[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49494-49498]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0332; Product Identifier 2016-NM-164-AD; Amendment
39-19084; AD 2017-22-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of skin doublers that
disbonded from their skin panels. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of fuselage skin panels, and applicable on-condition
actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 30, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 30,
2017.

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; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0332.

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-2017-
0332; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20450). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of skin doublers that disbonded from their
skin panels. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of
fuselage skin panels, and applicable on-condition actions. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct disbonded skin panels, which
could result in fuselage skin cracking, rapid decompression, and loss
of structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We 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.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the ability to
accomplish the actions specified in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this
AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the
ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for
airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a ``change in product''
alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Revise ``Explanation of Certain Compliance Times'' Section

    Boeing requested that the ``Explanation of Certain Compliance
Times'' section in the preamble of the NPRM be revised to clarify that
only disbonded skin panels need to be replaced. Boeing noted that, if a
panel is disbonded, it is considered a suspect panel that went through
improper processing during the phosphoric acid anodization phase of
manufacturing. Boeing stated that the suspect panel could develop an
additional disbond, which could lead to further damage, and then the
inspections described in the service information might not be adequate.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request to clarify that only
disbonded skin panels need to be replaced, for the reasons provided by
the commenter. We agree with the rationale for the request. However,
the ``Explanation of Certain Compliance Times'' section only appears in
the preamble of the NPRM and is not carried over into this final rule;
therefore, no change to this final rule is necessary regarding this
issue.

Request To Include Previously Accomplished Actions as Terminating
Actions

    Qantas requested that we include previously accomplished repairs as
terminating actions in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Qantas
requested that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be revised to include a
provision for previously installed repairs (solid skin panel
replacements) that were approved by an authorized representative of the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) via FAA Form 8110-3, ``Statement of Compliance with the Federal
Aviation Regulations.'' Qantas stated that Boeing ODA-approved repairs
completed prior to issuance of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, were not addressed in the NPRM. Qantas
also suggested that solid skin panel replacements approved via FAA Form
8100-9, ``Statement of Compliance with Airworthiness Standards,'' be
included as terminating action. Qantas stated that including skin panel
replacements approved via FAA Form 8100-9 as terminating action could
help avoid operators' requests for AMOCs. In addition, Qantas
recommended that the language used for approved repairs by an
authorized representative of the Boeing ODA be revised, as it is not
specific to FAA Form 8110-3 or FAA Form 8100-9.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (i)(1) of this AD
(paragraph (i) of the proposed AD) addresses previously installed
repairs approved by an authorized representative of the Boeing ODA.
Existing Boeing ODA-approved repairs or preventative modifications are
included in notes in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 8 of the Accomplishment
Instruction and in note (a) to tables 1 through 8 in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated
August 23, 2016. Note (a) states, ``If any Boeing ODA approved
preventative modification or repair was previously installed via FAA
Form 8100-9 or [structural repair manual] SRM repair doubler (except
disbond repair), initial and repeat inspections are not required at the
repaired location only.''
    However, repairs that were not approved by the Boeing ODA and
replacements not done using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349,
dated August 23, 2016, were not addressed in the proposed AD.
Therefore, we have redesignated paragraph (i) (in the proposed AD) as
paragraph (i)(1) and added paragraph (i)(2) to this AD to state that
any skin panel replacement done before the effective date of this AD
terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for
that skin panel only, provided the replacement was done using a skin
panel manufactured on or after April 1, 1997, and the replacement was
done using an FAA-approved method. A replacement accomplished using an
FAA-approved method would still address the unsafe condition and the
need for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD would be
terminated.
    We have also added paragraph (i)(3) to this AD to state that any
FAA-approved reinforced repair doubler (except disbond repair)
installed before the effective date of this AD terminates the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the repaired
location only.

Request To Allow Termination of All Inspections

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we allow the terminating
action specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to terminate the
initial inspections in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and not only
the repetitive inspections in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
Specifically, SWA requested that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be
revised to include the provision that replacement of any skin panel in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, except as specified in
paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD, terminates the requirement for the
initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, for
the replaced skin panel only. SWA noted that an operator could replace
a skin panel prior to doing

the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD,
therefore the operator would not be required to do the initial or
repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
    We agree with the commenters' requests. We have clarified paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD (paragraph (i) of the proposed AD) to state that
accomplishment of any skin panel replacement using a skin panel
manufactured on or after April 1, 1997, terminates the inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided
the replacement is done as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated August 23, 2016,
except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

Request To Include an Additional Terminating Action for AD 2003-14-06

    SWA requested that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD be revised to
include a provision that replacement of skin panels, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h)(2)
of the proposed AD, terminates all of the requirements of AD 2003-14-
06, Amendment 39-13225 (68 FR 40759, July 9, 2003; corrected July 21,
2003 (68 FR 42596) (``AD 2003-14-06'')). SWA noted that an operator
could replace a skin panel prior to doing the initial inspection
specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD; therefore, the operator
would not be required to do the initial or repetitive inspections
specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, and all of the
requirements of AD 2003-14-06 would be terminated.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We redesignated paragraph
(j) in the proposed AD as paragraph (j)(1) and added paragraph (j)(2)
to this AD to include a statement that replacement of any skin panel
with a skin panel manufactured on or after April 1, 1997, as specified
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, except as required by paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD, terminates all of the requirements of AD 2003-14-06
for that skin panel only.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated August
23, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
inspections of fuselage skin panels for cracking, corrosion, and
existing disbond repairs; and applicable on-condition actions. 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

    We estimate that this AD affects 169 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External general visual and        180 work-hours x                 $0  $15,300 per          $2,585,700 per
 detailed inspections.              $85 per hour =                       inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    $15,300 per
                                    inspection cycle.
External high frequency bond test  450 work hours x                  0  $38,250 inspection   $6,464,250 per
 inspection.                        $85 per hour =                       cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    $38,250 per
                                    inspection cycle.
Ultrasonic disbond inspection and  630 work-hours x                  0  $53,550 per          $9,049,950 per
 internal detailed skin             $85 per hour =                       inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 inspection.                        $53,550 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that will be required based on the results of the inspections.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these on-condition actions:

                                        On-Condition Costs per Skin Panel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                       Labor cost                Parts cost             Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-condition inspections.........  Up to 25 work-hours x $85  $0......................  Up to $2,125.
                                    per hour = $2,125.
Repairs..........................  Up to 68 work-hours x $85  Up to $100..............  Up to $5,880.
                                    per hour = $5,780.
Skin panel replacement...........  304 work-hours x $85 per   $95,000.................  $120,840.
                                    hour = $25,840.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-22-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19084; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0332; Product Identifier 2016-NM-164-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 30, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2003-14-06, Amendment 39-13225 (68 FR 40759,
July 9, 2003; corrected July 21, 2003 (68 FR 42956)) (``AD 2003-14-
06'').

