouth. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 4 of 9

Calculations for inert ingredient ( boric acid) in general purpose cleaner is incorrect for ADR as previously described above in section <IP_ADDRESS> under Residential Handler Exposure to Consumer Use ( non pesticidal) section. See table 6.3b and Appendix 5.

It is recommended that each of the values in tables 6.3b and 6.3c be verified for accuracy.

Additional and Pertinent Data / Studies We have some specific comments to make concerning conclusions made in TRED in the absences of some data that we are submitting and referencing 1. The TRED has a data request for 28 day Inhalation study in rats. <IP_ADDRESS>  ` 28 day inhalation toxicity study in the rat is requested to better assess toxicity from inhalation exposure, based on available acute inhalation data ( Toxicity Category II) and the potential for inhalation'.

US Borax has two more recent acute inhalation toxicity limit studies on boric acid. In each case the limit dose tested was approximately 2 mg/ L because of the physical difficulties in producing an atmosphere of boric acid dust. The second study was carried out in response to the Boric Acid RED at the request of the US EPA to confirm that the highest dose obtainable was 2 mg/ l. It was deemed by the US EPA to be an acceptable study. MRID no 43500701 and addendum submitted on August 13, 1996.

Animal observations were limited due to the accumulation of test material on the walls of the exposure chamber. The LC50 was > 2.03 mg/ L from the first study and > 2.12. mg/ L ( 2g/ m3) from the repeat study. During the first 1.5 hours of exposure, ocular and nasal discharge, hypoactivity and haunched posture were noted. Ocular discharge and or nasal discharge persisted in most animals after removal from the chamber. All animals recovered by day two after removal from chamber. A Robust Summary of the Second study is Attached.

This data indicates that the acute inhalation toxicity should be in Toxicity Category III. In addition there is no indication that sub acute exposure would lead to adverse effects. Therefore there should be no need for a 28 day inhalation study.

References MRID 53400701, Wnorowski, G. Acute inhalation toxicity limit on boric acid MG Test Product Safety Labs, US, East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816, Study  5257. Unpublished report to U. S. Borax. 1997 plus Robust summary Robust Summary Acute Toxcity Inhalation Boric Acid . doc Wnorowski, G., ( 199a), Acute inhalation toxicity limit test on boric acid. Product Safety Labs, US, East Brunswick, New Jersey, 0881; Study  3311. Unpublished report to U. S. Borax. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 5 of 9 2. We also note that the critical NOAEL is deemed to be 8.8mg B/ kg based on the dog studies and based on an overall assessment of all the dog studies. The commonly accepted NOAEL for boron is 9.6 mg B/ kg/ day as indicated by the list of Risk Assessments below. However, even if the dog studies were used, it should be refined/ upgraded to reflect the actual intakes of the dogs, based on the actual dietary intake data rather than a standard calculated intake. This would compensate for an error in the dog study conclusions and indicate that the NOAEL is 9.6 10.9 mg B/ kg, which is in the same range as that for the rat studies. Many other expert groups have determined that the dog studies, while adding to the weight of evidence, are not suitable for setting an NOAEL for Risk Assessment including the US EPA ( IRIS 2004) published ( Culver et al, 1994a; ECETOC, 1995; European Commission, 1996; Murray, 1995; Culver and Hubbard, 1996; Hubbard and Sullivan, 1996, Hubbard, 1998; IPCS, 1998; WHO; 1998; Moore et al., 1998; U. S. Food and Nutrition Board. 2001; US EPA, 2004; UK EVM, 2003; EFSA, 2004). There are a number of issues with these studies that are not mentioned in the TRED.

