EPA Registration Division contact: Andrew Ertman,<PHONE_NUMBER>

  December 7, 2009
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
PP #9E7659
	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP #9E7659) from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W,  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 180.434 by (1) increasing tolerance on peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops from 3.5 parts per million (ppm) to 10 parts per million (ppm); by (2) establishing tolerance for : Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.2  parts per million (ppm); Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 9.0 parts per million (ppm); Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); Bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); Low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 1.3 parts per million (ppm) and by (3) removing tolerances for Berry group 13 at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); Onion, bulb at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), Onion, green at 9.0 parts per million (ppm) and strawberry at 1.3 parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; 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 metabolism of propiconazole as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood for purposes of the tolerances.  Plant metabolism has been evaluated in five diverse crops, wheat, grapes, celery, peanuts and carrots which should serve to define the similar metabolism of propiconazole in a wide range of crops.  The plant metabolism pathway for propiconazole is well understood.  Parent metabolite CGA-64250 is the major compound found in crops.  Comparison of the metabolism of propiconazole in different plant species shows that the differences between the respective metabolic pathways to be quantitative in nature.
	2. Analytical method. The metabolism data in plants and animals suggest that analytical methods to detect either the phenyl or the triazole ring would be appropriate for the measurement of residues.  However, because of the natural occurrence of compounds that interfere with the measurement of triazoles, methods designed to detect this moiety have been proven unreliable and unacceptable.  Conversely, conversion of phenyl moiety to 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) has proven to be satisfactory for all agricultural products analyzed to date.  Analytical methods AG-626 and AG-454A were developed for the determination of residues of propiconazole and its metabolites containing the DCBA moiety.   Analytical method AG-626 has been accepted and published by EPA as the tolerance enforcement method for crops.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the method is 0.05 ppm].

	3. Magnitude of residues. The limit of quantitation of (LOQ) for the method in all matrices were 0.05 ppm.

	 Mint.  Five mint trials (5) were conducted during the 2005 growing seasons, two each in Washington (EPA region 5) and Wisconsin (EPA region 5) and one in Idaho (Region 11).  The number of trials and geographic representation are in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500.
 In each trial, four applications of Tilt 3.6 EC at a rate of approximately 0.1125 lb ai/A each were made, for a total of approximately 0.3375 lb ai/A.  No adjuvants were used in these applications.  Applications were made 6 to 8 days apart and timed so that commercially mature mint tops (leaves and stems) could be collected  6 to 7 days after the final application.
Sample analysis for total residues of propiconazole was conducted by the Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory (FEQL), Richland, WA.  The procedure used was the FEQL method "Working Analytical Method for the Determination of Propiconazole in Mint Leaves as 2,4-Dichlorobenzoic Methyl Ester Using Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detector".  This method was adapted from "Determination of Total Residues of Propiconazole in Crops as 2,4-Dichlorobenzoic Acid by Capillary Gas Chromatography".  The maximum storage interval for field-treated samples in this study was 294 days.
Maximum propiconazole equivalent residues in mint were 5.453 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile
      1. Acute toxicity. Propiconazole exhibits low toxicity.  Data indicated the following:  a rat acute oral LD50 of 1,517 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg); a rabbit acute dermal LD50 >6,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation LC50 >5.8 mg/liter air; minimal skin and slight eye irritation; and nonsensitization.

      2. Genotoxicty. Propiconazole exhibits low toxicity.  Data indicated the following:  a rat acute oral LD50 of 1,517 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg); a rabbit acute dermal LD50 >6,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation LC50 >5.8 mg/liter air; minimal skin and slight eye irritation; and nonsensitization.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In an oral teratology study in the rabbit, a maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg was based on reduced food intake but without any fetotoxicity even at the top dose of 180 mg/kg.  In an oral teratology study in the rabbit, a maternal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg was based on reductions in body weight gain and food consumption and a fetal NOAEL of 250 mg/kg was based on increased skeletal variations at 400 mg/kg.  In an oral teratology study in the rat, a maternal and fetal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg was based on decreased survival, body weight gain, and food consumption in the dams and delayed ossification in the fetuses at 300 mg/kg.  In a second teratology study in the rat, a maternal and fetal NOAEL of 30 mg/kg was based on reductions in body weight gain and food consumption in the dams and delayed development in the fetuses at 90 and 360/300 mg/kg.  A supplemental teratology study in the rat involving eight times as many animals per group as usually required showed no teratogenic potential for the compound.  A 2-generation reproduction study in the rat showed excessive toxicity at 5,000 ppm without any teratogenic effects.  A 2-generation reproduction study in the rat showed no effects on reproductive or fetal parameters at any dose level.  Postnatal growth and survival were affected at the top dose of 2,500 ppm, and parental toxicity was also evident.  The NOAEL for development toxicity is 500 ppm.