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-200, -200C,
-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated
August 23, 2016.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of skin doublers that disbonded
from their skin panels. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
disbonded skin panels, which could result in fuselage skin cracking,
rapid decompression, and loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do all
applicable actions identified as required for compliance (``RC'')
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated August 23, 2016. Do
the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated
August 23, 2016.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated
August 23, 2016, uses the phrase ``after the original issue of this
service bulletin,'' for purposes of determining compliance with the
requirements of this AD, the phrase ``after the effective date of
this AD'' must be used.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated
August 23, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing for instructions, and
specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance): This AD
requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (3) For replaced skin panels identified in table 9 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349,
dated August 23, 2016, on which the one-time internal inspection
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1179, Revision 2, dated
October 25, 2001, has not been done: The compliance time for
accomplishment of the actions specified in Part 8 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, is at the latest of the times
specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii) of
this AD.
    (i) Within 50,000 flight cycles after the skin panel
replacement.
    (ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles after July 14, 2003 (the
effective date of AD 2003-14-16).
    (iii) Within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Required Inspections

    (1) Accomplishment of any skin panel replacement using a skin
panel manufactured on or after April 1, 1997, terminates the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel
only, provided the replacement is done as specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, except as required by paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Accomplishment of any skin panel replacement done before the
effective date of this AD terminates the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided the
conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this
AD are met.
    (i) The replacement was done using a skin panel manufactured on
or after April 1, 1997.
    (ii) The replacement was done using an FAA-approved method.
    (3) Installation of an FAA-approved reinforced repair doubler
(except disbond repair) before the effective date of this AD
terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at
the repaired location only.

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2003-14-06

    (1) Accomplishment of the initial inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2003-14-
06.
    (2) Accomplishment of any skin panel replacement with a skin
panel manufactured on or after April 1, 1997, as specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1349, dated August 23, 2016, except as required by paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD, terminates all requirements of AD 2003-14-06 for
that skin panel only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (l) 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 Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and
(k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer
Tsakoumakis, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1349, dated August 23,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (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; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 11, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-22950 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


               American Spice Trade Association Meeting Agenda
                         Thursday, February 6, 2020

 Introductions
 Attendees:
            Anneke Baran Altieri, Hogan Lovells, ASTA Counsel
            Larry Lichter, McCormick & Co, ASTA Vice-President
            Lois Rossi, Rossi Consulting
Laura Shumow, ASTA Executive Director
      Jessica Skerritt, ASTA Government Relations Director
      Connie Hernandez, OPP/FEAD
      Kaitlin Picone, OPP/FEAD
      Charmaine Hanson, OPP/FEAD
      Nancy Fitz, OPP/RD
      Debra Rate, OPP/RD
      Angela Huskey, EPA/OGC
      David Miller, OPP/HED
      Dan Rosenblatt, OPP/RD
      Jackie Mosby, OPP/FEAD
      Derek Berwald, OPP/BEAD
      Julie VanAlstine, OPP/HED
      Michael Doherty, OPP/HED

 ASTA Presentation (attached)
 ASTA Overview
 Background on the Spice Supply Chain
 ASTA Comments on Crop Grouping
 Monitoring data usage
 Flexible selection on representative crop for spices
 Expansion of Crop Group 25 and Crop Group 26
 Discussion on ASTA questions submitted to OPP


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34756-34758]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14830]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75156; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Revising the
Schedule for Implementing the Exchange's Recently Approved Rule To
Provide a Price Protection for Market Maker Quotes Pursuant to Rule
6.61