  4.4.2 does not mention the equivalent boric acid study. There is a study on both boric acid and Disodium tetraborate decahydrate. A Robust Summaries of each study is submitted   The mg B/ kg equivalent dose intakes are incorrect in various publications because they are based on the standard food intakes for dogs, however, the original reports contain full details of feed intake and the NOAEL can be readjusted to 9,6 mg B/ kg based on Disodium tetraborate decahydrate study or 10.9 based on a Boric acid study. The original studies can be submitted for evaluation.   The number of dogs used was low, with only four dogs per dose level; these dogs were sacrificed at three different time intervals, resulting in variable group sizes of 1 2 males/ group/ sacrifice interval.   In the 38 week study, there were testicular lesions, including testicular degeneration in 3 out of 4 control dogs, and the fourth control dog had a low sperm count. Although a compound related effect is apparent at the highest dose, firm conclusions about the NOAEL cannot be drawn.   There is a large gap between the NOAEL and LOAEL, and the NOAEL and LOAEL were determined from portions of the study performed at different times. In addition, there is evidence that the effect at the LOAEL may be reversible which indicates that the LOAEL may be close to the NOAEL. This is consistent with findings in rats.   Lack of statistical analysis   Dogs were from unknown source and of unknown age   Disease and dietary history of dogs is unknown   Previous exposure to drugs, pesticides, chemicals unknown   Dogs sacrificed at different time intervals ( 12, 24, 27 months; 26, 38, 41 weeks), sometimes with no concurrent control   The dog is not the most appropriate species for type of study for reasons such as seasonal breeding performance, inbreeding factors, and insufficient historical background data.   Limited analysis of test material   No testing to determine homogeneity of diet   Some dogs were housed in metabolism cages for part of the study Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 6 of 9   Some dogs were catheterized; others were not.   Background level of boron in the dog chow was never measured.   The results indicate that the testes is a key target organ for borax toxicity in the dog, as it was in rodent studies. The results do not indicate that the dog is a more sensitive species than rodents.   A series of sophisticated studies of the reproductive toxicity of boric acid was conducted by the U. S. National Toxicology Program in the 1980s and 1990s which give a more accurate assessment of the NOAEL IRIS 2004 " The authors reported that there did not appear to be any definitive test article effect on any parameter examined. The study pathologist considered the histopathological findings to be " not compound induced."

" The Weir and Fisher ( 1972) study in dogs had other limitations for RfD derivation, including small number of test animals per dose group ( n= 4), the use of shared control animals in the borax and boric acid studies so that at most two control animals were sacrificed at any time period, the observation of testicular damage in three of four control animals, and the NOAEL and LOAEL taken from two different studies of different duration. Also, the study pathologist considered the histopathological findings to be " not compound induced." Based on the small number of animals and the wide range of background variability among the controls, these studies do not appear to be adequate for establishment of a defensible RfD."

We reiterate, in line with other expert assessments, that the most appropriate NOAEL for risk assessment is based on developmental effects in rats and and is 55 mg boric acid/ kg/ day ( equivalent to 9.6 mg B/ kg/ day) ( MRID 43340101)

References Dog Studies Weir RJ. ( 1966) Two Year Dietary Feeding  Dogs. Borax ( Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate). Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories, Inc. Report TX 66 20. July 8, 1966. Weir RJ ( 1967) 38 Week Dietary Feeding   Dogs. Borax ( Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate). Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories. Report TX 67 4. February 28, 1967.

Weir RJ. ( 1966) Two Year Dietary Feeding  Dogs. Boric Acid. Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories. Report TX 66 17. July 8, 1966. Wei RJ ( 1967) 38 Week Dietary Feeding   Dogs. Boric Acid. Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories. Report TX 67 3. February 28, 1967.

Both studies were published in summary form in Weir RJ and Fisher RS. ( 1972) Toxicological studies on borax and boric acid. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 23( 3): 351 64.