      4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 21-day dermal study in the rabbit, a NOAEL of 200 mg/kg was based on clinical signs of systemic toxicity.  In a 28-day oral toxicity study in the rat, a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg was based on increased liver weight. In a subchronic feeding study in the mouse, a NOAEL of 20 ppm (3 mg/kg) was based on liver pathologic changes. In a 13 week feeding study in the male mouse, a NOAEL of 20 ppm (3 mg/kg) was based on liver pathologic changes.  In a 90 day feeding study in rats, the NOAEL was 240 ppm (24 mg/kg) based on a reduction in body weight gain. In a 90 day feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 250 ppm (6.25 mg/kg) based on reduced food intake and stomach histologic changes.]

      5. Chronic toxicity. In a 12-month feeding study in the dog, a NOAEL of 50 ppm (1.25 mg/kg) was based on stomach histologic changes.  In a 24 month oncogenicity feeding study in the mouse, the NOAEL was 100 ppm (15 mg/kg).  The MTD was exceeded at 2,500 ppm in males based on decreased survival and body weight. Increased incidence of liver tumor was seen in these males but no evidence of carcinogenicity was seen at the next lower dose of 500 ppm in either sex.  In a 24 month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in the rat, a NOAEL of 100 ppm (5 mg/kg) was based on body weight and blood chemistry.  The MTD was 2,500 ppm based on reduction in body weight gain and no evidence of oncogenicity was seen.  Based on the available chronic toxicity data, Syngenta believes the Reference dose (RfD) for propiconazole is 0.0125 mg/kg/day.  This RfD is based on a 1 year feeding study in dogs with a NOAEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day (50 ppm) and an uncertainly factor of 100.  No additional modifying factor for the nature of effects was judged to be necessary as stomach mucous hyperemia was the most sensitive indicator of toxicity in that study.
 Using the Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment published on September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), the USEPA has classified propiconazole in group C for carcinogenicity (evidence of possible carcinogenicity for humans).  The compound was tested in 24 month studies with both rats and mice.  The only evidence of carcinogenicity was an increase in liver tumor incidence in male mice at a dose level that exceeded the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).  Dosage levels in the rat study were appropriate for identifying a cancer risk.  The Cancer Peer Review Committee recommended the RfD approach for quantitation of human risk.  Therefore, the RfD is deemed protective of all chronic human health effects, including cancer.]

 	6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism in animals is similar to plant metabolism. In animals both the rat and the goat rapidly metabolize and excrete propiconazole.  Neither animal retains significant amounts of propiconazole or its metabolites in tissues.  Significant quantities of parent or metabolites do not appear in goat's milk.  Similar metabolites are produced by both species, and unconjugated (phase I) metabolites are similar in plants and animals.
 The metabolism profile supports the use of an analytical enforcement method that accounts for combined residues of propiconazole and its metabolites that contain the 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid (DCBA) moiety.

       7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of concerned based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.

       8. Endocrine disruption. Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and reproduction studies in rats gave no indication that propiconazole might have any effects on endocrine function related to development and reproduction.  The subchronic and chronic studies also showed no evidence of a long - term effect related to the endocrine system.  Further, due to the moderate rate of degradation of the product, there is no risk that propiconazole may accumulate in the environment.  In animals, propiconazole is quickly excreted and has no tendency for accumulation in the body.  Based on these results, it is very likely that propiconazole has no potential to interfere specifically with the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure
      1. Dietary exposure. Tier I acute, short-term, and chronic aggregate exposure assessments were completed for propiconazole using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID[TM], version 2.16) from Exponent.  Propiconazole is currently registered for use on alfalfa (indirect), bananas, barley, berries (Crop Group 13), carrots, cilantro, corn (field, sweet, and popcorn), cranberries (regional), garden beets, grasses, leaf petioles (Crop Subgroup 4B), mushrooms, nectarines (expires 31-Dec-2010), oats, onions (bulb and green), parsley, peaches (expires 31-Dec-2010), peanuts, peppermint, pineapples (seed piece treatment), pistachios, rice, rye, sorghum, soybeans, spearmint, stone fruits (Crop Group 12), strawberries, sugar beets, tree nuts (Crop Group 14), wheat, and wild rice (regional).  Propiconazole is proposed for a revised use on spearmint and peppermint harvested at a reduced pre-harvest interval (PHI) of 7 days.  The 2007 revisions to the EPA crop groupings and use patterns for caneberries (Crop subgroup 13-07A), bushberries (Crop subgroup 13-07B), low growing berries except cranberries (Crop subgroup 13-07G), and bulb vegetables (Crop Group 3-07) have been incorporated into these assessments as appropriate.  Percent of crop treated values were conservatively set at 100% for all uses and default processing factors from DEEM(TM) (version 7.87) were used for processed commodities.