June 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 5, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise the schedule for implementing the
Exchange's recently approved rule to provide a price protection for
Market Maker quotes pursuant to Rule 6.61. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to revise the schedule for implementing
the Exchange's recently approved rule to provide a price protection
risk mechanism for Market Maker quotes pursuant to Rule 6.61.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74441 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12664 (March 10, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-150) (Approval
Order); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74018 (January
8, 2015), 80 FR 1982 (January 14, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-150)
(Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 6.61 provides two layers of price protection to incoming
Market Maker quotes, rejecting those Market Maker quotes that exceed
certain parameters, as a risk mitigation tool. The first layer of price
protection, set forth in Rule 6.61(a)(1), assesses incoming sell quotes
against the NBB and incoming buy quotes against the NBO (the ``NBBO
Price Reasonability Check''). Specifically, per Rule 6.61(a)(1),
provided that an NBBO is available, a Market Maker quote would be
rejected if it is priced a specified dollar amount or percentage
through the contra-side NBBO.
    The second layer of price protection assesses the price of call or
put bids against a specified benchmark (the ``Underlying Stock Price/
Strike Price Check''), per Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3). This second layer
of protection applies to bids in call options or put options when (1)
there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or prior to
conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or (2) if the NBBO is so
wide as to not reflect an appropriate price for the respective options
series.
    Rule 6.61(b) operates as an additional safeguard and risk control
feature. In particular, when a Market Maker quote is rejected pursuant
to Rule 6.61(a), the Exchange will also cancel any resting same-side
quote(s) in the affected series, if rejected pursuant to (a)(1); or the
Exchange will also cancel any resting same-side quote(s) in the
affected class(es), if rejected pursuant to (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the
Rule.
    When the Exchange proposed Rule 6.61, it stated that it would
announce via Trader Update the implementation date of the Rule.\5\
Because of the differing technology associated with the two layers of
price protection, the Exchange now proposes a two-stage implementation
of the Rule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to implement Rule
6.61(a)(1) and Rule 6.61(b) as it relates to quotes that have been
rejected pursuant to the NBBO Price Reasonability Check first. The
Exchange believes that because the NBBO Price Reasonability Check is an
approved rule of the Exchange, implementing it as soon as practicable
would enable Market Makers and investors alike to benefit from the
protections that would be afforded by the NBBO Price Reasonability
Check.\6\ The Exchange would announce the implementation date by Trader
Update to be published no later than five (5) days after the
Commission's publication of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, id., 80 FR at 1985.
    \6\ The Exchange notes that to the extent that Rule 6.61(b)
references Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3), that language would be without
force until the implementation of the latter sections of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes a separate, later implementation date
for Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3) (the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price
Check) and Rule 6.61(b) as it relates to the Underlying Stock Price/
Strike Price Check. This two-stage implementation would provide the
Exchange additional time to implement the technology related to the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check. The Exchange proposes to add
Commentary .01 to the rule, directing OTP Holders and OTP Firms to
consult Trader Updates for additional information regarding the
implementation schedule for paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Rule,
with final implementation of such paragraphs to be completed by no
later than March 4, 2016. As noted above, the Exchange proposes to
announce the implementation date via Trader Update and would indicate
those symbols for which the Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check
will be unavailable, as the Exchange anticipates that this
functionality would be implemented on an iterative basis depending on
the symbol. Further, the Exchange will issue subsequent Trader Updates
whenever there is a change to the list of symbols for which the
Underlying Stock Price/Strike Price Check is unavailable.
    The Exchange is proposing this rule change to provide transparency
regarding the implementation schedule regarding the two layers of price
protection for Marker Maker quotes pursuant to Rule 6.61.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that providing an iterative implementation
schedule for the approved price protection features set forth in Rule
6.61 is consistent with the Act because it would enable Market Makers
and the public to immediately benefit from the approved NBBO
Reasonability Check while allowing the Exchange additional time to
implement the technology associated with the Underlying Stock Price/
Strike Price Check when there is no reliable NBBO available.
    Specifically, the proposed iterative implementation schedule for
Rule 6.61 would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market and protect investors and the public interest because it would
enable the Exchange to implement the NBBO Reasonability Check
immediately, thereby helping to mitigate the risks associated with the
entry of quotes that are priced a specified dollar amount or percentage
through the prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes
is evidence of error. The Exchange further believes that announcing the
implementation dates of the new risk mitigation tools via Trader
Updates would remove impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a
free and open market because they would provide notice of when each of
the approved risk control features is being implemented, and for which
symbols.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather, to propose
an iterative implementation schedule for an approved rule of the
Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on competition, but rather, would
enable Market Makers, the public, and investors to immediately benefit
from the additional price protection offered by the NBBO Reasonability
Check and delay the implementation of the Underlying Stock Price/Strike
Price Check pending finalization of the technology associated with that
feature.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement would
enable the Exchange to implement immediately the approved price
protection risk mechanisms for which the associated Exchange technology
is currently available or is in the process of becoming finalized,
consistent with the proposed implementation schedule. The Commission
believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-45. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-45, and should
be submitted on or before July 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14830 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22720]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE:  The meeting will be held on May 25, 2017, from 12:00
Noon to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

PLACE:  This meeting will be open to the public via conference call.
Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
listen and participate in this meeting.

STATUS:  Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: May 11, 2017.
Robert W. Miller,
Director, Policy, Strategic Planning & Regulation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety, Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-10050 Filed 5-15-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 1 Final Draft Chapter III. Toxicokinetics Limited data are available on the toxicokinetics of the haloacetonitriles ( HANs). No data were located on the absorption or distribution of BCAN following oral exposure. A comparative toxicokinetics and metabolisms study in mice and rats has been conducted for DBAN ( NTP,

2002). However, this study was not available for review at the time this document was prepared.

No studies were located on the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of any of the HANs following inhalation or dermal exposure, although some qualitative information can be inferred from toxicity studies.

A. Absorption Roby et al. ( 1986) administered single oral gavage doses of either [ 1 14C] ( labeled on the cyanide group) or [ 2 14C] DCAN ( labeled on the dichloromethyl group) in water to male F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice. The administered doses were 0.2, 2, or 15 mg/ kg for the rats and 2 or 15 mg/ kg for the mice. Appearance of label in feces, urine and expired air was monitored until at least 70% of the radioactivity had been recovered. The amount of time required to recover 70%

of the administered radioactivity differed across species. In rats, the collection of data continued for 6 days for [ 1 14C] DCAN and for 2 days for [ 2 14C] DCAN. In mice, collection was terminated at 24 hours for both positions of radiolabel, since at least 70% of the dose had been collected. These results indicate that DCAN in water is well absorbed ( at least 80% to 90%) from the gastrointestinal tract, since only 8% to 20% of the total dose was excreted in feces. The rate of absorption was not determined, and data on the blood concentrations of radiolabel over time Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 2 Final Draft were not reported. The appearance of radiolabel in urine and exhaled air at 24 hours suggests,

however, that DCAN was absorbed rapidly.

Roth et al. ( 1990), in a published abstract, reported on a study designed to test whether differential absorption and distribution kinetics of TCAN in tricaprylin versus corn oil was responsible for observed differences in developmental toxicity studies. Pregnant rats ( strain and number not specified) were administered a single oral gavage dose of 55 mg [ 14C] TCAN/ kg in either tricaprylin or corn oil on gestation day 10 or 11. Levels of radiolabel were followed in the maternal stomach and intestinal contents, blood, liver, spleen, heart, adipose tissue, and embryonic tissue. Maximal blood and tissue levels were observed 4 to 6 hours following exposure,

indicating rapid absorption kinetics. The choice of solvent vehicle did not affect the absorption kinetics. No data on the degree of absorption were provided in this published abstract. A published version of this study was not located, and the data presented did not allow an independent verification of the results.

