[Federal Register: April 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 82)]
[Notices]
[Page 21260-21261]
[DOCID:fr30ap07-66]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[AMS-FRL-8307-6]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Request for Waiver of Federal Preemption; Opportunity for Public
Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA
that it has adopted Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) regulations for
passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles
beginning with the 2009 model year (MY). By letter dated December 21,
2005, CARB submitted a request that EPA grant a waiver of preemption
under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b) for
these regulations. This notice announces that EPA has scheduled a
public hearing concerning California's request and that EPA is
accepting written comment on the request.

DATES: EPA has scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request on
May 22, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m. Any party planning to present oral
testimony should notify EPA by May 15, 2007, expressing its interest.
Any party may submit written comments by June 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA will make available for in person inspection, at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, written comments received
from interested parties, in addition to any testimony given at the
public hearing. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The reference number for this
docket is EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173. Parties wishing to present oral
testimony at the public hearing should provide notice to David
Dickinson at the address noted below. We plan to hold the public
hearing at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:
(202) 343-9256, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA will make available an electronic copy of

this Notice on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ's)
homepage (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/). Users can find this document by

accessing the OTAQ homepage and looking at the path entitled
``Regulations.'' This service is free of charge, except any cost you
already incur for Internet connectivity. Users can also get the
official Federal Register version of the Notice on the day of
publication on the primary website: (http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/
).

    Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
    For Obtaining and Submitting Electronic Copies of Comments:
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0173, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173.
Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0173.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-

mail.
    The http://www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
 your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. Docket: All documents in the

docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(A) Background and Discussion

    Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``Act''), 42
U.S.C. 7543(a), provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this
part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.

    Section 209(b) of the Act requires the Administrator, after notice
and opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the
prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards
(other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30,
1966, if the state determines that the state standards will be, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards. California is the only state that is
qualified to seek and receive a waiver under section 209(b). The
Administrator must grant a waiver unless he finds that (A) the
determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, (B) the state
does not need the state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, or (C) the state standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. Previous
decisions granting waivers of Federal preemption for motor vehicles
have stated that State standards are inconsistent with section 202(a)
if, for example, there is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if
the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent certification
procedures.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To be consistent, the California certification procedures
need not be identical to the Federal certification procedures.
California procedures would be inconsistent, however, if
manufacturers would be unable to meet the state and the Federal
requirements with the same test vehicle in the course of the same
test. See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's December 21, 2005, letter to the Administrator notified EPA
that the CARB Board had adopted its GHG regulations at a public hearing
on September 23-24, 2004 and subsequently California's Office of
Administrative Law approved the regulatory action on September 15,
2005. The amendment and adoption of regulations can be found at title
13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 1900, 1961 and
1961.1.
    Please provide comment as to whether (a) California's determination
that its motor vehicle emission standards are, in the aggregate, at
least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such
standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c)
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are
consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Within the context
of these statutory criteria we also request comment on the following:
(1) Given that the regulations referenced in the December 21, 2005,
request letter relate to global climate change, should that have any
effect on EPA's evaluation of the criteria, and if so, in what manner;
(2) whether the United States Supreme Court's decision, issued on April
2, 2007 (549 U.S. --------(2007)), regarding the regulation of
emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles under Title II of
the Clean Air Act, is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the three
criteria, and if so, in what manner; and (3) whether the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA) fuel economy provisions are relevant to
EPA's consideration of this petition or to CARB's authority to
implement its vehicle GHG regulations.

Procedures for Public Participation

    In recognition that public hearings are designed to give interested
parties an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, there are no
adverse parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject
to cross-examination by other participants without special approval by
the presiding officer. The presiding officer is authorized to strike
from the record statements that he or she deems irrelevant or
repetitious and to impose reasonable time limits on the duration of the
statement of any participant.
    The Agency will make a verbatim record of the proceedings.
Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the hearing(s) to
obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense. EPA will keep the
record open until June 15, 2007. Upon expiration of the comment period,
the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request based on the
record of the public hearing, relevant written submissions, and other
information that he deems pertinent.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest
possible extent and label it as ``Confidential Business Information''
(CBI). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision in
part on a submission labeled CBI, then a non-confidential version of
the document that summarizes the key data or information should be
submitted for the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information
is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submissions containing such
information should be sent directly to the contact person listed above
and not to the public docket. Information covered by a claim of
confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, EPA
will make it available to the public without further notice to the
person making comments.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E7-8168 Filed 4-27-07; 2:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 73754]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15246-000]