Food. Acute Risk.  The acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day based on an acute no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg-bw/day from an acute neurotoxicity study in rats and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor included intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 95th percentile, acute exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 1,524 (6.6% of the acute RfD of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute exposure to the most sensitive subpopulation (children 1-2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 615 (16.2% of the aRfD of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute dietary (food) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Chronic Risk.  The chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day based on a 24-month oncogenicity study in mice with a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor included intra- and interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 1,626 (6.1% of the cRfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic exposure to the most exposed sub-population (children 1-2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 586 (17.1% of the cRfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current, pending and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Cancer Risk.  A quantitative risk assessment using a cancer endpoint was not performed.  The chronic risk assessment is adequately protective for cancer risk as well as other chronic effects.

ii. Drinking Water. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for propiconazole were determined using Tier l SCI-GROW (version 2.3), which estimates pesticide concentrations in ground water and Tier II PRZM/EXAMS (version PE5) which estimates pesticide concentrations in surface water.  This drinking water assessment was conducted to assess the proposed rate and pre-harvest interval (PHI) changes to the currently registered mint use (currently registered at 0.113 lb a.i./A x 2 applications at 14 day intervals and a 30 day PHI).  The proposed mint use is based on 0.113 lb a.i./A x 3 applications at 14 day intervals and a 7 day PHI.  The modeling was conducted using environmental fate parameters from a 2006 EPA drinking water assessment and the EDWCs were compared against Syngenta's baseline EDWCs based on the currently registered use on turf.  These proposed changes to mint have no impact on the current drinking water assessment.  For ground water, the currently registered use on turf at a rate of 1.79 lb a.i./A  x 4 applications at 14 day intervals (7.16 lbs a.i./A/year) provided the highest EDWC of 7.25E-01 ppb (acute and chronic).  For surface water, the currently registered turf use based on the same rate noted above was still considered to be the crop driver.  Employing the Pennsylvania turf standard PRZM scenario, the PRZM/EXAMS output provided an acute EDWC of 101.8 ppb and a chronic EDWC of 52.4 ppb.  No Percent Cropped Area (PCA) adjustments were made for surface water EDWCs.

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water.  The acute EDWC of 101.8 ppb (0.1018 ppm) for surface water was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources."  Drinking water exposures were determined by taking the difference between the aggregate exposures (food + drinking water) and food exposures alone (food only) for each population subgroup.  At the 95th percentile, acute drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 2,844 (1.1% of the aRfD of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 942 (3.2% of the aRfD of 0.3 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute exposure to drinking water residues arising from all current and proposed uses for propiconazole.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The chronic EDWC of 52.4 ppb (0.0524 ppm) for surface water was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources."  Chronic drinking water exposures to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 9,054 (1.1% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants <1 year old, with a MOE of 2,762 (3.6% of the cRfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic exposure to drinking water residues arising from all current and proposed uses for propiconazole.

      2. Non-dietary exposure. Short-term exposure assessments were conducted to assess exposures resulting from non-dietary uses of propiconazole arising from registered turf and ornamental uses.  Although propiconazole is registered for use in products including paints and stains, exposures resulting from those uses were not included in these assessments since paint products containing propiconazole (Propi-Shield(TM)) are not currently sold for consumer use.  Adult handler scenarios assessed included low-pressure handwand sprayer, hose-end sprayer, and trigger-pump sprayer.  Adult post-application exposure scenarios included high contact activities and playing golf.  Children's' post-application non-dietary oral exposure scenarios included exposures resulting from hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and ingestion of treated soil.  The worst-case combined short-term MOE was 487 for children 1 to 6 years old resulting from dermal and non-dietary oral exposures.  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from short-term non-dietary exposures arising from all current and proposed residential uses for propiconazole.

D. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  Propiconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of pesticides.  Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between this pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals.  Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity.  There is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and the EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles.

E. Safety Determination
	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for all current and proposed uses of propiconazole provided a MOE of 1,313 for the U.S. population.  For short-term exposures, chronic dietary (food and water) exposures were aggregated with residential exposures resulting in a short-term aggregate MOE of 471 for the U.S. population.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis (food and water) showed that exposures from all current and proposed propiconazole uses resulted in a MOE of 1,379 for the U.S. population.  Since the worst case aggregate MOE of 471 (short-term risk) exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. Population from aggregate exposures arising from all current and proposed uses for propiconazole.

	2. Infants and children. Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for all current and proposed uses of propiconazole provided a MOE of 579 for all infants <1 year old.  For short-term exposures, chronic dietary (food and water) exposures were aggregated with residential exposures resulting in a short-term aggregate MOE of 386 for children 1 to 6 years old.  The chronic aggregate exposure analysis (food and water) showed that exposures from all current and proposed propiconazole uses resulted in a MOE of 535 for children 1-2 years old.  Since the worst case aggregate MOE of 386 (short-term risk) exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposures arising from all current and proposed uses for propiconazole.