The lethality observed in acute dermal toxicity tests for BCAN ( Eastman Kodak Co.,

1992) and TCAN ( Smyth et al., 1962) indicates that systemic exposure to these compounds occurred, demonstrating that HANs can be absorbed dermally. These studies are not adequate to estimate the rate and degree of absorption by the dermal route.

In summary, the existing data suggest that HANs can be absorbed following either oral or dermal administration. HANs are rapidly absorbed following oral administration, based on the observed peak blood concentrations 4 to 6 hours after dosing reported by Roth et al. ( 1990). The Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 3 Final Draft strength of this conclusion is limited, however, since only a published abstract is available. The degree of absorption following oral dosing is nearly complete, based on the small fraction of the administered radioactivity observed in feces ( Roby et al., 1986). HANs can be absorbed through the skin, but the existing data are insufficient to estimate the rate or degree of absorption. No data are available to determine whether HANs can be absorbed following inhalation exposure.

B. Distribution Roby et al. ( 1986) studied the tissue distribution of radiolabel following administration of single oral gavage doses of 0.2 to 15 mg/ kg of [ 1 14C] or [ 2 14C] DCAN in water to rats and mice. Daily excreta, including exhaled volatile organic compounds and CO 2, were analyzed until at least 70% of the radioactivity was recovered. The amount of time required to recover 70% of the administered radioactivity differed across species: 6 days following oral administration of [ 1 14C] DCAN and 48 hours for [ 2 14C] DCAN in rats, and 24 hours regardless of the position of the radiolabel in mice. After at least 70% of the administered dose had been excreted, the animals were sacrificed and tissues were collected. Label was detected in all tissues tested ( see Table III

1), although the residual tissue levels represented a small portion of the administered dose. Six days after oral administration of [ 1 14C] DCAN to rats, the tissue distribution of the label as percent of the administered dose was: blood ( 4.1   7.9%), muscle ( 3.9   7.9%), skin ( 3.3   6.3%) and liver ( 1.9   2.6%) for the three dose groups. For [ 2 14C] DCAN, the liver retained the largest amount of radiolabel ( approximately 5% of the administered dose 2 days after treatment),

followed by muscle ( 2.7   4.8%), blood ( 2   4.6%) and skin ( 0.9   1.0%). Most other tissues contained less than 1% of the dose. These tissue distribution data for rats are presented in Table III 1. In mice, the tissue distribution did not differ greatly between the alternately labeled Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 4 Final Draft compounds. The largest amount of radioactivity was present in the liver, 3.5 4.3% of the administered dose for [ 1 14C] DCAN and 5.1 5.4% for [ 2 14C] DCAN. The muscle and skin also contained appreciable amounts of radioactivity as shown in Table III 2. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 5 Final Draft Dose Table III 1. Tissue Levels of DCAN After Oral Administration to Ratsa. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 6 Final Draft Table III 2. Tissue Levels of DCAN One Day After Oral Administration to Micea. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 7 Final Draft These data do not provide clear evidence for significant differences in distribution for the dimethyl and cyanide carbons, since only small differences were apparent in the rat study, and no difference was observed for the alternatively labeled compounds in mice.

A study to assess the potential of TCAN to form protein and DNA adducts provides qualitative evidence for wide tissue distribution of HANs. Lin et al. ( 1992) administered single oral gavage doses ranging from 7.2 to 69.3 mg/ kg of either [ 1 14C] or [ 2 14C] TCAN in tricaprylin to male F344 rats. DNA was isolated from liver, stomach, and kidney, and several proteins were isolated from blood. The tissues were analyzed from 4 to 48 hours following dosing. More radiolabel was associated with DNA when the trichloromethyl carbon [ 2 14C] was labeled than when the cyanide group carbon [ 1 14C] was labeled. The study authors hypothesized that the adducts resulted from the reaction of DNA with single carbon metabolites formed by the cleavage of TCAN. DNA binding was highest in the stomach, followed by liver and kidney.

Adducts with globin, albumin, and globulins were also identified, and similar levels were observed with the label at either position. In addition, the HPLC elution profiles for the radioactivity was the same regardless of the position of the label, leading the authors to suggest that the protein adducts are formed from either " 2 carbon metabolites ( unsplit) or by direct reaction with TCAN."

Adduct studies provide only limited information on tissue distribution, since macromolecular binding may also be dependent on metabolism of the compound. However, the observed formation of serum protein adducts and the appearance of DNA adducts in all three tissues measured suggests wide distribution of TCAN. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 8 Final Draft Additional studies have been conducted to address the potential for solvent vehicle to alter the distribution of TCAN and have been reported in two published abstracts. Roth et al. ( 1990)

administered a single dose of 55 mg [ 14C] TCAN/ kg to pregnant rats ( strain and number not specified) in either tricaprylin or corn oil on gestation day 10 or 11. The radiolabel ( the identity of the labeled carbon was not specified) was followed for 48 hours in the maternal stomach and intestinal contents, blood, liver, spleen, heart, and adipose tissue, and in embryos. In the blood,

most counts were bound to red blood cells, and in the plasma up to 50% of the radiolabel was protein bound. Tissue levels were highest in the liver ( approximately 40 µ g TCAN equivalents/ g at 6 hours post exposure). Radiolabel was also detected in embryos. According to the study authors, there were no solvent related differences reported for any of the toxicokinetic parameters evaluated for TCAN when administered in tricaprylin versus corn oil.

