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

<EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) >

<Petition Number 8E7481>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 8E7481) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of NJ,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.431 (a) by
establishing a tolerance for residues of clopyralid,
(3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid), in or on the raw agricultural
commodity swiss chard at 5.0 parts per million (ppm), bushberry subgroup
13-07B at 6.0 ppm and to amend 40 CFR part 180.431(c) by establishing a
tolerance with regional restrictions for residues of clopyralid in or on
the raw agricultural commodity strawberry at 4.0 ppm.  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FFDCA; however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may
be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The Agency has previously concluded that the
nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately understood.
Additionally the Agency has determined that tolerances should be
comprised of the parent compound only as no metabolites of toxicological
significance were detected in metabolism studies.>

<	2. Analytical method. An adequate residue analytical method is
available for enforcement of the tolerances listed below.  This method
determines clopyralid as the methyl ester by gas chromatography using
electron capture detection. This method has been successfully validated
by EPA and has been published in FDA’s Pesticide Analytical Manual,
Volume II (PAM II).>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Swiss chard: IR-4 has received requests from
the states of Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas,
and Washington for the use of clopyralid on Swiss chard.  To support
these requests, a total of eight crop field trials on Swiss chard were
conducted encompassing NAFTA Region 1 (NY, two trials at one site),
Region 2 (NJ, two trials at one site), and Region 11 (WA, four trials at
two sites) during the 2002 growing season.

At each test location, side-by-side plots established in Swiss chard
received one broadcast foliar application of clopyralid (3 lb/gal SL) at
rates of 0.093-0.103 lb ae/A (Treatment 02, low rate, 0.10-0.12 kg
ae/ha) or 0.188-0.199 lb ae/A (Treatment 03, high rate, 0.21-0.22 kg
ae/ha).  The applications were made in a spray volume of 16-34 gal/A
(150-318 L/ha of water), and did not include an adjuvant in the spray
mixture.  Swiss chard RAC samples (petioles) were harvested at
commercial maturity, 28 or 29 days after treatment (DAT).

The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for residues of clopyralid
in/on Swiss chard petioles was 0.05 ppm.  For clopyralid in/on Swiss
chard, the calculated limits of detection (LOD) and quantitation (LOQ)
were 0.024 and 0.073 ppm, respectively.

The maximum storage interval of Swiss chard samples from harvest to
analysis was 91 days (3 months).  Adequate storage stability data for
clopyralid are available to support the storage conditions and intervals
of samples from the field trials on Swiss chard.

The results from these trials show that residues of clopyralid were
0.05-0.70 ppm and <0.05-1.9 ppm, respectively, in/on Swiss chard RAC
samples (petioles) harvested 28-29 days after one broadcast foliar
application of clopyralid (3 lb/gal SL) at rates of 0.093-0.103 lb ae/A
(low rate, n=8) or 0.188-0.199 lb ae/A (high rate, n=8).

Blueberry: IR-4 has received requests from Michigan, Minnesota, North
Carolina, and Washington for the use of clopyralid on blueberry.  To
support this requested use, magnitude of residue data were collected
from nine field trials.  Each field trial site consisted of one
untreated control plot and one treated plot.  Common cultural practices
were followed to maintain the crop.  At each trial, two applications of
the test substance 12-15 days apart were made to the treated plots.  (In
the Oregon and North Carolina trials, the retreatment intervals were 18
and 21 days, respectively.)  The protocol required that the applications
be directed to the soil extending from the plants to the row middle,
without allowing the spray solution to contact the foliage or woody
portions of the blueberry bushes.  In the North Carolina trial, the
spray solution did contact the base of the bushes; the application
method in this trial simulated the actual grower technique in the
region.  The Maine trial was conducted on lowbush blueberry, which is
the dominant type of blueberry grown in Maine and which is grown in
solid plantings, without rows and row spacing.  The application rates
ranged from 0.240 to 0.264 lb ai/A per application for a total rate
range of 0.483 to 0.525 lb ai/A per season.  All applications were made
using appropriate spray equipment, and the spray volume was sufficient
to provide adequate dispersal of the test substance.