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

    On October 13, 2021, PacifiCorp filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Winter Ridge Pumped Storage
Project (Winter Ridge Project or project) to be located near Summer
Lake and Paisley, Lake County, Oregon. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    Two alternatives are being considered for the Winter Ridge Project.
Alternative 1 would consist of the following: (1) An upper reservoir
approximately two miles west of Summer Lake with a surface area of 85
acres and a storage volume of approximately 4,285 acre-feet created by
a 4,700-foot-long, 120-foot-high embankment dam; (2) a lower reservoir
with a surface area of 43.6 acres and a storage volume of approximately
2,156 acre-feet created by a 5,320-foot-long, 80-foot-high embankment
dam; (3) a 2.23-mile-long steel penstock with a diameter of 15-feet
connecting the upper reservoir with the powerhouse/pump station; (4) a
150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide concrete powerhouse/pump station located on
the lower reservoir shoreline containing three 167-megawatt generating/
pumping units; (5) a 9.3-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line
interconnecting to PacifiCorp's jointly owned Sycan substation; (6) a
19.2 mile underground pipeline diverting water from the Chewaucan River
near Paisley to the project for initial and maintenance fill; and, (7)
appurtenant facilities.
    Alternative 2 would consist of the same facilities described in
alternative 1 except: (1) The lower reservoir would have a surface area
of 50 acres and a storage volume of approximately 2,000 acre-feet
created by a 4,100-foot-long, 170-foot-high embankment dam; (2) the
upper reservoir would connect to the powerhouse/pump station by a 0.9-
mile-long excavated tunnel and 1.5-mile-long steel penstock both having
a diameter of 15-feet; and (3) the transmission line would be 9.8 miles
in length interconnecting to the same substation.
    The estimated annual generation of the Winter Ridge Project would
be 1,460 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Tim Hemstreet, Managing Director, Renewable
Energy Development, PacifiCorp, 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1800, Portland,
OR 97232; email: [email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kristen Sinclair; email: [email protected];
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system 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. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15246-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15246) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: December 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28207 Filed 12-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24417-24418]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10790]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80738; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exposure Periods of the Automated Improvement Mechanism and the
Solicitation Auction Mechanism

May 22, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On March 31, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rules 6.74A and
6.74B to reduce the exposure periods of the Exchange's Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction Mechanism
(``SAM'') from 1 second to a time period designated by the Exchange of
no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April
14, 2017.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80421 (April 10,
2017), 82 FR 18048 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE's AIM auction allows a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') to
execute electronically an order it represents as agent against
principal interest or against a solicited order.\4\ CBOE's SAM auction
allows a TPH to execute electronically an agency order of 500 contracts
or more against solicited orders.\5\ After an agency order is properly
designated for AIM or SAM processing, the Exchange will send a Request
for Responses (``RFR'') to all TPHs who have elected to receive
RFRs.\6\ Orders entered in the AIM or SAM are currently exposed for a
period of 1 second, during which time competitive responses to the
auction may be submitted. The Exchange proposes to revise the RFR
response periods for AIM and SAM to permit the Exchange to designate a
specific time within a range of no less than 100 milliseconds and no
more than 1 second.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 6.74A.
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 6.74B.
    \6\ The AIM RFR specifies the side and size of the order, while
the SAM RFR specifies the price, side, and size of the order. See
CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(B) and 6.74B(b)(1)(B).
    \7\ Although the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange
to select an exposure period from a range of 1 second to 100
milliseconds, the Exchange stated that it currently plans to
decrease the time period allowed for responses to 100 milliseconds.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 18050. The Exchange noted that its
proposal is consistent with exposure periods permitted in similar
mechanisms on other options exchanges. See id. at 18049; see also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 76301 (October 29, 2015), 80 FR
68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032) (establishing an exposure
period for the Nasdaq BX's options price improvement mechanism
(``PRISM'') of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1
second); 77557 (April 7, 2016), 81 FR 21935 (April 13, 2016) (SR-
Phlx-2016-40) (amending the exposure period for the Nasdaq Phlx's
Price Improvement XL (``PIXL'') to be no less than 100 milliseconds
and no more than 1 second); and 79733 (January 4, 2017), 82 FR 3055
(January 10, 2017) (SR-ISE-2016-26) (amending the exposure period
for the Nasdaq ISE's Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') to be no
less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities, 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, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, given the electronic nature of the
AIM and SAM mechanisms and the ability of TPHs to respond within the
proposed exposure periods, reducing each of the exposure periods from 1
second to no less than 100 milliseconds could facilitate the prompt
execution of orders, while continuing to provide market participants
with an opportunity to compete to trade with the exposed order by
submitting responses to the auctions. According to the Exchange,
numerous TPHs have the capability to and do respond within a 100
millisecond exposure period or less on the Hybrid Trading System.\11\
The Exchange notes that the response timers for its Exchange's Hybrid
Agency Liaison (``HAL''), Complex Order Auction (``COA''), and Simple
Auction Liaison (``SAL'') mechanisms are set at 100 milliseconds or
less and numerous TPHs can and do respond to HAL, SAL, and COA messages
within these time frames.\12\ The Exchange also notes that the AIM and
SAM mechanisms operate on the Hybrid Trading System and employ the same
type of mechanical