In a follow up study to assess the impact of repeated dosing on the effect of solvent vehicle that was reported in a published abstract, Gordon et al. ( 1991) administered one, two, or three successive daily doses ( dose not specified) of [ 1 14C] or [ 2 14C] labeled TCAN in tricaprylin or corn oil to groups of pregnant rats ( strain not specified) in mid gestation. The animals were sacrificed on gestation day 13 and maternal and embryo levels of radiolabel were evaluated. The 14C levels in the embryos from the tricaprylin groups were described as much greater than in the corn oil vehicle group following 3 daily doses, but no quantitative estimate was reported. After three doses, maternal blood 14C levels were higher for the tricaprylin vehicle group compared to the corn oil group. The abstract did not report the effects of solvent vehicle on the embryo or maternal blood levels of TCAN associated radioactivity after one or two daily doses, precluding an analysis of trends in the relationship between the number of days of dosing and tissue Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 9 Final Draft accumulation. In the maternal liver, 14C accumulation of both [ 1 14C] and [ 2 14C] was greater in the tricaprylin group than in the corn oil group after two daily treatments, but after three doses with [ 2 14C] labeled TCAN, accumulation was higher from corn oil. While solvent related differences in the accumulation of radiolabel were reported in this study, the degree of difference between solvent vehicle groups was not provided for any of the findings and apparent inconsistencies observed across the dosing regimens were not adequately explained. Based on inconsistent results, the absence of quantitative data, and the lack of peer review, these data should be viewed as preliminary. In addition, the higher embryonic accumulation of TCAN with tricaprylin in this study appears to be inconsistent with the results of Roth et al. ( 1990) with TCAN in tricaprylin and corn oil, although the latter study used a shorter dosing regimen.

Therefore, it remains unclear if solvent vehicle affects tissue distribution. Nevertheless, both abstracts provide qualitative evidence for wide tissue distribution of TCAN, in support of the better documented study on DCAN by Roby et al. ( 1986).

In summary, the two compounds tested, DCAN and TCAN, are widely distributed following oral dosing. Radiolabeled parent compound or metabolites have been identified to varying degrees in blood and a host of tissues, including in embryos, with no single tissue dominating HAN uptake. The role of solvent vehicle on distribution of HANs also remains unresolved, with contradictory results being reported within a single published abstract ( Gordon et al., 1991). ( See Chapter VII for additional analysis of potential solvent vehicle effects.) No data were identified to evaluate distribution of HANs following dermal or inhalation exposure. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 10 Final Draft C. Metabolism Pereira et al. ( 1984) administered a single gavage dose of 0.75 mmol/ kg BCAN ( 116 mg/ kg), DBAN ( 149 mg/ kg), DCAN ( 82 mg/ kg), or TCAN ( 108 mg/ kg) in tricaprylin to male Sprague Dawley rats. Urinary thiocyanate, the only metabolite measured, accounted for 2.25% to 12.8% of the dose by 24 hours. The excretion of thiocyanates in the urine was in the order of BCAN> DCAN> DBAN> TCAN. The authors also measured the effects of the HANs on dimethylnitrosamine demethylase ( DMN) activity ( a measure of CYP2E1 activity) as a marker of protein binding. Based on dose responses from in vitro incubations with rat liver microsomes,

DBAN and BCAN were more potent inhibitors of this enzyme than DCAN or TCAN. In contrast to the in vitro results, a single gavage dose of 0.75 mmol/ kg TCAN, but not 0.75 mmol/ kg DBAN,

significantly inhibited DMN activity in liver microsomes of rats sacrificed 3 or 18 hours after dosing. Results for other HANs were not presented. The mechanism of inhibition was considered to be noncompetitive or uncompetitive ( noncompetitive inhibition is characterized by an altered ratio of K m: V max with a decrease in V max, while uncompetitive inhibition is characterized by a constant ratio of K m: V max with a decrease in the V max). The results suggest that HANs are not competing for the active site of CYP2E1. Although Pereira et al. ( 1984) suggest that oxidative dehalogenation is an initial step in the metabolism of HANs, the data are inadequate to identify the specific enzymes involved. Based on their results and earlier work on formation of cyanide from nitrile compounds presented by Silver et al. ( 1982), Pereira et al. ( 1984) proposed a metabolic scheme to explain the formation of thiocyanates from HANs ( Figure III 1). Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 11 Final Draft X H H CN C OH H H CN C H CN H C O X X X CN C OH X X CN C X CN X C O X X H CN C OH X H CN C X CN H C O C H O CN CO CNC O CN CO CN X C O CN O H +

+ +

+

+ 2 GST?

GST?

GST? 6 CYP?

CYP? 1 2 3 4 5 Glutathione conjugate Figure III 1 Proposed Metabolism of Haloacetonitriles Figure Legend. Proposed metabolic pathways for HANs. Two distinct pathways are proposed: conjugation with glutathione and oxidative metabolism. The glutathione pathway is shown with dashed lines to indicate that direct identification of these conjugates or other downstream metabolites has not been demonstrated in vivo, as described further in the text. It is not clear if the proposed glutathione conjugation is catalyzed by glutathione S transferases ( GST) or is nonenzymatic. For the oxidative pathway, dehalogenation is thought to be catalyzed by CYPs, although the isoforms that mediate this reaction have not been identified.

Intermediate metabolites labeled in the figure with numbers 1 through 6 are as follows: 1) haloacetonitrile; 2) halocyanomethanol; 3) haloformaldehyde; 4) cyanoformaldehyde; 5) halocyanoformaldehyde; 6) unidentified glutathione conjugates. Presentation of the oxidative metabolism pathway adapted from Pereira et al. ( 1984). Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 12 Final Draft As shown in this figure, metabolism of HANs is hypothesized to occur by oxidative dehalogenation to yield halocyanomethanols. These reactions are catalyzed by mixed function oxidases such as cytochrome p450s ( CYP), although the identity of the isozyme( s) that carries out the individual reactions has not been determined. The halocyanomethanols are proposed to then dehydrate to form halocyanoformaldehydes or lose cyanide to form haloformaldehydes, including phosgene. The cyanoformaldehydes undergo further oxidative metabolism to form CO 2 and cyanide ( which can then be further metabolized to thiocyanate).