The LOD for the method was calculated to be 0.017427793 ppm and the LOQ
was calculated to be 0.05228338 ppm, using the method described in
Roy-Keith Smith’s Handbook of Environmental Analysis, 4th Edition.
The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for blueberry was 0.050 ppm
for clopyralid.

The total residues of clopyralid ranged from <0.050 ppm to 5.8 ppm in
samples taken at 27-33 days PHI.  The samples with the highest residues
were lowbush blueberries from Maine.  Among highbush blueberry samples,
the highest residue was 0.42 ppm.  The untreated samples from trial MI16
were found to have apparent residues of clopyralid at levels similar to
the treated samples from that trial; an additional trial was conducted
in Michigan the following year.  The storage interval for field-treated
samples in this study ranged from 41 days to 132 days.  No storage
stability fortifications were conducted in this study.

Strawberry: IR-4 has received a request from the state Florida for the
use of clopyralid on strawberries.  To support this request, a total of
3 crop field trials on strawberries were conducted encompassing NAFTA
Region 2 (NC, one trial), Region 3 (FL, two  trials) during the 2002
growing season.

At each test location, side-by-side plots established in strawberries
received one broadcast foliar application of clopyralid (3 lb/gal SL) at
rates of 0.119-0.125 lb ae/A (Treatment 02, low rate, 0.133-0.140 kg
ae/ha) or 0.246-0.255 lb ae/A (Treatment 03, high rate, 0.276-0.286 kg
ae/ha).  The applications were made in a spray volume of 29-35 gal/A
(271-327 L/ha of water), and did not include an adjuvant in the spray
mixture.  Strawberry RAC samples (berries) were harvested at commercial
maturity, 7 or 8 days after treatment (DAT).

The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for residues of clopyralid
in/on strawberries was 0.05 ppm.  For clopyralid in/on strawberries, the
analytical laboratory reported the limits of detection (LOD) and
quantitation (LOQ) as 0.0032 and 0.0095 ppm, respectively.  No example
calculation was provided.  Using the calculation method described in
Roy-Keith Smith's Handbook of Environmental Analysis, Fourth Edition,
Genium Publishing Corporation, the LOD and LOQ were calculated by the
final study report author as 0.0224 and 0.0673 ppm, respectively.

The maximum storage interval of strawberries samples from harvest to
analysis was 99 days (3 months).  Adequate storage stability data for
clopyralid are available to support the storage conditions and intervals
of samples from the field trials on strawberries.

The results from these trials show that residues of clopyralid were
0.79-1.8 ppm and 1.6-3.0 ppm, respectively, in/on strawberries RAC
samples harvested 7 or 8 days after one broadcast foliar application of
clopyralid (3 lb/gal SL) at rates of 0.119-0.125 lb ae/A (low rate, n=6)
or 0.246-0.255 lb ae/A (high rate, n=6).>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  For acute risk assessments, EPA has established an
acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.75 mg/kg/day for all population
sub-groups including infants and children.  The aRfD is based on the
developmental toxicity study on rats with a NOAEL of 75 mg/kg/day and
uncertainty factor of 100 accounting for both interspecies extrapolation
(10x) and intraspecies variability (10x).  A decrease in weight gain was
observed during gestation of 6-9 days at a maternal LOAEL of 250
mg/kg/day.  EPA determined that an additional factor to protect infants
and children was not appropriate.>

Clopyralid has low acute toxicity.  The rat oral LD50 is 5,000 mg/kg or
greater for males and females.  The rabbit dermal LD50 is >2,000 mg/kg
and the rat inhalation LC50 is >1.0 mg/L air (the highest attainable
concentration).  In addition, clopyralid is not a skin sensitizer in
guinea pigs and is not a dermal irritant in rabbits.  Technical
clopyralid is an ocular irritant, but ocular exposure to the technical
material would not normally be expected to occur to infants or children
or the general public. End use formulations of clopyralid have similar
low acute toxicity profiles and most have low ocular toxicity as well.