messaging as the HAL, SAL, and COA mechanisms.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 18049 n.4.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To substantiate that its members can receive, process, and
communicate a response back to the Exchange within 100 milliseconds,
the Exchange states that it surveyed its top 15 AIM and SAM
responders.\14\ According to the Exchange, each of the 15 TPHs it
surveyed indicated that they can receive, process, and communicate a
response back to the Exchange within 100 milliseconds.\15\ In addition,
the Exchange states that it reviewed all AIM and SAM responses that
resulted in traded orders in December 2016, and its review indicated
that approximately 63% of AIM responses and 63% of SAM responses
resulting in price improving executions at the conclusion of the
auction occurred within 100 milliseconds of the initial order.\16\
Furthermore, with regard to the impact of the proposal on system
capacity, the Exchange states that it has analyzed its capacity and
represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to handle the
potential additional traffic associated with the additional
transactions that may occur with the implementation of the proposed
reduction in the AIM and SAM duration to no less than 100
milliseconds.\17\ The Exchange also represents that its systems will be
able to sufficiently maintain an audit trail for order and trade
information with the reduction in the AIM and SAM duration.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 18050.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id. In addition to the 63% of AIM responses and 63% of
SAM responses that occur within 100 milliseconds of the initial
order, approximately 20% of AIM responses and 15% of SAM responses
that resulted in price improving executions at the conclusion of the
auction occurred in the final 800-1000 milliseconds (i.e., within
200 milliseconds of the end of the RFR). See id. The Exchange
believes that the timing of these responses indicates that TPHs have
configured their trading systems to either respond immediately to an
AIM or SAM auction, or to wait until the end of an auction period to
reduce the risk of the market moving. See id.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon effectiveness of the proposed rule change, and at least six
weeks prior to implementation of the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will issue a circular to TPHs, informing them of the implementation
date of the reduction of the AIM and SAM duration from 1 second to the
auction time designated by the Exchange to allow TPHs to perform any
necessary systems changes.\19\ The Exchange also represents that it
will issue a circular at least four weeks prior to any future changes,
as permitted by its rules, to the auction response time.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that
market participants should continue to have opportunities to compete to
trade with the exposed order by submitting responses to the auctions
within an exposure period of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more
than 1 second.\21\ Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission notes that the ability to designate such an
exposure time period is consistent with the rules of other options
exchanges. See supra note 7. See also NASDAQ Phlx Rule
1080(n)(ii)(A)(4), NASDAQ BX Options Rules Chapter VI, Section
9(ii)(A)(3), Nasdaq ISE Rule 716, Supplementary Material .04, and
Nasdaq ISE Rule 723(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2017-029) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10790 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Administration of Fluroide on Levels of Protein, Free Amino Acids and
RNA in Rabbit Brain. Fluoride 27.3:155-159.

Open Literature

Albino rabbits administered sodium fluoride via subcutaneous injection
for 100 days at 0, 5, 10, 20, and 50 mg/kg/day.

12 animals/group

Fluoride treated rabbits showed a significant decline in soluble, basic,
and total protein and free amino acid levels. RNA content rapidly
decreased, except in male rabbits treated with 5 and 10 mg/kg/day sodium
fluoride.

Decreased body weight gain in the 20 and 50 mg/kg/day groups.

Some animals in the 10, 20, and 50 mg/kg/day groups showed paralysis by
day 35. No rabbits in the 50 mg/kg/day group survived the experiment.

870.3700a

Developmental

Toxicity (Rodent)

Purity > 99%

Bates et al. (1994). Final report on the developmental toxicity of
sodium fluoride

(Cas No. 7681-49-4) in Sprague-dawley rats. RTI, RTP NC, for NTP
(PB95-110193).

Open Literature

Administered ad libitum in deionized/filtered drinking water to
Sprague-Dawley-derived rats (26/group) on

Gestation days 6-15 at levels 0, 50, 150, or 300 ppm. Rats killed on
gestation by day 20 and examined.