F. International Tolerances
	The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs) for propiconazole in or on various raw agricultural commodities.  The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of propiconazole per se.  In addition, both Canada and Mexico have established MRLs/tolerances on several commodities which also have U.S. tolerances.  The U.S. tolerance expression includes all metabolites determined as 2,4-dichloro-benzoic acid.  In conjunction with the reregistration process EPA intends to revise the tolerance expression to propiconazole per se.  To the extent possible, for the present petitions, U.S. tolerances have been numerically harmonized with Codex, Canadian and Mexican MRLs; however, differences in use patterns and the supporting residue data have precluded reducing many tolerances.  A summary of Codex MRLs, Canadian MRLs and Mexican tolerances and the corresponding U.S. tolerances for propiconazole is discusses at www.regulations.gov Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0347-0004; pages 53-54.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35287-35290]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0114; Product Identifier 2018-NM-146-AD; Amendment
39-19680; AD 2019-14-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a

report that structural fatigue cracks can develop in certain aluminum
pressure module check valves prior to the design limit. This AD
requires an inspection to determine the part numbers of the four
hydraulic systems A and B pressure module check valves and applicable
on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 27,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0114.

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-2019-
0114 or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on March 1, 2019 (84 FR 6981). The NPRM was prompted by a report that
structural fatigue cracks can develop in certain aluminum pressure
module check valves prior to the design limit. The NPRM proposed to
require an inspection to determine the part numbers of the four
hydraulic systems A and B pressure module check valves and applicable
on-condition actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address structural fatigue cracks in
certain aluminum pressure module check valves, which could cause
separation of the check valve head from the check valve body when
hydraulic pressure is applied, resulting in injuries to maintenance
personnel.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    Two commenters supported the NPRM. United Airlines (UAL) agreed
with the need for the NPRM. A private citizen also expressed support
for the NPRM, but added that cost should not be an issue in relation to
airplane safety, the cost of the proposed rule is especially low, and
that the FAA has an ethical duty to protect the public by adopting the
proposed rule.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE or STC ST01219SE does
not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service
instructions.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST00830SE and STC
ST01219SE do not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's
service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE or
STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Change Applicability of the NPRM

    UAL requested that the FAA change the proposed applicability from
including all The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes, to
use the effectivity specified in Boeing Special Attention Requirements
Bulletin 737-29-1126 RB, dated October 2, 2018, which specifies The
Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes, line numbers 5602
through 7050. UAL mentioned that Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-29-1126, dated October 2, 2018, states that ``Airplanes
after line number 7050 cannot use Parker check valves as an optional
part,'' and that this statement is counter to the applicability stated
in the NPRM. UAL stated the understanding of this statement to be that
The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes, line number 7051
and later were delivered without part number (P/N) H61C0552M1; that the
illustrated parts catalog (IPC) does not authorize installation of that
part after delivery; and that omission from the IPC should ensure
unapproved parts are not installed on The Boeing Company Model 737-8
and 737-9 airplanes, line number 7051 and later; therefore providing an
acceptable level of safety.
    The FAA disagrees with the request to change the applicability of
this AD. The FAA does not control or approve the Boeing IPC, and P/N
H61C0552M1 is considered a rotable part. Therefore, the FAA has
determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that
were initially delivered with acceptable parts, making those airplanes
subject to the unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following service information.
     Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123
RB, dated October 2, 2018.
     Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1126
RB, dated October 2, 2018.
     Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127
RB, dated October 8, 2018.
    The service information describes procedures for an inspection to
determine the part numbers of the four hydraulic systems A and B
pressure module check valves and applicable on-condition actions. On-
condition actions include replacement of Parker pressure module check
valves, P/N