<2. Genotoxicty. Clopyralid is not genotoxic. The following in vitro and
in vivo studies have been conducted and all were negative for genotoxic
responses:  Ames bacterial mutagenicity assay (with and without
exogenous metabolic activation); Host-Mediated assay In vivo cytogenetic
test, rat; In vivo cytogenetic test, mouse; In vivo dominant lethal
test, rat; In vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in primary rat
hepatocyte cultures; In vitro mammalian cell gene mutations assay in
Chinese hamster ovary cell cultures (with and without exogenous
metabolic activation).>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Developmental toxicity was
studied using rats and rabbits.  The developmental study in rats
resulted in a developmental NOEL of >250 mg/kg/day (a maternally toxic
dose) and a maternal toxicity NOEL of 75 mg/kg/day.  A 1974 study in
rabbits revealed no evidence of developmental or maternal toxicity at
250 mg/kg/day; thus, the developmental and maternal NOEL was >250
mg/kg/day.  A more recent study in rabbits (1990) resulted in
developmental and maternal NOELs of 110 mg/kg/day based on maternal
toxicity at 250 mg/kg/day.  Based on all of the data for clopyralid,
there is no evidence of developmental toxicity at dose levels that do
not result in maternal toxicity.  In a 2-generation reproduction study
in rats, pups from the high dose group which were fed diets containing
clopyralid had a slight reduction in body weight during lactation and an
increase in liver weights in F1a and F1b weanlings.  The NOEL for
parental systemic toxicity was 500 mg/kg/day.  There was no effect on
reproductive parameters at >1,500 mg/kg/day nor was there an adverse
effect on the morphology, growth or viability of the offspring; thus,
the reproductive NOEL is >1,500 mg/kg/day.>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. The following studies have been conducted
using clopyralid.  In a rat 90-day feeding study, Fischer 344 rats were
fed diets containing clopyralid at doses of 5, 15, 50 or 150 mg/kg/day
with no adverse effects attributed to treatment.  In a second study,
Fischer 344 rats were fed diets containing clopyralid at doses of 300,
1,500 and 2,500 mg/kg/day.  Effects at the highest doses were decreased
food consumption accompanied by decreased body weights and weight gains
in both males and females.  Slightly increased mean relative liver and
kidney weights were noted in males of all doses and in females at the
top 2 doses.  Because there were no other effects, the kidney and liver
weight effects were judged as being adaptive rather than directly toxic.
 The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 1,500 mg/kg/day for
males and females.  The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) was 300
mg/kg/day for females.  In a mouse 90-day feeding study, B6C3F1 mice
were fed diets containing clopyralid at doses of 200, 750, 2,000 or
5,000 mg/kg/day.  A slight decrease in body weight occurred at the top
dose in both sexes.  The liver was identified as the target organ based
on slight increases in liver weights and minimal microscopic alterations
at the higher dose levels.  The liver changes were considered to be
reversible and adaptive.  The NOEL for males was 2,000 mg/kg/day and for
females was 750 mg/kg/day.  In a 180-day feeding study, beagle dogs were
fed diets containing clopyralid at doses of 15, 50 or 150 mg/kg/day;
there were no adverse effects.  In a second dietary study, dogs also
were fed diets containing clopyralid at doses of 15, 50 or 150
mg/kg/day; the only effect was an increase in the mean relative liver
weight in females at the 150 mg/kg/day.  In a 21-day dermal study,
clopyralid was applied by repeated dermal application to New Zealand
White rabbits at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg/day.  Treatment produced
no systemic effects.]>

<5. Chronic toxicity. For chronic dietary risk assessments, EPA has
established a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.15 mg/kg/day for all
population sub-groups.  The cRfD is based on the 2-year combined chronic
feeding-carcinogencity study in rats with a NOAEL of 15 mg/kg/day  and
uncertainty factor of 100 accounting for both interspecies extrapolation
(10x) and intraspecies variability (10x).  An increase in epithelial
hyperplasia and thickening of the limiting ridge of the stomach was
observed in both sexes with a LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day.  No tumorigenic
response was present.  EPA determined that an additional factor to
protect infants and children was not appropriate.