Pereira et al. ( 1984) did not measure the intermediate metabolites proposed in their metabolic pathway. However, a study by Roby et al., ( 1986) provides additional indirect evidence for the oxidative metabolism of HANs. Roby et al. ( 1986) administered single oral doses of 0.2, 2,

or 15 mg/ kg [ 1 14C] or [ 2 14C] DCAN to rats, and 2 or 15 mg/ kg of these compounds to mice. In both rats and mice, labeling of the cyanide group carbon resulted in higher amounts of radiolabel in urine than in expired air ( i. e., as CO 2), while radioactivity excreted via both routes was nearly equal when the dichloromethyl group was labeled. Marginal dose dependent changes in the amount of the radiolabel recovered in feces and expired air were reported, but the pattern of these changes were not consistent across species or with position of the radiolabel, making the findings difficult to interpret. The pattern of label distribution in tissues and excreta indicated to the authors that DCAN would be oxidized to dichlorocyanomethanol, consistent with the metabolic scheme proposed by Pereira et al. ( 1984). Dichlorocyanomethanol could then either dehydrate to chlorocyanoformaldehyde or lose cyanide to form phosgene, leading to terminal degradation products including chlorine, formic acid, CO 2 and cyanide. The authors did not, however, directly measure these metabolites. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 13 Final Draft Conjugation with glutathione ( GSH) also appears to be an important pathway in the metabolism of HANs as shown in Figure III 1. Lin and Guion ( 1989) investigated the ability of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN to interact with GSH and glutathione s transferases ( GST) in a series of in vitro and in vivo experiments. The in vitro experiments tested the effect of various incubation conditions on the direct reactivity of HANs with GSH as measured by the loss of GSH in the incubation mixture. Direct incubations ( in the absence of GST) revealed that HANs have the potential to bind to GSH. The relative reactivity toward GSH was DBAN> BCAN>> TCAN. No detectable binding with DCAN was observed. Addition of bovine serum albumin to the incubations reduced the degree of GSH removal by TCAN, but had no modifying effect on DBAN,

suggesting that at least for DBAN, binding to GSH is somewhat specific ( no results for BCAN were reported). The presence of cytosol ( a cell fraction containing GST activity) did not alter GSH loss by DBAN or TCAN ( no results for DCAN or BCAN were reported). Therefore, for at least these two HANs, GSH conjugation appears to be nonenzymatic. The presence of microsomes decreased GSH loss with DBAN and TCAN, leading the authors to suggest that microsomal metabolism of these HANs results in the formation of metabolites that are less GSHreactive than the parent compounds. No results were presented for incubation of BCAN with microsomes. Even though the presence of cytosol alone did not alter GSH loss, incubation of both cytosol and microsome with DBAN or TCAN decreased GSH loss compared to that observed with microsomes alone. Taken together, these results show that the GSH reactivity of HANs varies greatly among the HANs under review in this document. These in vitro findings suggest that BCAN, DBAN, and TCAN appear to react with GSH in a nonenzymatic fashion as the parent compounds, while DCAN shows little propensity for binding to GSH. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 14 Final Draft In a second part of this study, Lin and Guion ( 1989) tested the ability of HANs to inhibit GST activity ( as measured by 1 chloro 2,4 dinitrobenzene ( CDNB) conjugation with GSH) in vitro and in vivo. All the HANs decreased GST activity in vitro in the order of TCAN> BCAN= DBAN> DCAN, with a 4 fold difference separating the level of GST activity in the presence of TCAN and DCAN. For the in vivo studies, male Fischer 344 rats were administered single gavage doses of 0.75 mmol/ kg BCAN ( 116 mg/ kg), DBAN ( 149 mg/ kg),

DCAN ( 82 mg/ kg), or TCAN ( 108 mg/ kg) in tricaprylin. These doses represented 10 to 30% of reported LD 50 for the individual compounds. Liver GST activities and GSH concentrations were measured 1, 3, and 18 hours after dosing. GST activity was slightly decreased at 3 hours by DBAN and TCAN, and was significantly decreased by DBAN at 18 hours ( data not shown). The authors noted that there are several potential mechanisms for inhibition of GST activity by HANs,

including depletion of GSH through direct conjugation, by competing with GSH for GST catalytic sites ( competitive inhibition), or through noncompetitive protein binding to GST. To test this first possibility, the authors also measured liver GSH levels following in vivo administration of HANs using the same dosing protocol as for the GST activity measurements. For BCAN, DBAN, and DCAN, GSH levels were decreased at 1 hour post treatment, recovered to control levels by 3 hours, and were elevated at 18 hours. For TCAN, liver GSH levels were unchanged at 1 hour, and were elevated at 3 and 18 hours post treatment. These results show that initial decreases in GSH levels are transient, and that GSH levels return to control levels shortly after cessation of exposure,

with a rebound to higher GSH levels within a day post treatment.

The effects of HANs on GST and GSH levels have also been investigated by Ahmed and colleagues ( Ahmed et al., 1989; Ahmed et al., 1991). In an in vitro study, DBAN, DCAN, and Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 15 Final Draft TCAN significantly inhibited GST activity ( CDNB conjugation with GSH). IC 50 ( the concentration of inhibitor resulting in 50% inhibition) values for these three HANs were 0.82,

2.49, and 0.34 mM, respectively. This result suggests that TCAN binds more readily to GST than DBAN or DCAN. The observed inhibition of GST was reversible upon dialysis of the enzyme,

suggesting reversible binding of HANs to GST ( or other mechanisms not involving direct protein reactivity). Incubation with DBAN or DCAN decreased both the apparent K m and the V max of GST activity toward GSH, while incubation with TCAN increased the apparent K m and V max.

Based on the patterns of activity of GST toward GSH, kinetic interactions were described as intermediate between uncompetitive and noncompetitive for DBAN, as uncompetitive for DCAN,

and as competitive for TCAN. The effect of HANs on GST activity toward its substrate CDNB was also evaluated. The pattern of HAN inhibition of GST dependent conjugation of CDNB was described as mixed by the study authors ( i. e., showing aspects of competitive, uncompetitive, and noncompetitive inhibition). These complex patterns of inhibition suggest that HANs might interact with GST through multiple mechanisms. For example, HANs might interact at the catalytic site of the enzyme ( consistent with competitive inhibition) as well as other protein sites ( consistent with uncompetitive, and noncompetitive inhibition).