Robust Summary Subchronic 2 year Dogs Boric acid. doc Robust Summary Subchronic 2 year Dogs Tetraborates. doc Rat NOAEL Study ( MRID 43320101) Price C J, Marr M C and Myers C B ( 1994). Determination of the no observable adverse effect level ( NOAEL) for developmental toxicity in Sprague Dawley ( CD) rats exposed to boric acid in feed on gestational days 0 20, and evaluation of postnatal recovery through postnatal day 21. Report No. 65C 5657 200. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 7 of 9 Additional General References Culver BD, R. G. Smith, R. J. Brotherton, P. L. Strong and T. M. Gray, Boron. in Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 4th Edition, Volume 2F, Chapter 42, G. D. Clayton and F. E. Clayton eds., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, pp 4411 4448 ( 1994a)

Culver BD and S A Hubbard. Inorganic boron health effects in humans: An aid to risk assessment and clinical judgement. J Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine, 9, 175  184, 1996 ECETOC ( European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals), Toxicology and reproductive toxicity of some inorganic borates and risk assessment for man., Technical Report No. 63 ( 1995).

European Food Standards Agency ( EFSA) : Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Boron ( Sodium Borate and Boric Acid) , The EFSA Journal ( 2004) 80, 1 22 ( Request N ° EFSA Q 2003 018) ( adopted on 9 July 2004)

European Commission. Opinion of the Scientific Advisory Committee concerning toxicologically acceptable parametric value for boron in drinking water. CSTE/ 96/ 4/ V, February 20, 1996. ( EC drinking water directive ( 98/ 83/ EC)

Hubbard SA and F. M. Sullivan, Toxicological effects of inorganic boron compounds in animals: A review of the literature, J. Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine, 9, 165  173 ( 1996).

Hubbard SA , Comparative Toxicology of Borates. Biol. Trace Element Res. 66, 343 357, 1998.

IPCS ( International Programme on Chemical Safety). " Environmental Health Criteria 204, Boron." World Health Organization, IPCS Working Group, 1998 Moore, JA and an Expert Scientific Committee. An assessment of boric acid and borax using the IEHR evaluative process for assessing human developmental and reproductive toxicity of agents. Repro. Toxicol. 11: 123 160 ( 1997) and NTIS Technical Report PB96 156005, March, 1995.

Murray FJ, A human health risk assessment of boron ( boric acid and disodium tetraborate decahydrate) in drinking water, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22, 221 230 ( 1995).

UK EVM ( Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals), Safe Upper Limits for Vitamins and Minerals, May 2003 ( www. foodstandards. gov. uk)

US EPA. 2004. Toxicological review of boron and compounds ( CAS No. 7440 42 8) In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) June 2004 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC June 2004, EPA 635/ 04/ 052 www. epa. gov/ iris U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DCU. S. Food and Nutrition Board. 2001. Dietary Reference Intakes: Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc., pp. 13 1  13 42. Institute of Medicine, Washington, D. C.

WHO, 1998. Guidelines for drinking water quality. 2nd Edition Addendum to Volume 1. Recommendations Boron, pages 4 6 adn Addendum to Volume 2 Boron pages 15 29. World Health Organisation, Geneva.

3. Acute oral toxicity in dogs: although these figures are slightly different from our calculations based on the original data we do not disagree with the Toxicity Category III conclusions. However it may be worth noting that the dogs all vomited and therefore there is a limit to how high you can test in a dog. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 8 of 9 4. Unscheduled DNA synthesis study: <IP_ADDRESS>: " The unscheduled DNA synthesis study submitted to satisfy the genotoxicity study requirement for guideline OPPTS 870.5550 ( or 84 4; " other" non gene mutation and non clastogenic mechanism) was considered unacceptable." Although more data has not specifically been requested we have submitted an Amendment to the Final Report that gives the individual UDS data to assist in re evaluating this study. This should assist in upgrading the study to an ` Acceptable'.

Reference Bakke J P ( 1991). Evaluation of the potential of boric acid to induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in the in vitro hepatocyte DNA repair assay using the male F 344 Rat. SRI International, Study No. 2389 V500 91, 23 August 1991; plus Amendment 1 to the Original Report, May 20, 1992, Menlo Park, CA. Unpublished Report to US Borax Inc.