Clopyralid has been classified as “not likely” to be a human
carcinogen based on no evidence of carcinogencity in rats and mice and
no evidence of genotoxicity in an acceptable mutagenicity studies.
Thus, an exposure assessment to address cancer risk is not required.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. Disposition and metabolism of clopyralid were
tested in male and female rats at a dose of 5 mg/kg (oral).  The
majority of a radioactive dose was excreted in 24 hours of all dose
groups through urine.  Fecal elimination was minor.  Detectable levels
of residual radioactivity were observed in the carcass and stomach at 72
hours post-dose.  HPLC and TLC analysis of urine and fecal extracts
showed no apparent metabolism of clopyralid.

Following oral administration, clopyralid was rapidly and completely
eliminated from goats, chickens and sheep.  In goats and sheep, the
majority of the administered dose was excreted in the urine.  This
residue was found to be mostly unchanged clopyralid, and in goats, the
remainder was found to be a glycine conjugate of clopyralid.  Residues
in milk were low, reaching a plateau of 0.03-0.05 mg/kg after 3-4 days.
Radioactivity levels in milk fat were below the limit of detection,
indicating that there is no tendency for clopyralid to accumulate in
milk fat.   Tissue residue levels were also low and comprised unchanged
clopyralid only.  The residues in the eggs and chicken tissues were
unchanged clopyralid.  Based on the ruminant and poultry nature of
residue (NOR) studies, the residue definition for animal tissue is
clopyralid, the parent compound.

In animal feeding studies, calves fed clopyralid at levels as high as
1,000 ppm showed no ill, effects due to ingestion of the chemical.
Additionally, no difference is observed between the control and treated
groups in weight gain and feed consumption. After withdrawal from
treated feed, residues in all tissues diminished rapidly from the levels
found after feeding clopyralid at 1,000 ppm for 28 days. At the levels
of herbicide that would be expected in grains used at cattle feed, no
residues would occur above the 0.05 ppm level.>

<7. Metabolite toxicology. Following oral administration in the rat,
clopyralid was rapidly and completely (>80%) absorbed and excreted
quantitatively unchanged in the urine.  There were no differences in
distribution of radioactivity between dose rates, sex, route (oral vs.
iv) or frequency of administration.  Clopyralid was not metabolized in
the rat. The Residue of Concern (ROC) in plant and animal products is
the parent compound, clopyralid.>

<8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that
clopyralid has an effect on the endocrine system.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure to US-general population and
sensitive population subgroups was assessed from all clopyralid
currently listed uses, plus the newly proposed use on Swiss chard,
Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B and Strawberry.  Water from direct and
indirect exposure was also included in the dietary exposure and risk
assessment.>

<i. Food. Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide,
clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on the raw
agricultural commodities and are published in 40 CFR Section 180.431.
Parent clopyralid, only, is the residue definition in animal and plant
commodities.  Tolerances have been proposed for the residues of
clopyralid in or on Swiss chard at 5 parts per million (ppm), Bushberry
Subgroup 13-07B at 6 parts per million (ppm), Strawberry at 4 parts per
million (ppm).  These proposed tolerances are adequate to cover the
highest expected field residues from the labeled use of clopyralid.

In conducting the acute and chronic dietary assessments, Dow
AgroSciences used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID, Version 2.14) which
incorporates food consumption data as reported in the CSFII Survey
1994-1996 and 1998.  A conservative analysis (Tier 1) was performed with
the assumptions that 100% of crops with approved and proposed uses of
clopyralid would be treated with the pesticide and that the residues
would be present at the tolerance levels.

Based on these conservative assumptions and using an aRfD of 0.75
mg/kg/day, for the U.S. general population, the Tier I acute dietary
exposure at the 95th percentile from food to clopyralid was estimated to
be 0.033 mg/kg/day, or 4.5% of the aRfD for the U.S. population; and
0.069 mg/kg/day, which represents 9.2% of the aRfD for children (1-2
years), the population sub-group predicted to be potentially most
exposed. Adverse effects are not expected for exposures utilizing <100%
of the aRfD, therefore, acute dietary exposure and risk for the general
U.S. population and children are well within the acceptable levels.