Feed contained 12.4 ppm.

Maternal toxicity:

NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day, based on reduced maternal body weight.

There were no treatment-related clinical signs, increases in mortality
(100% survival), or decreases in body weight in rats dosed with sodium
fluoride. The maternal body weight gain during

the first two days of  exposure (GD 6 to 8) was significantly reduced
(55%) at 300 ppm (27 mg/kg/day) relative to controls. The mean maternal
body weight gain and water consumption during the
treatment瀠牥潩慷ⱳ愠獬Ɐ猠杩楮楦慣瑮祬爠摥捵摥
潰獳扩祬搠敵琠敤牣慥敳椠慰慬慴楢楬祴഍敒
牰摯捵楴敶琠硯捩瑩㩹

NOAEL ≥ 27 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 27 mg/kg/day ( not established)

There were no treatment-related effects on mean live fetal body weight
/litter, and the number of live fetuses. A dose-related increase in the
percent of litters with one or more externally malformed fetuses, the
percent of externally malformed fetuses/litter, and the percent of
skeletally malformed fetuses/litter occurred however was not
statistically significant.

870.3700a

Developmental

Toxicity (Rodent)

Purity  not reported

Collins, T et al. (1995). Developmental Toxicity of Sodium Fluoride in
Rats. Fd Chem Toxicol 33:951-960.

Open Literature

Female (CD:CRL: CD-BR, VAF+) rats were given drinking water containing

0, 10, 25, 100, 175, or 250 ppm Fluoride (0, 1.4, 3.9, 15.6, 24.7, or
25.1 mg/kg bw)

34, 35, 33, 33, 33, 35 female rats for each dose

Caesarean sections were performed on gestation day 20.

Maternal Toxicity:

NOAEL = 175 ppm (24.7 mg/kg/day)

LOAEL = 250 ppm (25.1 mg/kg/day), based on significant reductions in
body weight gain, and food and water consumption.

There were no incidences of maternal mortality, changes in behavior,
clinical signs, or mottled teeth in dams treated with sodium fluoride.
In the 100

ppm dose group, there was 1 female rat that exhibited multiple,
apparently random, clinical findings (exudate from the eye and nose, and
overgrown teeth) that was not associated with treatment. The 250 ppm
dose group experienced significant decreases in food and water
consumption, and body weight gain that were 7, 30 and 11 % respectively,
less than controls. A significant reduction (10.7%) from control, in
fluid consumption was observed in animals treated with 175 ppm sodium
fluoride; however, there were no other treatment-related changes found
at this dose level.

Reproductive toxicity:

NOAEL ≥ 250 ppm (25.1 mg/kg/day; highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 250 ppm (25.1 mg/kg/day; not established)

The pregnancy rate was greater than 90% for all groups. There was a
significant decrease in the mean number of corpora lutea/female in dams
of the 250 ppm dose group; however, because number of corpora lutea is
determined at birth, this decrease is considered to be random. There
were no significant changes in reproductive parameters in treated
animals when compared
潴挠湯牴汯⹳ഠ䐍癥汥灯敭瑮污琠硯捩瑩㩹

NOAEL ≥ 250 ppm (25.1 mg/kg/day; highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 250 ppm (25.1 mg/kg/day; not established)

There were no treatment-related effects in fetal body weight, litter
sizes, or viable fetuses. Several external variations were observed in
control and treated animas; however, there were no significant increases
in the number of fetuses with at least 1,2 or 3 variations, or in the
number of litters with fetal sternebral variations. There was no
evidence of teratogenicity observed in the rats following administration
of phenol.

870.3700a

Developmental

Toxicity (Rodent)

Purity > 99%

Heindel, J. et al. (1996). Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride Administered to Rats and Rabbits in Drinking Water. Fund
Applied Toxicol 30:162-177.

Open Literature

Administered ad libitum in deionized/filtered drinking water to
Sprague-Dawley rats (26/group) on gestation days 6-15 at levels 0, 50,
150, or 300 ppm (0, 6.6, 18.3, or 27.1 mg/kg/day, respectively).  Rats
killed on gestation day 20 and examined.

Feed contained 15.6 ppm.

Maternal toxicity:

NOAEL = 18.3 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 27.1 mg/kg/day, based on reduced maternal body weight gain

There were no treatment-related clinical signs, increases in mortality
(100% survival), or decreases in body weights in rabbits dosed with
sodium fluoride at the low- and mid-dose.  The maternal body weight gain
of the high dose group on GD 6-8 was 56% less than the controld.  During
the treatment period, as a whole, there was not a significant difference
in mean body weight gain; however, a decreasing trend that approached
statistical significance was observed.  The water consumption during the

treatment period was significantly reduced at the high-dose.  The food
consumption was decreased  at the high-dose during GD 8-10, but was
normal thereafter.