5. <IP_ADDRESS>   Two year Dietary Study in Rats. This was a review of a study on borax ( Disodium tetraborate decahydrate). There is also a parallel study on boric acid using the same control groups. Robust Summaries of both studies are attached. The reviewers note that there is a discrepancy in the percent survival of the mid dose males as presented in the study report ( 76.9%) differed from calculation from the data itself ( 64%). There is a request for the Registrant to submit clarification as confirmatory data. We concur with the reviewer that the mid dose male survival is 64% ( as indicated in the Robust Summary attached). In fact it is 64% for both boric acid and borax dose groups. It should be noted that this study ( as with all of the others from the Hazleton Laboratories Inc) were carried out in the 1960s prior to GLP therefore there would not have been a quality check on all the calculations.

References Weir R J ( 1966c). Two year dietary feeding study  albino rats. Boric acid. Final Report. Hazleton Laboratories Inc., Falls Church, VA, July 8th, 1966 ( TX 66 18) and Addendum to Final Report, April 10, 1967 ( TX 67 6) Unpublished report to US Borax Research Corporation Weir R J ( 1966d). Two year dietary feeding study   albino rats. Borax ( Sodium tetraborate decahydrate). Final Report ( TX 66 21). Hazleton Laboratories Inc., Falls Church, VA, July 8th, 1966 and Addendum to Final Report, April 10, 1967( TX 67 9). Unpublished report to US Borax Research Corporation Robust Summary Chronic rat Boric acid. doc Robust Summary Chronic Rat Tetraborates. doc Both studies were published in summary form in Weir RJ and Fisher RS. ( 1972) Toxicological studies on borax and boric acid. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 23( 3): 351 64.

6. Dermal absorption   it is mentioned that there are limited data, however the human data that was referenced under IRIS is mentioned. While this is not an issue we have submitted the original human dermal absorption study Reference Hui, X, Wester, RC and Maibach, HI, ( 1996) In Vivo Percutaneous Absorption of Boric Acid, Borax and Octaborate Tetrahydrate ( DOT) in Man. Unpublished Report to U. S. Borax Inc., Study Number H832 11830 01, November 12. Boric Acid / Sodium Salts TRED   Comments December 22, 2005 Page 9 of 9 7. Relevance NOAEL for a child risk assessment. We note that there are some unacceptable scenarios for exposures to children, which are based on comparison with the animal reproductive toxicity NOAEL.

We would like to question whether this NOAEL is the most appropriate NOAEL for exposure to children, particularly very young infants under some scenarios especially where single or few exposures are likely ( such as after carpet application). The key effect in children from oral intake appears to be vomiting and diarrhoea. A NOAEL for both adults and children, based on vomiting and diarrhoea of 1g/ day ( this puts an extra safety factor into the child risk assessment when based on mg/ kg) can be set based on the available data. For children they may in fact be less sensitive than adults as their renal clearance is greater than adults, therefore this would mean that an extra safety factor was not needed for children in this case.

References Culver BD and S A Hubbard. Inorganic boron health effects in humans: An aid to risk assessment and clinical judgement. J Trace Elements in Experimental Medicine, 9, 175  184, 1996 Also various Internal Borax reviews 8. 5.0 Public Health Data We note under section 5.1 Incident Reports  Final paragraph that ` Among adults, there have been incidents with significant toxicity from breathing dusts that were airborne. These incidents are usually due to over application by inexperienced applicators'. We would be very interested to learn more about these cases as we are not aware of any such incidents.

9. Section 3.2 Nature of the Residue in Drinking Water   last paragraph related to human daily boron intake. We would like to point the reviewer to other, more recent, comprehensive intake data by Rainey et al ( 1999)