Based on these conservative assumptions and using an cRfD of 0.15
mg/kg/day, for the U.S. general population, the Tier I chronic dietary
exposure from food to clopyralid was estimated to be 0.013 mg/kg/day, or
8.5% of the cRfD for the U.S. population; and 0.035 mg/kg/day , or 23.2%
of the cRfD for children (1-2 years), the population sub-group predicted
to be potentially most exposed. Adverse effects are not expected for
exposures utilizing <100% of the aRfD, therefore, chronic dietary
exposure and risk for the general U.S. population and children are well
within the acceptable levels.>

<	ii. Drinking water. Since the Agency lacks sufficient monitoring data
to complete a comprehensive exposure and risk assessment for florasulam
in drinking water, drinking water concentration estimates are made on
simulation taking into account data on the physical characteristics of
clopyralid.

Guidance from EPA has indicated that Tier 1 screening level models, such
as FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool), and SCI-GROW, maybe used
to estimate upper-bound pesticide residues in surface water and ground
water when assessing potential exposure through drinking water.

FIRST is an extremely conservative estimate for predicting surface water
concentrations, and considers adsorption of the pesticide to soil or
sediment, incorporation of the pesticide at application, direct
deposition of spray drift into the water body, and degradation of the
pesticide in soil before runoff and within the water body.

In an assessment published in Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 186,
September 25, 2002, FRL-7198-4), EPA used FIRST and SCI-GROW models to
estimate the environmental concentration (EEC) for surface water and
ground water, respectively. The EECs of clopyralid estimated by EPA for
ground water is 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) for both acute and chronic
exposures.  The EECs for surface water were estimated to be 46 ppb for
acute exposure and 18 ppb for chronic exposure.

Estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) of pesticide in surface
water were then inputted into DEEM model for estimation of dietary
exposure from water both direct and indirect sources. The input of water
residues along with food into the DEEM model provides a conservative
estimate of the total exposure from food and water sources.

When water exposure was aggregated with food, acute dietary exposure was
9.5% of the aRfD for children 1-2 years, the most highly exposed
population sub-group. Additionally, chronic dietary exposure was 23.6%
of the cRfD for children 1-2 years, the most highly exposed population
sub-group. Therefore, aggregate exposure to clopyralid in drinking water
would not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. Clopyralid is no longer registered for
residential turf uses that would result in residential exposure.  Thus,
the risk from non-dietary exposure is considered negligible.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<Currently, no methodologies are available to resolve the complex
scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity and cumulative
exposure and risk. The U.S. EPA has begun a pilot process to study this
issue further through the examination of particular classes of
pesticides. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity,
clopyralid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this notice, therefore, EPA has
not assumed that clopyralid has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. As such, Dow AgroSciences believes it is appropriate
to consider only the potential risks of clopyralid in this exposure
assessment.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<1. U.S. population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above, and based on  the completeness and reliability of the
toxicity data, the aggregate exposure (food and water only) to
clopyralid, as determined under the guidance of the FQPA, will utilize <
5 % of the aRfD and < 9% of the cRfD from the dietary exposure for the
U.S. population.  The calculated exposure was greatest from water as
estimated by FIRST surface water modeling. Generally, and under the
FQPA, the U.S. EPA has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD.
Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
the general U.S. population from aggregate exposure to clopyralid
residues from the approved and proposed uses.>

<	2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of clopyralid, data from
developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a
multi-generation reproduction study in the rat are considered.  The
developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects
on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during
prenatal development.  Reproduction studies provide information relating
to effects from exposure of both parents to the pesticide on the
reproductive capability and potential systemic toxicity of mating
animals and on various parameters associated with the well being of
offspring.   There was no effect on reproductive parameters at >1,500
mg/kg/day nor was there an adverse effect on the morphology, growth or
viability of the offspring.

FFDCA section 408 provides that the U.S. EPA may apply an additional
safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects
to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the
database.  Based on the current toxicological data requirements, the
database for clopyralid relative to pre- and post-natal effects for
children is complete.

The EPA determined that an additional FQPA factor to protect infants and
children is not required for clopyralid as there is no indication of
increased sensitivity of infants and children relative to adults.

Thus, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and
the conservative exposure assessment, the aggregate exposure (food and
water only) to clopyralid, as determined under the guidance of the FQPA,
will utilize <10% of the aRfD and <24% of the cRfD from the dietary
exposure for the most sensitive population sub-group, children 1-2 years
old. It is concluded then that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from acute- and chronic-term
aggregate exposures to clopyralid residues from the approved and
proposed uses.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are no Codex or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs).