H61C0552M1, with Crissair pressure module check valves, P/N 1C4196.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
models.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,747 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for Parker pressure module   1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85        $148,495
 check valves, P/N H61C0552M1.           hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions (per check valve replacement) that would be required.
The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....          $6,652           $6,822
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-14-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19680; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0114; Product Identifier 2018-NM-146-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 27, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737 series
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that structural
fatigue cracks can develop in certain aluminum pressure module check
valves prior to the design limit. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address structural fatigue cracks in certain aluminum pressure
module check valves, which could cause separation of the check valve
head from the check valve body when hydraulic pressure is applied,
resulting in injuries to maintenance personnel.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB, dated October 8,
2018: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect
the airplane and do all applicable on-condition actions using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD: For
airplanes identified as Groups 2 and 3 in Boeing Special Attention
Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB, dated October 8, 2018, at the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB, dated
October 8, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB, dated October 8,
2018.
    Note 1 to paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(4): Guidance for
accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1123, dated October 2,
2018; Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-29-1126, dated
October 2, 2018; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
29-1127, dated October 8, 2018; as applicable; which are referred to
in Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123 RB,
dated October 2, 2018; Boeing Special Attention Requirements
Bulletin 737-29-1126 RB, dated October 2, 2018; and Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB, dated October 8,
2018; respectively.
    (3) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: For
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER airplanes that
have an original airworthiness certificate or export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD; at
the applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of
Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123 RB, dated
October 2, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123 RB, dated October 2,
2018.
    (4) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
Model 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes that have an original airworthiness
certificate or export certificate of airworthiness issued on or
before the effective date of this AD; at the applicable times
specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Special
Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1126 RB, dated October 2,
2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1126 RB, dated October 2, 2018.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this AD:
    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-
1123 RB, dated October 2, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue
date of Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123 RB,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-
1126 RB, dated October 2, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue
date of Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1126 RB,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (3) Where Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-
1127 RB, dated October 8, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue
date of Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127 RB,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
Parker pressure module check valve, part number (P/N) H61C0552M1, or
hydraulic pressure module assembly, P/N 65-17821-( ) that contains a
Parker pressure module check valve, P/N H61C0552M1, on any airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3548; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1123
RB, dated October 2, 2018.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1126
RB, dated October 2, 2018.
    (iii) Boeing Special Attention Requirements Bulletin 737-29-1127
RB, dated October 8, 2018.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (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 Des Moines, Washington, on July 11, 2019.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-15518 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 61971-61972]
[DOCID:fr27oc05-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 21, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER03-836-007.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits a
compliance filing pursuant to Commission's March 15, 2005 Order.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051014-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-1003-005; ER04-1007-005.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp, on behalf of AEP
Operating Companies amends its filing and submits a revised Attachment
T to their Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 6.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1018-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits an errata to its September 13, 2005 compliance filing of large
generator interconnection agreement.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-410-003.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits the monthly
refunds to Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., the City of
Colton, Southern Calif. Water Project, and the Calif. Dept. of Water
Resources, State Water Project.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-666-005.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an errata to the
August 22, 2005 filing submitted in compliance with FERC's July 21,
2005 Order.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051017-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-34-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits its compliance
filings involving changes to the Annual Transmission Revenue Balancing
Account Adjustment and the Reliability Services rates.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051017-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-36-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. on behalf of Kansas Gas & Electric
Co. submits a notice of termination of Supplement No. 5, Service
Schedule B, to FERC Electric Rate Schedule No.183.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-37-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy Inc, formerly Western Resources Inc.
submits a notice of termination of Second Revised FERC Electric Rate
Schedule No. 264.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-38-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc submits for filing Connection
Agreements between Northern States Power Co. & Great Rivers Energy for
Great River Energy's Yankee Doodle & Lake Constance Substations.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051019-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-39-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. submits a
Metered Subsystem Agreement with the City of Anaheim, California
pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-40-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. provides
notice of the cancellation of ISO rate Schedule No. 57, the Operating
Agreement with Modesto Irrigation District.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-41-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. notifies
FERC of the cancellation of ISO Rate Schedule FERC No. 55.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-42-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp. submits
an amendment to the amended and restated Metered Subsystem Aggregator
Agreement with Northern California Power Agency.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-719-008; ER99-2156-006.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company; Cordova Energy Company,
LLC.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Co. and Cordova Energy Co., LLC
submits a notice of change in status regarding the ownership of certain
generating facilities.
    Filed Date: October 14, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051018-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 4, 2005.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,

interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(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. E5-5966 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7183]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02537]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0325; FRL-9906-26-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Benzene Emission From Benzene
Storage Vessels and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Benzene Emission
From Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (40
CFR part 61, subparts L and Y) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1080.14, OMB
Control No. 2060-0185), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which
is currently approved through April 30, 2014. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11,
2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0325, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 61, subpart A, and to the
provisions at 40 CFR part 61, subparts L and Y. Owners or operators of
the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any
physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports
are required quarterly or semiannually at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of benzene
storage vessels and coke by-product recovery plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subparts L and Y).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21 (total).
    Frequency of response: Semiannually and occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 3,193 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $312,347 (per year), which also includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR. This increase is not due to any program
changes; it is the result of adding the labor burden associated with
subpart Y. The most-recently approved ICR only reflected the burden
associated with subpart L, while this ICR reflects the total burden
associated with subparts L and Y.
    For subpart L, note that the labor burden between this ICR and the
most-recently approved ICR is virtually identical (there is a one-hour
increase, but it is due to differences in rounding). There is an
increase in Respondent and Agency burden costs, however. This increase
is due to the use of updated labor rates. This ICR references labor
rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate respondent
burden costs and references labor rates from OPM to calculate Agency
burden costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-02537 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19918-19919]
[DOCID:fr11ap08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57609; File No. SR-NSCC-2008-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule To Amend the Rules With Regard to the Formula Used Within the
Stock Borrow Program