Reference Rainey, C. J., Nyquist, L. A., Christensen, R. E., Strong, P. L., Culver, B. D., and Coughlin, J. C. 1999. Daily boron intake from the American diet. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 99( 3), 335 340.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23410]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4488-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New Jersey; Amendment No. 5 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 New Jersey (FEMA-4488-DR), dated March 25, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, 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 New Jersey is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 25, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of New
Jersey (already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the
Crisis Counseling Program and emergency protective measures
[Category B] not authorized under other Federal statutes, including
direct Federal 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.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09120 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23893-23897]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0425; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-224-AD;
Amendment 39-17815; AD 2014-07-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports
of cracking in particular areas of the bulkhead structure at body
station (BS) 2598. This AD requires repetitive inspections, including
post-repair and post-modification inspections, for cracking in the
bulkhead structure at BS 2598; certain one-time inspections of certain
fasteners and support frame modifications on certain airplanes; related
investigative and corrective actions, if necessary; and an interim
modification that would terminate certain repetitive inspections. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the BS
2598 bulkhead structure, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the bulkhead and the horizontal stabilizer support
structure, and result in loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 3, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 3, 2014

ADDRESSES: 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. 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>.

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-2013-
0425; 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 address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The
Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 65). We preceded the SNPRM with a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal
Register on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31867).

    The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking in
the bulkhead splice fitting, frame supports, forward and aft inner
chords, and floor support; an inspection for cracking in the bulkhead
upper web, doubler, and bulkhead lower web, and corrective actions if
necessary; and repetitive post-repair inspections of the support frame,
and corrective actions, if necessary. For certain airplanes, the NPRM
proposed to require:
     Inspections for cracking in the repaired area of the
bulkhead, and corrective actions if necessary;
     A support frame modification and inspections, and related
investigative and corrective actions, if necessary;
     Repetitive post-repair inspections of the support frame
and inspections for cracking in the hinge support, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary;
     A one-time inspection of the frame web and upper shear
deck (floor support) chord aft side for fasteners; and a one-time
inspection of the upper forward inner chord, frame support fitting, and
splice fitting for the installation of certain fasteners; and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary;
     A one-time inspection of the upper forward inner chord,
frame support fitting, and splice fitting for the installation of
certain fasteners; a one-time inspection for any repair installed on
the left and right side of the aft inner chord; and related
investigative and corrective actions, if necessary; and
     A one-time inspection of the support frame outer chord for
cracking, and repair if necessary.
    The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the forward and aft
inner chord of the BS 2598 bulkhead near the upper corners of the
cutout for the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, and cracking in the
bulkhead upper and lower web panels near the inner chord to shear deck
connection.
    The SNPRM proposed to add an optional terminating action for
certain inspections and expand the inspection area for certain surface
and open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the BS 2598
bulkhead structure, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the bulkhead and the horizontal stabilizer support
structure, and result in loss of controllability of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the
SNPRM (79 FR 65, January 2, 2014).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (79 FR 65, January 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 65, January 2, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 184 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts                            Cost on  U.S.
              Action                       Labor cost           cost     Cost per product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulkhead (support frame)           49 work-hours x $85 per         $0  $4,165 per            $766,360 per
 inspection.                        hour = $4,165 per                   inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
Support frame modification.......  315 work-hours x $85 per         0  26,775..............  Up to $4,926,600.
                                    hour = $26,775.
Support frame upper corner         16 work-hours x $85 per          0  1,360...............  Up to $250,240.
 fastener inspection.               hour = $1,360.
Support frame post-modification/   200 work hours x $85 per         0  17,000..............  3,128,000.
 post repair inspection.            hour = $17,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary interim
modification that would be required based on the results of inspection
of the bulkhead specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft that might need this interim
modification:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim modification......................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340              $0             $340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the corrective 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.
    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):

2014-07-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17815; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0425; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-224-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2010-14-07, Amendment 39-16352 (75 FR 38001,
July 1, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in
any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in particular areas
of the bulkhead structure at body station (BS) 2598. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the BS 2598
bulkhead structure, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the bulkhead and the horizontal stabilizer support
structure, and result in loss of controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections of the Bulkhead (Support Frame)