Canada has set maximum residue limits of 2.0 ppm for barley, oats, and
wheat, 7.0 ppm for the milled fractions of barley, oats, and wheat
(excluding flour), 1.0 ppm for strawberries and 0.2 ppm for flax.>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37810]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0560]
RIN 1625-AA08

Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the annual Elliot Bay Seattle, WA
safety zone in Elliot Bay from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008.
This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and
spectators during the Ivar's Spectacular Fireworks show. During the
enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring
within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1307 will be enforced from 9:30
p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the
Port Puget Sound, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South,
Seattle, WA 98134 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA Fireworks Show, 33 CFR 165.1307 from 9:30
p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4th, 2008.
    This safety zone provides for a regulated area to protect
spectators while providing unobstructed vessel traffic lanes to ensure
timely arrival of emergency response craft. Movements are regulated for
all vessels in the area as described under 33 CFR 165.1307 or unless
otherwise regulated by the COTP or his designee. The Coast Guard may be
assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in
enforcing this safety zone.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1307, all waters of Elliott Bay
within a box bounded by the points: 47[deg]37'22'' N, 122[deg]22'06'';
47[deg]37'06'' N, 122[deg]21'45''; 47[deg]36'54'' N, 122[deg]22'05'';
47[deg]37'08'' N, 122[deg]22'27''; thence returning to the origin. The
safety zone resembles a square centered around the barge from which the
fireworks will be launched and begins 100 yards off the shore of Myrtle
Edwards Park. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the
fireworks display to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local
law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1307(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a).

    Dated: June 18, 2008.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. E8-15038 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 9379-9381]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57316; File No. SR-NSX-2008-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend Exchange Rule 16 and the Fee
Schedule To Modify Fees and Market Data Rebates for AutoEx Transactions
and Other Changes

February 12, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 30, 2008, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On February 6, 2008, NSX filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSX proposes to amend Exchange Rule 16 and the NSX BLADE
SM Fee and Rebate Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') in order
to (i) modify the fees and market data rebates associated with trading
primarily in the automatic mode of order execution (hereinafter
``AutoEx'') transactions, (ii) establish a