Reproductive toxicity:

NOAEL >= 27.1 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 27.1 mg/kg/day (not established).

There were no changes in reproductive parameters in treated animals when
compared to controls.

Developmental toxicity:

NOAEL >= 27.1 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 27.1 mg/kg/day (not established)

There were no treatment-related effects on mean live fetal body
weight/litter, live fetal number, and prevalence of malformations.

870.3700b

Developmental

Toxicity (Non- Rodent)

Purity > 99%

Heindel, J. et al. (1996). Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride Administered to Rats and Rabbits in Drinking Water. Fund
Applied Toxicol 30:162-177.

Open Literature

Administered ad libitum in deionized/filtered drinking water to New
Zealand White rabbits (26/group) on gestation days (6-19 at levels of 0,
50, 150, or 300 ppm. Rats killed on gestation day 30 and examined.

Feed contained 15.6 ppm

Maternal toxicity:

NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 29 mg/kg/day, based on reduced maternal body weight gain.

There were no treatment-related clinical signs, increases in mortality
(100% survival), or decreases in body weights in rabbits dosed with
sodium fluoride at the low- and mid-dose. The high-dose (400 ppm) group,
during GD 6 to 8, experienced a mean weight loss of 112 grams versus a
mean weight gain of 14 grams for the control. During the GD 10 to 12,
the 400 ppm group recovered with a mean weight gain of 71 grams versus
22 grams for the control. During the treatment period, as whole, there
was not a significant difference in mean body weight gain. The water
consumption during the treatment period was significantly reduced,
possibly due to a decrease in palatability. The food  consumption was
decrease畤楲杮琠敨映物瑳映畯⁲慤獹漠牴慥浴湥ⱴ
戠瑵眠獡渠牯慭桴牥慥瑦牥഍敒牰摯捵楴敶琠硯捩
瑩㩹

NOAEL ≥ 29 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 29 mg/kg/day (not established)

There were no changes in reproductive parameters in treated animals when
compared to controls.

Developmental toxicity:

NOAEL ≥ 29 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 29 mg/kg/day (not established)

There were no treatment-related effects in mean live fetal body
weight/litter, live fetal number, and prevalence of malformations.

Non-guideline Developmental

Toxicity (Rodent)

Purity not reported

Elbetieha, A et al. (2000). Fertility Effects of Sodium Fluoride in Male
Mice. Fluoride 33:128-134.

Open Literature

80 sexually mature Swiss mice exposed to 0, 100,

200, 300 ppm NaF via drinking water for 4 weeks (0, 12.35, 21.80, 39.19
mg/kg/day) and 10 weeks (0, 8.85, 15.64, 27.25 mg/kg/day) (10
mice/group/exposure period)

Males mated after exposure periods to untreated female mice

2/10 and 3/10 mice died during 10 week exposure at 100 and 300 ppm,
respectively.

200 and 300 ppm for 4 weeks caused significant increase in the relative
weights of preputial glands. Mice tested for ten weeks showed no
significant increase in any reproductive organ.

Mice tested for 4 weeks ha d no effect on male fertility. 100, 200 and
300 ppm for 10 weeks caused a significant increase in resorptions, a
decrease in implantations and pregnancies in untreated females mated
with NaF treated males.

870.3800

Reproduction

Purity not reported

Collins, T et al. (2001). Developmental Toxicity of Sodium Fluoride
Measured During Multiple Generations. Fd Chem Toxicol 39:867-876.

Open Literature

Administered 0, 25, 100, 175, 250 mg of NaF in drinking water to (CD
CRL: CD-BR) rats continuously for three generations. Parental generation
(F0) was treated for ten weeks and mated within groups. On gestation day
20m caesarian sections were performed on 8 F0 females per group and
their litters (F1) observed. The remaining F0 females were allowed to
litter. Caesarian sections were performed on all of the F1 generation
females (36/group) and were
observed愠潬杮眠瑩桴楥⁲楬瑴牥⹳ഠഇ慍整湲污琠硯
捩瑩㩹

NOAEL ≥ 250 ppm (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 250 ppm (not established)

There were no treatment-related effects on maternal mortality. A
significant decrease from control in fluid consumption (30%) was
observed at the 250 ppm dose level. There were no other changes in F0
maternal generation. There were significant decreases from control of 28
and 31% in fluid consumption in the F1 dams at the 175 and 250 ppm dose
levels, respectively. The decreases in fluid consumption corresponded
with decreased palatability of the solution. Food consumption was
significantly reduced (11%) in F1 dams when compared to control in the
175 ppm dose group. There was a 14% decrease from control in the body
weight gain of F1 females (dams) treated with 175 ppm. These reductions
at 175 ppm were considered random because of the lack of effect in the
150 pp, group. Gravid uterine weight measurements showed no doe-related
differences.