    For airplanes on which the bulkhead (support frame) modification
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473 or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2837 has not been done, and on which an
interim modification or aft inner chord repair specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427 has not been done: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July
19, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3)
of this AD, as applicable, do an open-hole and surface high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the
bulkhead (support frame), which includes the bulkhead splice
fitting, frame supports, forward and aft inner chords, floor
supports, and upper and lower web panels; do a surface HFEC
inspection for cracking in the bulkhead upper web assembly; do an
open-hole and surface HFEC inspection for cracking in the bulkhead
lower web assembly; and do all applicable corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013,
except as required by paragraphs (h), (m)(4), (m)(5), and (m)(6) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the applicable inspections, thereafter, at the applicable
times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013. Doing
the modification required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the
repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

(h) Interim Modification

    For airplanes in Groups 1 and 2, as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, on
which no cracking was found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, except as provided by
paragraph (m)(2) of this AD, do the interim modification, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013. Doing
the interim modification terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD in the area of the modification
only. The repetitive inspections of the bulkhead lower web, as
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, must be done. If the aft
inner chord repair or upper web repair specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, has
been accomplished, an interim modification on the side of the
airplane that has the repair is not required by this paragraph.

(i) Post-Repair Inspection or Post-Interim Modification Inspection

    For airplanes on which an interim modification, aft inner chord
repair, or upper web repair has been done, as specified in paragraph
(g) or (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, except as specified in
paragraph (m)(1), (m)(2), or (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, do
the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD,
and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, except as required by
paragraph (m)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July
19, 2013. Doing the modification required by paragraph (j) of this
AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.
    (1) Do forward side surface HFEC inspections for cracking of the
bulkhead forward inner chord, splice fitting, and frame support.
    (2) Do surface and open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking in
the repaired and modified areas of the bulkhead, as applicable.

(j) Bulkhead (Support Frame) Modification and Inspections

    For airplanes on which the bulkhead (support frame)
modification, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473
has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in tables 2 and 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4,
dated December 1, 2011, do the bulkhead (support frame) modification
and inspections and all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; in accordance with steps 3.B.3., 3.B.4., and
3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, except as required
by paragraph (m)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Doing
the modification in this paragraph terminates the inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.

(k) Post-Modification Inspections

    (1) For airplanes on which the bulkhead (support frame)
modification, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473
has been done: Except as provided by paragraphs (m)(7) and (m)(8) of
this AD, at the applicable

time specified in tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4,
dated December 1, 2011, do support frame post-modification
inspections, and open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking in the
hinge support, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4,
dated December 1, 2011, except as required by paragraph (m)(4) of
this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at
the applicable times specified in tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473,
Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011.
    (2) For airplanes on which the support frame modification, as
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 1, dated
February 20, 2007 (which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD), has been done: Except as specified in paragraphs (m)(7) and
(m)(8) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in tables 4 and
5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, do a one-time general
visual inspection of the frame web and upper shear deck (floor
support) chord aft side for fasteners that were installed as part of
an inner chord repair removal; and a one-time general visual
inspection of the upper forward inner chord, frame support fitting,
and splice fitting for the installation of certain fasteners; and do
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, except as
required by paragraph (m)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions at the applicable times
specified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1,
2011.
    (3) For airplanes on which the support frame modification, as
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, dated March 24,
2005 (which was incorporated by reference in AD 2006-05-06,
Amendment 39-14503 (71 FR 12125, March 9, 2006)), has been done:
Except as specified in paragraphs (m)(7) and (m)(8) of this AD, at
the applicable time specified in tables 5 and 10 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4,
dated December 1, 2011, do a one-time general visual inspection of
the upper forward inner chord, frame support fitting, and splice
fitting for the installation of certain fasteners; a one-time
general visual inspection for any repair installed on the left and
right side of the aft inner chord; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473,
Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, except as required by paragraph
(m)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions at the applicable times specified in tables 5 and
10 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011.
    (4) For airplanes on which a post-modification inspection was
done using paragraph 3.B.8. of Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 3,
dated July 14, 2011 (which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD): Except as required by paragraphs (m)(7) and (m)(8) of this AD,
at the applicable time in table 11 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4,
dated December 1, 2011, do a one-time surface HFEC inspection of the
support frame outer chord for cracking, in accordance with Part 1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011. If any cracking is
found, repair before further flight, using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this
AD.