quarterly de minimis threshold amount for tape credits, and (iii)
substitute the current Fee Schedule with a more transparent Fee
Schedule in a revised format.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the http://www.nsx.com
, the Exchange and the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify certain fees and rebates for
trades executed in AutoEx as set forth in Rule 11.13(b)(1). In
addition, a de minimis rebate threshold is proposed which would
eliminate market data rebates below a certain quarterly amount.
Finally, the Fee Schedule is proposed to be reformatted to best reflect
the foregoing.
Liquidity Taking Fee in AutoEx
    Specifically, with respect to securities traded at one dollar or
more in AutoEx, the instant filing proposes reducing the per share
executed liquidity taking fee from $0.0030 to $0.0025 across Tapes A,
B, and C in NSX BLADE for any ETP Holder \5\ who, as a liquidity
provider, has an average daily volume of at least 50,000 shares
executed per trading day (excluding partial trading days and securities
under one dollar) for the month in which the executions occurred. The
current $0.0030 per share executed liquidity taking fee would remain
unchanged with respect to ETP Holders who do not reach such average
daily volume during the month. The introduction of a reduced liquidity
taking fee upon meeting certain volume requirements is intended to
provide an incentive to ETP Holders to post liquidity at NSX, thereby
bringing more liquidity to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ An ETP Holder is a registered broker or dealer that has been
issued an Equity Trading Permit by NSX. An ETP Holder will have the
status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is defined in
Section 3 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Provider Rebates in AutoEx
    Further, the Exchange proposes to simplify the Fee Schedule by
providing for different rebates for adding liquidity depending on
whether the security is in Tape A, B, or C, instead of whether the
security is identified a ``Designated ETF Share.'' Thus, under the
proposed Fee Schedule, the rebate for adding liquidity is reduced in
Tape A and C securities generally from $0.0030 per share executed to
$0.0026 per share executed. The $0.0030 per share executed liquidity
providing rebate in Tape B securities remains unchanged except for
those Exchange Traded Funds identified as ``Designated ETF Shares,'' in
which case the per share executed liquidity providing rebate is reduced
under the proposed Fee Schedule from $0.0035 to $0.0030. The concept of
``Designated ETFs'' and the associated fee and rebate structure as set
forth in the current Fee Schedule is proposed to be eliminated in its
entirety and replaced by the foregoing simplified rate structure.
However, the distinction between the liquidity provider rebates for the
Tape B securities and the Tape A and C securities corresponds to the
previous distinction between Designated ETF Shares (which were largely
Tape B securities) and Tape A and C securities. NSX made this
distinction in its past Fee Schedule between the rebates to provide an
incentive to increase trading volume in the Designated ETF Shares.\6\
Since these shares are largely Tape B securities that distinction has
been retained in this proposed Fee Schedule. Moreover, NSX believes the
proposed liquidity provider rebates are not unfairly discriminatory in
that all ETP Holders are eligible to trade in Tape A, B, and C
securities in AutoEx and may do so at their discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56883 (December 3,
2007), 72 FR 69269 (December 7, 2007) (SR-NSX-2007-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tape Credits in AutoEx
    The instant filing proposes to eliminate tape credits for trade
market data across Tapes A, B, and C in all AutoEx transactions,
regardless of the price of the security. Tape credits would remain
unchanged with respect to transactions in the Order Delivery mode.
De Minimis Rebate Threshold for Market Data Revenue
    The instant filing proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 16.2(b)(5)
to eliminate quarterly market data revenue rebates which aggregate less
than $250 per quarter with respect to any ETP Holder. The Exchange
believes that the value of such rebates is outweighed by the associated
administrative burden both to the Exchange and to ETP Holders who
receive such rebates.
Order Delivery and Other Fees and Costs
    The fees and/or rebates with respect to transactions in the Order
Delivery mode of order interaction as set forth in Rule 11.13(b)(2)
remain unchanged, except for the application of the de minimis tape
credit rebate threshold discussed above. Moreover, for purposes of
clarification, the execution fee for removing liquidity is the same
whether the contra-order is an AutoEx or Order Delivery order.\7\ Thus,
the fee for taking liquidity from an Order Delivery firm is reflected
in the Fee Schedule as taking liquidity in the AutoEx mode. Further,
there are no currently proposed changes to the information contained in
Section III of the proposed Fee Schedule regarding routing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Orders entered via Order Delivery/Automated Response provide
liquidity to the Exchange since the Order Delivery/Automated
Response mode was designed to prevent an Order Delivery Firm from
having two executions for the same liquidity in two different
markets--at the Exchange and at the Electronic Communication
Network's market. Thus, by definition, an Order Delivery mode of
execution would never take liquidity away from the Exchange. The
contra-side of an Order Delivery Automated Response will always be
conducted using the AutoEx Mode of Rule 11.3(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Fee Schedule Format
    Finally, in addition to the substantive changes to the Fee Schedule
as described above, the instant filing proposes the adoption of a new
format for its Fee Schedule, which the Exchange believes is more
transparent and easier to navigate and understand. The proposed Fee
Schedule is renamed as the Exchange's ``Fee and Rebate Schedule'' and
includes the tape credit amounts specified in Rule 16.2(b). The
proposed Fee Schedule provides explanatory endnotes and cross
references applicable Exchange Rules where necessary or applicable.
Rationale
    The Exchange has determined that the proposed rule change is
necessary for competitive reasons. Under the proposed Fee Schedule, the
fees paid by a particular ETP Holder will depend on a number of
variables, including the mode of order interaction (AutoEx or Order
Delivery), the types of securities traded through NSX BLADE (Tapes A,
B, or C), the average daily monthly