Reproductive toxicity:

NOAEL ≥ 250 ppm (highest dose tested)

LOAEL > 250 ppm (not established)

There were no treatment-related effects in the mean number of corpora
lutea, mean number of implantation sites, implantation efficiency, mean
number of viable fetuses, and average percentage of early and late
deaths per litter of dams.

Offspring toxicity:

NOAEL = 175 ppm

LOAEL = 250 ppm, based on decreased ossification of the hyoid bone.

Fetal body weight was not affected by treatment with sodium fluoride.
There was no evidence of toxicity in fetuses or pups of the F1
generation. Similarly, the F2 generation fetuses and pups were
unaffected by treatment with sodium fluoride with the exception of
decreased ossification of the hyoid bone in the F2 fetuses at the 175
(not significant) and 250 ppm (significant) dose groups.

870.3800

Reproduction

Purity not reported

Collins, T et al. (2001). Multigenerational Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride in Rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 39.6:601-13.

Open Literature

Rats administered 0, 25, 100, 175, or 250 ppm NaF in drinking water
throughout three generations.

The Maternal toxicity NOAEL is ≥ 250 ppm (highest dose tested). The
Maternal toxicity LOAEL > 250 ppm (not established).

Reproductive toxicity:

 NOAEL ≥ 250 ppm (highest dose tested).

LOAEL > 250 ppm (not established).

Rats were monitored daily during the 10 week growth period and only 2
animals died; 1 F0 male at 25 ppm and 1 F1 female of control dose
groups. There were no dose-related clinical effects observed. No
significant differences were observed in F0 female food consumption
while there was a 5% decrease (significant) reduction in F0 males at 250
ppm (in the first 7 weeks, and week 9 of the 10 week growth period). F1
females exhibited an overall decrease in food consumption but never
significantly different for control. Males of the F1

generation consumed less food than controls but in a dose-related or
significant manner.

Fluid consumption was significantly reduced from control levels in the
175 and 250 ppm dose groups with decreases of 11 and 20% for F0 females,
9 and 20% for F0 males, 19 and 29% for F1 females, and 15 and 25% for F1
males, respectively. F1 males in the 100 ppm dose group drank
significantly less (9%) than control animals. The decrease in fluid
consumption was attributed to a reduced palatability.

Weight gain of F0 females and males showed a significant negative linear
regression for the 10 weeks but only the individual weight gain of F0
males in 250 ppm dose group was statistically significantly less than
controls. There was a 6% reduction from 367.0 to 345.9 g in first
generation females treated with the high-dose (250 ppm) of sodium
fluoride.

F0 female mating indices (mating and fertility) were over 90% in all
groups, although these were slightly (but not significantly) decreased
at the 250 ppm sodium fluoride dose level. Similarly, F1 female mating
indices exceeded 90% with slight but not significant decreases in the 25
and 250 ppm groups; indicating a lack of compound-related effects. There
were no significant or dose-related effects observed in implantation and
reproductive

parameters of any generation.

Survival indices of the F2 generation (implantation, live-births, days
4, 7, 14, and 21 survival and lactation indices) were calculated for
both male and female offspring. Neither significant nor dose-related
effects were observed (data not shown in this study).

870.3800

Reproduction

Purity not reported

Messer et al. Influence of Fluoride Intake on Reproduction in Mice. J.
Nutr. 103:1319-1326.

Open Literature

Weaning female albino mice administered 0, 50, 100, and 200 ppm NaF via
drinking water to 58, 55, 50, and 50 animals, respectively.

Females mated and litters were normalized to 6 pups and a maximum of 4
litters were analyzed.

Second generation mice from control and 50 ppm groups (38 and 44
animals, respectively) were mated and followed the same parameters as
the parental group.

Maternal Toxicity:

Offspring toxicity: Retardation of growth in the 100 and 200 ppm F1
groups, with death in 50% of animals in the 200 ppm groups by 8 weeks of
age.

Reproductive toxicity: No litter production at the 200 ppm group and
only 9 litters at the 100 ppm over a ten-week period. 50 ppm group had
progressive decrease in litter production in both generations, but
considered insignificant differences.