April 3, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on March 18, 2008, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the rule
change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the rule change is to modify Addendum C of NSCC's
rules with respect to the formula used in NSCC's stock borrow program
to determine the order of priority among members from whom NSCC will
borrow securities made available by those members.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the course of daily operations, NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement
System (``CNS'') may need more shares of a security than shares made
available by member deliveries. In order to improve the efficiency of
the clearing system in dealing with these situations, NSCC implemented
automated stock borrow procedures to satisfy the need for shares that
are not filled through normal deliveries from members.
    NSCC members that wish to participate in the stock borrow program
notify NSCC each day of the securities those members have on deposit at
The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') that they intend to make
available to NSCC through the stock borrow program. The stock borrow
program has two separate cycles: the daytime cycle and the nighttime
cycle.\5\ Members choose whether to participate in the stock borrow
program and whether to participate in one or both cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The daytime and nighttime cycles are separate processes.
Securities made available to be borrowed during the nighttime
processing cycle are not borrowed during the daytime processing
cycle and vice versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After NSCC processes regular deliveries, shares needed to satisfy
CNS deliveries typically are borrowed from members who have made their
securities available through the stock borrow program with the lending
member's DTC position being debited for the number of shares loaned in
the stock borrow program. Borrowed shares are recorded as a long
position in the lending member's CNS subaccount until shares are
delivered back to the lender.
    Prior to this rule change, NSCC had used a formula to determine the
order of priority among members from which NSCC would borrow shares.
First, NSCC assigned each member a random allocation number for each
security the member made available for borrowing. Then a factor was
developed for each member by dividing the percentage of the member's
average loans as they related to total NSCC borrowings by the
percentage of the member's average fees paid for trade comparison,
trade recording, and clearance as they related to the total of these
fees for all members. Each member's random allocation number was
multiplied by the factor to produce an adjusted random number per
security for each member. Each potential borrow was then sequenced
using the adjusted random number with the lowest adjusted random number
having the first priority for borrowing.
    NSCC is proposing to simplify the process by eliminating the
formula and using a random allocation algorithm to determine the order
of priority among members from which NSCC will borrow shares.\6\ Using
a random allocation algorithm to determine the order of priority in
which NSCC will borrow securities made available by members within the
stock borrow program would make processing more consistent with other
current processing routines already utilized by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This random allocation algorithm is already used by NSCC to
determine other priorities. NSCC uses random allocation algorithms
routinely. For example, CNS uses a random allocation methodology
whereby, after securities are received by NSCC from members making
deliveries to CNS, they are then allocated to other members that are
expecting receipt of those securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC proposes to implement the changes set forth in this filing on
March 28, 2008. Members will be advised of the implementation date
through issuance of NSCC Important Notices.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the
Act,\7\ as amended, because it removes

impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a national system for
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4) \9\ thereunder because the proposed rule change effects a
change in an existing service of a registered clearing agency that: (i)
Does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in
the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective
rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the
service. At any time within sixty 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NSCC-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-NSCC-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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 am and 3 pm. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's
Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2008/
nscc/2008-01.pdf. 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-
NSCC-2008-01 and should be submitted on or before May 2, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7696 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51696-51697]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21309]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public

Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission staff will hold
a public roundtable on Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: The roundtable will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be open to the
public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will
open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission staff will host a roundtable
on combating elder investor fraud. The roundtable is open to the public
and the public is invited to submit written comments. This Sunshine Act
notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend
the roundtable.
    The agenda for the roundtable will focus on the types of fraudulent
and manipulative schemes currently targeting elder investors. The
roundtable will explore views from a broad range of regulators and
industry experts on potential steps regulators, broker-dealers,
investment advisers, and others can take to identify and combat elder
investor fraud.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: September 26, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21309 Filed 9-26-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


% Food exposure
% Once daily oral exposure, dose from cpfs SS F13_49 foodonly exp distribution.csv 95th percentile
% Female adult, Body weight set to 72.9 kg
% Cecilia Tan
% August 26, 2015

prepare @clear @all
% Setting model parameters
start @NoCallback
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1;		% Set to 1 if BWT is provided
BWST=72.9;	% Initial BW in kg
PREG=0;		% Not pregnant
TSTOP= 1008; 	% Exposure duration in hrs

%Single oral daily exposure
DT = xlsRead("Food.xls", "95p", "A1:A43"); % Dosing Times
DORAL=xlsRead("Food.xls", "95p", "B1:B43"); % Dose in ug/kg
prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy
start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6];	%unit of conc = ug/L
save mytable @file='food_95.txt' @format=ascii


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8739-8741]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Order on Simultaneous Transmission Import Limit Values for the
Southwest Region and Providing Direction on Submitting Studies

Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur,
and Colette D. Honorable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Company of New Mexico.........  ER10-2302-006
Tucson Electric Power Company................  ER10-2564-006
UNS Electric, Inc............................  ER10-2600-006
UniSource Energy Development Company.........  ER10-2289-006
El Paso Electric Company.....................  ER10-2721-006
Arizona Public Service Company...............  ER10-2437-003
Public Service Company of Colorado...........  ER10-1818-012
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota     ER10-1819-014
 corporation.
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin     ER10-1820-017
 corporation.
Southwestern Public Service Company..........  ER10-1817-013
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. In December 2015 and January 2016, Public Service Company of New
Mexico; Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric), UNS Electric,
Inc., and UniSource Energy Development Company; El Paso Electric