In an in vivo study by Ahmed and colleagues ( 1991), GST activity and GSH levels were determined in time course and dose response experiments with DBAN. For the time course experiment, male Sprague Dawley rats were administered a single oral dose of 75 mg/ kg DBAN in dimethyl sulfoxide ( 75% of the LD 50), and aortal blood, liver, stomach, and kidney were harvested at 0.5, 1, 2, or 4 hours after treatment. For the liver, GSH levels were significantly ( p< 0.05)

decreased at 0.5 hours to roughly 60% of controls ( as read from a figure in the paper), recovered Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 16 Final Draft to control levels by 2 hours, and were increased above control levels at 4 hours. The mild increase at 4 hours was not statistically significant. For the stomach, GSH levels were nearly completely depleted by 0.5 hours ( 6% of control levels), and remained decreased for up to 4 hours. No significant change in blood or kidney GSH levels was detected. The effects of DBAN on GST activity closely paralleled the effects on GSH levels, with significant decreases beginning at 0.5 hours for the liver and stomach, and no significant effect in the kidney.

For the dose response experiment, Ahmed et al. ( 1991) administered single oral gavage doses of 0, 25, 75, or 100 mg/ kg DBAN in dimethyl sulfoxide to male Sprague Dawley rats and harvested blood and tissues 0.5 hours after dosing as described for the time course experiment.

Hepatic and gastric GSH levels were decreased in a dose dependent fashion, and were significantly ( p< 0.05) decreased beginning at 25 mg/ kg. For the liver, GSH levels were decreased by 23% at 25 mg/ kg, by 38% by 50 mg/ kg, by 46% at 75 mg/ kg, and by 57% at 100 mg/ kg. GSH levels in the stomach tissue were decreased by 43% at 25 mg/ kg, by 75% at 50 mg/ kg, by 84% by 75 mg/ kg, and 86% by 100 mg/ kg. No significant effect on blood or kidney GSH levels was observed. Liver and stomach GST activities were also decreased in a dose dependent fashion, but this effect was less severe than the decreases in GSH levels. The degree of inhibition ( enzyme activity decreased to 60% of control levels in the liver, and decreased to 71% of control levels in the stomach) was statistically significant ( p< 0.05) beginning at 50 mg/ kg. The authors suggested that the likely mechanism for GSH depletion was direct conjugation with HANs due to their electrophilic nature. They further noted that the depletion of GSH, coupled with protein binding to the GST enzyme itself, could lead to the observed inhibition of GST activity. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 17 Final Draft The results of Lin and Guion ( 1989) and Ahmed et al. ( 1989; 1991) suggested that HANs inhibit liver GST activity. However, NTP ( 2002) reported an increase in liver GST activity in male F344 rats following exposure to DBAN in their drinking water for 14 days. The increase of 126%

over controls was only significant in the male rats exposed to drinking water containing 200 mg/ L DBAN ( 18 mg/ kg/ day). One possible explanation for the opposite effects of HANs on GST activity reported among these studies is the duration of dosing that was employed in each study.

The studies by Lin and Guion ( 1989) and Ahmed et al. ( 1989; 1991) were single dose gavage studies. Even in these studies a rebound in GSH levels or GST activity was noted within a period of hours that often exceeded control levels. Therefore, it is possible that longer term exposure ( such as in the 14 day study) enhances GST activity due to a rebound effect after an initial decrease. A time course experiment measuring GSH levels and GST activities over acute and subchronic periods would be needed to determine if this is the case.

The results of Lin and Guion ( 1989), Ahmed et al. ( 1989; 1991), and NTP ( 2002) suggest that conjugation with GSH may be an important source of HAN detoxification in animal toxicity studies. The in vitro results suggest that BCAN, DBAN, and TCAN are conjugated with GSH in a non enzymatic fashion, and at least for DBAN, this interaction is somewhat selective. The decreases in GSH levels following oral dosing of rats with HANs further supports the in vitro findings. In in vitro experiments HANs also appear to inhibit GST activity, although a rebound effect after longer periods of exposure could be possible. Multiple mechanisms are likely involved in the observed inhibition following acute dosing. It is noteworthy that the concentrations of HANs used in these studies to demonstrate GSH depletion and altered GST activity are orders of magnitude greater than measured human exposures to these compounds in drinking water. Since Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 18 Final Draft GSH depletion is clearly dose dependent ( Ahmed et al., 1991), the importance of this pathway in human exposure situations is probably minimal.

D. Excretion Pereira et al. ( 1984) studied urinary excretion of thiocyanate in rats following single oral doses of 0.75 mmol/ kg of several HANs in tricaprylin. The percentages of the administered dose excreted as thiocyanate after 24 hours were 12.8%, 7.67%, 9.28%, and 2.25% of BCAN, DBAN,

DCAN, and TCAN, respectively. No data were presented for other urinary metabolites; thus the total contribution of urinary excretion cannot be estimated. This issue was, however, more fully evaluated in the kinetics study of Roby et al. ( 1986), in which single oral doses of [ 1 14C] or [ 2 14C] DCAN were administered in water to male rats and mice. Urine, feces, and expired air were collected and the radioactive content measured until at least 70% of the label had been recovered. In rats, this required 6 days for [ 1 14C] DCAN and 2 days for [ 2 14C] DCAN. In mice,

excretion was more than 70% complete within 24 hours for both locations of the label. In both animal species, the label of [ 1 14C] DCAN was excreted mostly in the urine ( 42   70%), with lower amounts in feces ( 9   20%, some of which may have been unabsorbed) and expired air ( 3   8%). For [ 2 14C] DCAN, label was excreted both as carbon dioxide in air ( 33   37%) and in urine ( 35   43%),

with 8   13% in feces ( Shown in Table III 3 measured as radiolabel excretion). Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 19 Final Draft Table III 3. Excretion of DCAN in Rats and Mice. .

Based on these data, excretion of HANs is nearly complete over a period of days. The rate of excretion may differ across species, since mice excrete DCAN more rapidly than rats.