Non-guideline Reproduction

Purity not reported

Araibi et al. (1989). The Effect of High Fluoride on the Reproductive
Performance of the Male Rat. J. Biol. Sc. Res. 20:19-20.

Open Literature

Male albino rats administered sodium fluoride in the diet for 60 days

15 mice/dose

100 or 200 ppm

Lesions on the teeth (mottling and erosion of enamel), a characteristic
commonly associated with sodium fluoride exposure, were observed in
animals at the end of the experiment. Males treated with sodium fluoride
seemed to show less interest toward females when compared to those
animals of the control group. The number of pregnant females were
decreased 10 and 40% from controls in groups treated with 100 and 200
ppm, respectively. High-dose animals exhibited significant reductions in
the number of pregnant females. The number of newborns produced by the
100 and 200 ppm dose groups were 30 and 57% (significant), respectively,
less than controls. There was a decrease in average litter size for both
dose levels, although neither reduction was significantly different from
controls.

Mean tubular diameters were significantly less than controls with 3 and
7% decreases in diameter for the 100 and 200 ppm dose levels,
respectively. There were 94 and 93% (significant) increases in
peritubular membrane thickness in the low- and high-dose groups,
respectively. Treatment of animals with 200 ppm sodium fluoride resulted
in significant decreases from control in percentage of seminiferous
tubules containing spermatozoa. There were decreases in mean
testosterone levels in the serum of treated animals with 29
(nonsignificant) and 71% (significant) reductions from controls observed
in the 100 and 200 ppm dose groups, respectively There was a decrease in
reproductive performance of male rats exposed to a high intake of sodium
fluoride in spite of the absence (until the end of the experiment) of
clinical signs in the teeth that are characteristic features of
fluorosis. The testes of 200 ppm sodium fluoride-treated rates exhibited
impairments of spermatogenesis based on changes in mean diameter of
seminiferous tubules, the thickness of peritubular membranes,
spermatozoa, and serum testosterone levels. The researchers suggested
that sodium fluoride appears to be antispermatogenic and the decrease in
testosterone may account for the decrease of mated females in sodium
fluoride-treated groups.

Non-guideline Reproduction

Purity not reported

Ream et al. (1983). Bone Morphology of Weaning Rats from Dams Subjected
to Fluoride. Cell Tissue Res 233:689-691.

Open Literature

0 or 150 ppm fluoride as NaF in drinking water administered to 12 female
Sprague-Dawley rats for 10 weeks prior to breeding and during 3
successive pregnancy and lactation periods.

Rebreeding periods commenced immediately following a 3 week lactation
period and all litters were normalized to 8 pups were sacrificed and
femur removed for analysis.

The amount of fluoride transferred to the offspring and incorporated
into the skeleton is not sufficient to cause a visible structural
alteration in the growth and development if the long bones.

Non-guideline Reproduction

Purity not reported

Shivarajashankara et al. (2002). Histological Changes in the Brain of
Young Fluoride-Intoxicated Rats. Fluoride 35:12-21.

Open Literature

0.5 (control), 30 or 100 ppm fluoride (as NaF) in drinking water
administered to female Wistar albino rats, respectively, during the last
(3rd) week of pregnancy and throughout the lactation period.

Litters exposed to same dose levels for up to ten weeks.

30 ppm fluoride did not show any notable alterations in brain histology,
whereas rats exposed to 100 ppm fluoride showed significant
neurodegenerative changes in the hippocampus, amygdale, motor cortex,
and cerebellum. Changes included decrease in size and number of neurons
in all regions, decrease in the number of Purkinje cells in the
cerebellum, and signs of chromatolysis and gliosis in the motor cortex.
These histological changes suggest a toxic effect of high-fluoride
intake during the early developing stages of life on the growth,
differentiation, and sub cellular organization of brain cells in rats.

Non-guideline Reproduction

Purity not reported

Trabelsi, M et al. (2001). Effect of Fluoride on Thyroid Function and
Cerebellar Development in Mice. Fluoride 34: 165-173.

Open Literature

0 or 500 mg/L NaF in drinking water to pregnant and lactating mice, from
the 15th day of pregnancy to the 14th day after delivery. Litter size
was reduced to 8 pups for the control and tested group.

Tested group pups showed 35% decrease in body weight, a 75% decrease in
the plasma free T4 level, a 27% decrease in cerbellar protein, and a 17%
decrease in cerebral protein compared to the control.

(Graphs missing in study).

870.4100a

Chronic Toxicity

(Rodent)

Purity not reported

Varner, J.A. et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride
and Sodium Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal

and Cerebrovascular Integrity. Brain Research 784:284-298.