Company; Arizona Public Service Company (Arizona Public Service);
Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern States Power Company, a
Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin
corporation and Southwestern Public Service Company (collectively,
Transmission Owners) submitted updated market power analyses for the
Southwest region in accordance with the regional reporting schedule.\1\
The Transmission Owners included Simultaneous Transmission Import Limit
(SIL) values for the December 2013-November 2014 study period for
balancing authority areas in the Southwest region.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-Based
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary
Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 816, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,374, at P 353 (2015), order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,382 (2016). See also Market-Based Rates for
Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services
by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252, at
PP 882-893, clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on reh'g,
Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268, clarified, 124 FERC ]
61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Montana Consumer Counsel v.
FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26
(2012).
    \2\ We note that Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern
States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power
Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and Southwestern Public Service
Company are not in the Southwest region and therefore their market
power analyses were not due in December 2015, when transmission
owners in the Southwest region must file their analyses. However,
these utilities submitted an updated market power analysis in
January 2016 to help coordinate review of the SILs. Additionally, we
note that subsequent to December 2015 and January 2016, some of the
Transmission Owners amended their filings to reflect updated and
corrected information with respect to the SIL studies and values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In this order, the Commission accepts the SIL values identified
in Appendix A (Commission-accepted SIL values).\3\ SIL studies are used
as a basis for calculating import capability to serve balancing
authority area load when performing market power analyses. SIL values
quantify the simultaneous transmission import capability into a market
or balancing authority area from its aggregated first-tier area. The
SIL values accepted herein are based on SIL studies submitted by the
Transmission Owners with their updated market power analyses. As
discussed below, the Commission-accepted SIL values identified in
Appendix A will be used by the Commission to analyze updated market
power analyses for the Southwest region. The updated market power
analyses for the Transmission Owners, including any responsive
pleadings, will be addressed in separate orders in the relevant
dockets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission issued an order accepting SIL values for the
Tucson Electric Power Company balancing authority area in Tucson
Electric Power Co., 156 FERC ] 61,228 (2016).
    \4\ We note that other transmission owners in the Southwest
region also submitted updated market power analyses. The updated
market power analyses for those transmission owners have been or
will be addressed in separate orders in the relevant dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Additionally in this order, the Commission provides further
direction and clarification on the performance and reporting of SIL
studies.

I. Background

    4. In Order No. 697, the Commission adopted a staggered filing
approach for filing updated market power analyses. The Commission
recognized that the transmission-owning utilities have the information
necessary to perform SIL studies and therefore determined that
transmission-owning utilities would be required to file their updated
market power analyses in advance of other entities in each region.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Transmission Owners provided SIL studies for their
respective balancing authority areas and, in most cases, their
respective first-tier balancing authority areas, including balancing
authority areas that are not operated by public utilities as defined
under Part II of the Federal Power Act.\6\ Specifically, SIL studies
were submitted for the following first-tier balancing authority areas:
Salt River Project; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Western
Area Power Administration-Lower Colorado (WALC); Western Area Power
Administration-Colorado Missouri (WACM); and the Imperial Irrigation
District (IID). The Transmission Owners coordinated on the preparation
of their SIL studies and shared with each other SIL values for their
respective balancing authority areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 824 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    6. We begin by commending the Transmission Owners for coordinating
on the preparation of their SIL studies and sharing the SIL values for
their respective home balancing authority areas with each other. Such a
coordinated approach leads to more accurate and consistent SIL study
results. We have selected, from among the SIL values submitted, the
Commission-accepted SIL values that we will use in assessing
transmission import capability for purposes of measuring market power
within the Southwest region.
    7. The SIL studies prepared by the Transmission Owners generally
were done correctly and in a manner consistent with prior Commission
direction.\7\ However, our review of the SIL studies and acceptance of
the SIL values was hindered and delayed because of various modeling
issues and incomplete or ambiguous reporting of results. Therefore, we
take this opportunity to address some of these issues and offer
guidance so that future filers have a better understanding of how the
Commission expects such studies to be performed and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 135 FERC ] 61,254,
Appendix B (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The contingencies used in SIL studies are vital to determining
the limiting element(s) and, subsequently, the final SIL values. Filers
should study contingencies that are ``historically used and identified
in the seller's [available transfer capability (ATC)] methodology and
[Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS)] practices
documentation.'' \8\ This requirement applies for both the study area
and the first-tier areas. As balancing authorities are already expected
to communicate with each other on system conditions, the Commission
believes that this is a reasonable and comprehensive approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id., Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Each filer should provide documentation to support that the
contingency lists provided are consistent with the balancing authority
area's OASIS practices. The contingency lists used by each filer must
be valid, representative of the study area and first-tier OASIS
practices, and must solve in powerflow simulations. Valid contingencies
take into account the realistic conditions and operating procedures for
the filer's system and the first-tier areas. For example, parallel
lines are typically designed and operated such that the loss of one
line would not overload the other line(s). If a contingency appears to
overload other parallel line(s), the filer must explain this in its
contingency results report. Additionally, methods for modeling the
transmission system may include breaking elements up into segments. The
contingency of such an element should be represented by these segments.
    10. Every contingency checked must solve in each powerflow case in
which it is used. If a contingency does not solve when run in the
powerflow simulation, confirming that it would not cause an overload
somewhere within