(l) Post-Modification and Post-Repair Inspections

    For airplanes on which cracking was found during a post-
modification inspection and was repaired by doing the installation
of an upper or lower corner post-modification web crack repair, as
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated
December 1, 2011: At the applicable times specified in tables 6 and
8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, do a bulkhead (support
frame) post-repair inspection, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with paragraph a., b., or c. of Part 4 of
paragraph 3.B.8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, as
applicable, except as required by paragraph (m)(4) of this AD.
Repeat the inspection, thereafter, at the applicable times specified
in tables 6 and 8 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011.

(m) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7,
dated July 19, 2013, specifies a compliance time after ``the date on
Revision 2 of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after August 28, 2001 (the
effective date of AD 2001-15-03, Amendment 39-12337 (66 FR 38365,
July 24, 2001)).
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7,
dated July 19, 2013, specifies a compliance time after ``the date on
Revision 4 of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after August 5, 2010 (the
effective date of AD 2010-14-07, Amendment 39-16352 (75 FR 38001,
July 1, 2010)).
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7,
dated July 19, 2013, specifies a compliance time ``after the date on
the respective service bulletin revision'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (4) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7,
dated July 19, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473,
Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011; specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (q) of this AD.
    (5) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any cracking is found in the bonded web doubler, before further
flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this AD.
    (6) Where Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013,
specifies accomplishing inspections for cracking in the forward and
aft inner chords, splice fittings, floor supports, and upper and
lower web panels, this AD also requires doing an open-hole HFEC
inspection of the bonded web doubler if present.
    (7) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated
December 1, 2011, specifies a compliance time ``after the date on
Revision 2 of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time as of August 5, 2010 (the
effective date of AD 2010-14-07, Amendment 39-16352 (75 FR 38001,
July 1, 2010)).
    (8) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated
December 1, 2011, specifies a compliance time ``after the date on
Revision 3 of this service bulletin,'' or ``after the date on
Revision 4 of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time ``after the effective date of
this AD.''

(n) Optional Terminating Modification

    Accomplishing the modification of the bulkhead at BS 2598 in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2837, dated July 13, 2012, terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this
AD, except where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2837, dated
July 13, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action:
Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this
AD.

(o) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2010-14-07,
Amendment 39-16352 (75 FR 38001, July 1, 2010)

    (1) Accomplishing the inspections, repairs, and modification in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, is an
acceptable terminating action for the corresponding inspections,
repairs, and modification at the BS 2598 support frame required by
paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s),
(t), (u), and (v) of AD 2010-14-07, Amendment 39-16352 (75 FR 38001,
July 1, 2010). Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-

53A2473, Revision 4, dated December 1, 2011, specifies to contact
Boeing for repair instructions, the repair instructions must be
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(q) of this AD. All provisions of AD 2010-14-07 that are not
specifically referenced in this paragraph remain fully applicable
and must be complied with.
    (2) Accomplishing the inspections, repairs, and interim
modification in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, is an acceptable
terminating action for the corresponding inspections, repairs and
interim modification at the BS 2598 bulkhead required by paragraphs
(i), (j), (o), (s), (t), (u), and (v) of AD 2010-14-07, Amendment
39-16352 (75 FR 38001, July 1, 2010). Where Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, specifies to
contact Boeing for repair data, the repair data must be approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q) of this
AD. All provisions of AD 2010-14-07 that are not specifically
referenced in this paragraph remain fully applicable and must be
complied with.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (n)(2) of this AD, if those actions
were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 6, dated July 14, 2011,
provided that the additional actions added in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated July 19, 2013, are done
within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g),
(h), and (i) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427,
Revision 6, dated July 14, 2011, is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(q) 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 (r)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Related portions or applicable paragraphs of AMOCs approved
previously in accordance with AD 2010-14-07, Amendment 39-16352 (75
FR 38001, July 1, 2010), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this
AD. All new actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), (k),
and (l) of this AD that are not identified in a previously approved
AMOC must still be done.