Differences in excretion of thiocyanate for different HANs was observed by Pereira et al. ( 1984),

with TCAN being excreted as thiocyanate to a lesser degree than the other HANs. It is not clear if this reflects differences in metabolism or differences in excretion, since total urinary excretion of the radiolabel was not determined. The dispensation of the two carbons also differs ( Roby et al.,

1986). The cyanide group tends to be more readily excreted in the urine and the halomethyl carbon is excreted nearly equally in expired air and in urine. Excretion in the feces appears to be limited. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 20 Final Draft E. Bioaccumulation and Retention No studies were located that provided data on long term accumulation and retention of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, or TCAN in the body. The existing kinetic studies did not determine halflives and were not conducted for sufficiently long periods to evaluate long term accumulation.

However, the results of Roby et al. ( 1986) that showed relatively rapid excretion of DCANassociated radioactivity ( at least 70% of the administered dose excreted within 6 days in rats or within 24 hours in mice) suggests limited potential for the bioaccumulation of the HANs.

F. Summary Limited data are available on the toxicokinetics of the HANs, with a comprehensive toxicokinetic study for oral dosing available only for DCAN. However, the existing toxicokinetic data suggest that HANs can be rapidly and nearly completely absorbed following oral dosing ( Roby et al., 1986; Roth et al., 1990). Systemic toxicity data suggest that HANs are absorbed by the dermal route. Once absorbed, HANs appear to be widely distributed. The two compounds tested, DCAN ( Roby et al., 1986) and TCAN ( Lin et al., 1992), were widely distributed following oral dosing, with no clear preferences in tissue distribution apparent based on the limited data. No data were available on tissue dependent metabolism, but an overall metabolic scheme for HANs involving an initial oxidative dehalogenation step has been proposed based on the propensity for these compounds to form cyanide and metabolism studies for other nitriles ( Pereira et al., 1984).

Proposed intermediate metabolites have not been measured directly, and the identity of enzymes responsible for steps in the pathway have not been identified. Conjugation with GSH, at least at high doses, might be a second important route of metabolism for HANs ( Ahmed et al., 1989; Lin and Guion, 1989; Ahmed et al., 1991; NTP, 2002). Excretion of HANs is nearly complete over a Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD III 21 Final Draft period of days, largely in urine and in exhaled air. The rate of excretion may differ across species,

since mice excrete DCAN more rapidly than rats ( Roby et al., 1986). Differences in urinary excretion of thiocyanate for different HANs was observed by Pereira et al. ( 1984), with TCAN being excreted as thiocyanate to a lesser degree than the other HANs. The results of Roby et al.

( 1986) that showed relatively rapid excretion of DCAN associated radioactivity suggests limited potential for the bioaccumulation of the HANs. However, no studies were located that provided data on long term accumulation and retention of any of the HANs.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67163-67164]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR15-5-000.
    Applicants: Washington Gas Light Company.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1): Annual LAUF
Adjustment Filing to be effective 11/1/2014; TOFC: 980.
    Filed Date: 10/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20141031-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: PR15-6-000.
    Applicants: SourceGas Distribution LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Second Revised
Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 10/1/2014; TOFC:
1300.
    Filed Date: 10/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20141031-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-146-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate
Agmt (Vanguard 597, 598 to Tenaska 1614, 1615) to be effective 11/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-52-001.
    Applicants: Acadian Gas Pipeline System.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Rate Petition
Amendment to be effective 9/8/2014; TOFC: 1270.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: PR14-53-001.

    Applicants: Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Rate Petition
Amendment to be effective 9/8/2014; TOFC: 1270.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5034.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-970-001.
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: High Point Compliance
Filing in RP14-970 to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-973-001.
    Applicants: American Midstream (Midla), LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Midla Compliance Filing
in RP14-973 to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-11-001.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance with RP15-11
Fuel Filing to be effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-74-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Errata to PCB Filing
in RP15-74-000 to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-104-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 154.205(b): Errata to Chesapeake
Permanent Release in RP15-104, to be effective 11/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/4/14.
    Accession Number: 20141104-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/17/14.

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

    Dated: November 5, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26759 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59764-59765]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5596-018]

Town of Bedford, Virginia; Notice of Application for Amendment
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Request to permanently amend the minimum flow
requirement in bypass reach.
    b. Project No.: 5596-018.
    c. Date Filed: May 22, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Town of Bedford, Virginia.
    e. Name of Project: Bedford Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the James River in Bedford
and Amherst Counties, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Charles P. Kolakowski, Town Manager, Town of
Bedford, 215 East Main Street, Bedford, VA 24523; telephone: (540) 587-
6002.
    i. FERC Contact: Kurt Powers, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the

Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail a copy to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-5596-018) on
the first page of any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee is requesting to
permanently modify the minimum flow required to be released at Bedford
Dam under Article 34 from 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 150 cfs.
The Commission previously approved a request to amend Article 34 on
July 14, 2009. That amendment permits the licensee to reduce the
minimum flow at the bypass reach from 400 cfs to 200 cfs if the flow of
the James River at the project is between 800 and 1,000 cfs for five
consecutive days. The licensee states that the proposed permanent
modification could generate an additional 2,500 megawatt hours of
energy annually, approximately. Pursuant to Article 34, the licensee
has obtained concurrence from the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries for the proposal.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: September 23, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25019 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 45243]
[DOCID:fr13au07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-521-000]

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Technical
Conference

August 7, 2007.
    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, September 11,
2007, at 10 a.m. (EDT), in conference room 3M-2A/B at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's July 27, 2007 order \1\ in this proceeding
directed its staff to hold a technical conference to address the issues
raised by New York Independent System Operator, Inc.'s (NYISO) February
5, 2007 compliance filing submitted in response to Order Nos. 681 and
681-A.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 120 FERC ]
61,099 (2007) (July 27 Order).
    \2\ Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity
Markets, Order No. 681, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,226, order on reh'g
and clarification, Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC ] 61,201 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any parties that plan to participate at this technical conference
should contact Morris Margolis at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than 14 days
after the issuance of this notice. Parties with similar interests
should designate a single spokesperson to address, on their behalf,
NYISO's filing, concerns raised in the July 27 Order, and any
alternative proposals. A further notice will provide a detailed agenda.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Those interested in
obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should contact
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or 1-800-336-6646. Two
weeks after the technical conference, the transcript will be available
for free on the Commission's e-library system.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Morris
Margolis, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8611<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15796 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P