the system is difficult. This potential overload could be a limiting
element that would affect the final SIL values.
    11. The Commission notes that inaccurate normal and emergency line
ratings in the powerflow models can result in erroneous calculated SIL
values. As such, filers should review the line ratings of their study
area and the first-tier areas to ensure that they are accurate. In
order to aid in verifying line overloads, filers must submit facility
rating documents for themselves and any study area for which they are
performing a SIL analysis. Historically accurate line ratings should
aid in confirming the validity of line overloads identified in the SIL
study.
    12. Generating units that are fully committed under long-term power
purchase agreements (PPAs) should not be scaled up or down, regardless
of where they are operating in the model. Partially committed units
should only be scaled above the amount of their commitment. Solar and
wind units should not be scaled either up or down. This generation
generally is not dispatchable and typically is fully committed under
long-term PPAs. If the study assumes that certain solar or wind
generation units are dispatchable, historical evidence must be
provided. Filers should provide a list of all partially and fully
committed generation units in the study area and first-tier areas.
    13. As stated in Order No. 697, filers may use historical capacity
factors for certain energy-limited resources, such as hydroelectric and
wind capacity.\9\ The historical data used to perform the sensitivities
and determine the capacity factors should be consistent in both the SIL
and economic studies submitted by the filer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Changes in SIL values from the previous study period should be
explained in the filing. Significant changes that affect the study area
should be identified, for example, major generation capacity additions
or retirements, the addition of a new high-voltage transmission line or
other topology changes, modified line ratings, and changes in operating
procedures or study methodology. Clearly explaining and identifying
significant changes in the SIL study results that occur between filings
will prevent delays in the analysis of filings and reduce the need for
Commission staff to request filers to provide additional information.
Documentation of any changes should extend back approximately five
years from the study period utilized in the filing to show how the
study area's topology has evolved over time.
    15. The Commission will use the Commission-accepted SIL values
identified in Appendix A when reviewing the currently pending updated
market power analyses submitted by the Transmission Owners as well as
the updated market power analyses filed by the non-transmission owning
filers in the Southwest region for this study period. Future filers
submitting screens for the areas and study period identified in
Appendix A are encouraged to use these Commission-accepted SIL values.
In the alternative, such filers may propose different SIL values
provided that their SIL studies comply with Commission directives and
they explain why the Commission should consider a different SIL value
for a particular balancing authority area rather than the Commission-
accepted SIL values provided in Appendix A. In the event that the
results \10\ for one or more of a particular seller's screens differ if
the seller-supplied SIL value is used instead of the Commission-
accepted SIL value, the order on that particular filing will examine
the seller-supplied SIL study and address whether the seller-supplied
SIL value is acceptable. However, when the overall results of the
screens would be unchanged, i.e., the seller would pass using either
set of SIL values or fail using either set of SIL values, the order
would be based on the Commission-accepted SIL values found in Appendix
A and would not address the seller-supplied SIL values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Results refer to the results of the market share and/or
pivotal supplier screens. For example, if a seller fails the market
share screen for a particular season in a particular market using
either SIL value, we would consider the result unchanged. Similarly,
if the seller passes the screen using either value, the result is
also unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission Orders

    (A) The specific Commission-accepted SIL values identified in
Appendix A to this order are hereby adopted for purposes of analyzing
updated market power analyses for the Southwest region, as discussed in
the body of this order.
    (B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish a copy of this
order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: January 24, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01939 Filed 1-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53566-53567]
[DOCID:fr19se07-73]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0201; FRL-8470-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Listing of Fish
Advisories (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1959.03, OMB Control Number 2040-
0226

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 19,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2007-0201, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water Docket (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica Fleisig, National Fish
Contamination Program (4305T), Office of Science and Technology, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 566-0409; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18475), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 1 comment during the
comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0201, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: National Listing of Fish Advisories (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1959.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0226.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond

to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in
title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Listing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) Database
contains information on the number of new advisories issued by each
state, territory, or tribe annually. The advisory information collected
identifies the waterbody under advisory, the fish or shellfish species
and size ranges included in the advisory, the chemical contaminants and
residue levels causing the advisory to be issued, the waterbody type
(river, lake, estuary, coastal waters), and the target populations to
whom the advisory is directed. This information is collected under the
authority of section 104 of the Clean Water Act, which provides for the
collection of information to be used to protect human health and the
environment. The results of the survey are shared with states,
territories, tribes, other federal agencies, and the general public
through the NLFA database and the distribution of annual fish advisory
fact sheets. The responses to the survey are voluntary and the
information requested is part of the state public record associated
with the advisories. No confidential business information is requested.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 38.76
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State (or other entity) health
departments and state (or other entity) EPAs.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 92.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,565 labor hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $124,755, including $538 in operation
and maintenance costs. No capital or startup costs are required.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a change in cost burden to
remove $124,214 from that identified in the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This is to correct a mistake of including labor hours in the cost
burden instead of just the operations and maintenance costs of $538.

    Dated: September 11, 2007.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-18517 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P