(r) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be viewed at the addresses
specified in paragraphs (s)(3) and (s)(4) of this AD.

(s) 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 Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2427, Revision 7, dated
July 19, 2013.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2473, Revision 4, dated
December 1, 2011.
    (iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2837, dated July 13,
2012.
    (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 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 March 17, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-07339 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65380-65381]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-489-001]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request for Extension of
Time

    Take notice that on September 11, 2023, Northern Natural Gas
Company (Northern) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) grant an extension of time (2023 Extension of
Time Request), until October 13, 2023, to install and operate an
approximately 1.57-mile expansion of its 36-inch-diameter MNM80105
Ventura Interconnect to Farmington E-Line in Freeborn and Steele
counties, Minnesota, in the Prior Notice Request for Authorization
Under Blanket Certificate (Prior Notice) under Docket No. CP22-489-000.
On July 25, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization, which established a 60-day comment period,
ending on September 23, 2022, to file protests. No protests were filed
during the comment period, and accordingly the project was authorized
on September 24, 2022 and by Rule should have been completed within one
year.
    In its 2023 Extension of Time Request, Northern states that it
delayed construction until May 22, 2023, to avoid construction during
the winter and spring load restrictions on State and local roads.
Northern expected to complete the Project within the one-year time
frame. However, during construction, Northern's contractor experienced
multiple delays with the horizontal directional drilling (HDD)
activities due to drill rig availability and an increased duration for
the pilot and reaming activities. Additionally, construction for the
associated tie-in facilities was longer than expected due to a change
in tie-in plans at the Albert Lea compressor station as described in
weekly report 16. The proposed tie-in location on the D-line was not
suitable for in-service welding, resulting in additional excavation,
backfill, fabrication and pressure testing. Northern currently
estimates completing commissioning and testing of the new line the week
of October 2, 2023.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Northern'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).
    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,\1\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\2\ The Commission will

address all arguments relating to whether the applicant has
demonstrated there is good cause to grant the extension.\3\ 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.\4\ 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.\5\ The OEP Director, or his or her designee,
will act on all of those extension requests that are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \2\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \3\ Id. at P 40.
    \4\ 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.
    \5\ 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. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and three copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on, October 5, 2023.

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20570 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6511-6512]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02412]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-6077; FRL-9941-65]

Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant
to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical
substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the
uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and
describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance
and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I.
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures

    Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures
is provided in Unit IV.: D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma-lactone,
monosodium salt (CAS RN 6381-77-7).

II. Federal Register Publication Requirement

    Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting the receipt of test data
submitted pursuant to test rules promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15
U.S.C. 2603).

III. Docket Information

    A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this Federal Register
document that announces the receipt of data. Upon EPA's completion of
its quality assurance review, the test data received will be added to
the docket for the TSCA section 4 test rule that required the test
data. Use the docket ID number provided in Unit IV. to access the test
data in the docket for the related TSCA section 4 test rule.
    The docket for this Federal Register document and the docket for
each related TSCA section 4 test rule is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

IV. Test Data Received

    This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d)
for the test data received by EPA.

D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma-lactone, monosodium salt (CAS RN
6381-77-7)

    1. Chemical Use(s): Antioxidant in food applications for which the
vitamin activity of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) is not required.
Specifically, the compound is most frequently used to develop and
retain the coloring and taste in meat products. It is also used for
seafood products, fruit, and vegetable preservation, in beverages, and
as a developing agent in photographic applications.
    2. Applicable Test Rule: Chemical testing requirements for second
group of high production volume chemicals (HPV2), 40 CFR 799-5087.

    3. Test Data Received: The following listing describes the nature
of the test data received. The test data will be added to the docket
for the applicable TSCA section 4 test rule and can be found by
referencing the docket ID number provided. EPA reviews of test data
will be added to the same docket upon completion.
    Aquatic Toxicity Studies (Fish) (Daphnid) (C1). The docket ID
number assigned to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2016-02412 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P