liquidity providing volume, and the price of the securities (with a
distinction for those above and below $1.00). These factors are taken
into consideration and reflected in the introduction of a reduced
liquidity taking fee (provided certain volume thresholds are met) as an
incentive to ETP Holders to both post and take liquidity at NSX and the
more simplified fee schedule for Tape B securities (in lieu of the
longer list of the fees associated with specific Designated ETF Shares
\8\). NSX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be more
attractive. Accordingly, the proposed modifications attempt to keep the
fees reflected in the Fee Schedule competitive with fees charged by
other venues and to continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated
to those ETP Holders that opt to direct orders to NSX. Based upon the
information above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 6.\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date and Notice
    The Exchange intends to make operative the tape rebate structure
and new Fee Schedule in accordance with the proposed rule change on
February 1, 2008. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will
``provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees,
assessments and charges of the Exchange'' through the issuance of a
Regulatory Circular of the changes to the Fee Schedule and will provide
a copy of the rule filing on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nsx.com
).

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges. Moreover, the proposed liquidity provider rebates are
not discriminatory in that all ETP Holders are eligible to trade in
Tape A, B, and C securities in AutoEx and may do so at their
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change is filed pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \12\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by a self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on February 6, 2008, the date on which NSX filed
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NSX-2008-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2008-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NSX. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2008-01 and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3040 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5904-5906]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0075; Product Identifier 2013-NM-251-AD; Amendment
39-19193; AD 2018-03-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. This AD requires contacting the
FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these
products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This
AD was prompted by a report indicating that a pipe of the fire
extinguishing system in the forward cargo compartment was too long, and
therefore could be installed only under stress, which applies pressure
to the pipe clamp. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 27, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2018-
0075; 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 in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2013-0291, dated December 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During installation of the fire extinguishing system in the
forward cargo compartment in production, it was established that one
pipe was too long and could therefore only be installed under
stress. This affected pipe was developed in the frame of Airbus mod
58244 and mod 58245 related to Cabin Intercommunication Data System-
Based smoke detection system (CIDS-Based SDS) for A330-300
aeroplanes only.
    Investigation revealed that due to loads transfer, the clamp
could break and the pipe would come into contact with the structure,
possibly resulting in leakage in the Halon piping due to chafing, in
the forward lower deck cargo compartment (LDCC), which could lead to
(potentially undetected) functional loss of fire extinguishing
system.
    This condition, if not corrected, in combination with a fire,
could lead to an uncontrolled fire in LDCC, possibly resulting in
the loss of aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed a mod. which
consists in installation of a shorter pipe, to be embodied in
production with mod 202779 and in-service through Airbus Service
Bulletin (SB) A330-26-3053.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the affected fire extinguishing pipe between [frame]
FR34 and FR36 in the forward LDCC.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0075.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are
issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we
find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0075; Product
Identifier 2013-NM-251-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD
requires

contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe
condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based
on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following
cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S.
Register in the future:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification...............................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680.            $720          $1,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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):

2018-03-20 Airbus: Amendment 39-19193; Docket No. FAA-2018-0075;
Product Identifier 2013-NM-251-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 27, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -
322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus
modification 58244 or modification 58245 has been embodied in
production, except those on which modification 202779 has been
embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a pipe of the
fire extinguishing system in the forward cargo compartment was too
long, and therefore could be installed only under stress, which
applies pressure to the pipe clamp. We are issuing this AD to
prevent this pipe clamp from breaking, allowing the pipe to come
into contact with the structure, possibly resulting in leakage in
the Halon piping. This condition could lead to functional loss of
the fire extinguishing system, which, in combination with a fire,
could lead to an uncontrolled fire in the lower deck cargo
compartment, and possible loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action(s)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request
instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in
paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times
specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance
can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0291, dated
December 9, 2013.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the International Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2013-0291, dated December 9, 2013, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0075.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 2, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02751 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75527]
[DOCID:fr15de06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-540-001]

High Island Offshore System L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 8, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 6, 2006, High Island Offshore System
L.L.C. (HIOS) tendered for filing FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume
No. 1, Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 10, with an effective date of
March 1, 2007.
    HIOS states that this tariff sheet is being filed to correct an
inadvertent error on Fifth Revised Sheet No. 10 originally filed on
August 31, 2006. The revised tariff sheet corrects the presentation of
the Rate Schedule FT-3 Reservation rate, but does not represent a
change in the Rate Schedule FT-3 rates.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21392 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P