Open Literature

Adult male Long-Evans rats received double deionized water (ddw) and 0.5
ppm Aluminum Fluoride, or ddw and 2.1 ppm NaF for 52 weeks.

7 animals/group

No differences were found between the body weights of rats in the
different treatment groups although more rats died in the aluminum
fluoride (5) ad the NaF group (3) than the control group (1). All levels
in samples of brain and kidney were higher in both the aluminum fluoride
and NaF groups relative to controls. The effects of the two treatments
on cerebrovascular and neuronal integrity were qualitatively and
quantitatively different. These alterations were greater in animals in
the aluminum fluoride group than in the NaF group and greater in the NaF
group than in controls.

Non-guideline Chronic Toxicity

(Rodent)

Purity not reported

Turner et al. (1995). Fluoride Reduced Bone Strength in Older Rats. J.
Dent Res. 74:1475-1481.

Open Literature

Four groups of 64 to 66 rats administered 0, 5, 15, or 50 ppm of
fluoride via drinking water for exposure periods of 3, 6, 12, or 18
months.

Femoral failure load was not significantly decreased in rats treated for
3 to 6 months , but was decreased as much as 23% in rats treated 12 to
18 months at 50 ppm fluoride.

870.4200a

Oncogenicity (Rat)

Purity not reported

Maurer et al. (1990). Two-Year Carcinogenicity Study of Sodium Fluoride
in Rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 82:1118-1126.

Open Literature

Sprague-Dawley rats fed a diet containing 0, 4, 10, or 25 mg/kg/day NaF
added to a low-fluoride diet for up to 99 weeks

70 rats/group

There was no evidence of treatment-related incidence of carcinogenicity
in Sprague-Dawley rats administered dietary sodium fluoride in
concentrations up to 25 mg/kg/day for 2 years. All bone neoplasms
observed were considered to be incidental and spontaneous and not
related to sodium fluoride treatment, because of their low incidence and
random distribution. The incidence of preneoplastic and neoplastic
lesions at any site in rats of either sex was not altered by the
administration of sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride was not carcinogenic
to rats within the confines of this study.

At study termination, diet consumption for the 25 mg/kg/day (group 5)
was significantly reduced when compared to the control (group 1), with
decreases of approximately 20 and 18% for males and females,
respectively. Body weight gain was significantly less than the control
for the 25 mg/kg/day dose group. Both male and female rats administered
the high-dose of sodium fluoride experienced decreases of roughly 25% in
mean body weight gain.

Clear evidence of fluoride toxicity was seen in the teeth, bones, and
stomach, the severity of which was related t dose and duration of
treatment. At sodium fluoride concentrations of 4 mg/kg/day or greater,
dental changes occurred including incisors malformations and fractures,
and enamel hypoplasia. Treatment-related bone effects, mostly skull,
were observed at concentrations of 10 mg/kg/day and greater, affected
bones were white, thick, and found to have roughened surfaces and
subperiostal hyperostosis. There was lack of bone marrow cavities in the
new bone. There was an increase in incidence and severity of chronic
inflammation of the gastric glandular mucosa in rats treated with sodium
fluoride doses at or above 10 mg/kg/day.

870.4200b

Oncogenicity (Mouse)

Purity = 99%

Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride (CAS No.
7681-49-4) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies).
National Toxicology Program, Technical Report Series No. 393, NIH
Publication No. 91-2848, December 1990, Pgs. 1-477.

Acceptable

Guideline

100, 70, 70, or 100 B6C3F1 mice/sex administered sodium fluoride in the
drinking water at doses of 0, 25, 100, or 175 ppm (mice/sex) for 103
weeks.

(male: 0, 2.4, 9.6, or 16.7 mg/kg/day)

(female: 0, 2.8, 11.3, or 18.8 mg/kg/day)

Male:

NOAEL = 9.6 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 16.7 mg/kg/day, based on the clinical chemistry changes in
alkaline phosphatase and serum phosphorus (males) at 66 weeks and bone
lesions (dentine dysplasia)

Female:

NOAEL = 11.3 mg/kg/day

LOAEL = 18.8 mg/kg/day, based on the clinical chemistry changes in
alkaline phosphatase and bone lesions (myelofibrosis)

There were no compound-related effects on mortality, body weight, food
consumption, water consumption, hematology, or organ weights.
Treatment-related clinical findings included a dose-dependent increase
in white discoloration of the teeth (27%, 39%, 80%, and 100% in males
and 19%, 43%, 84%, and 100% in females, from control to high dose,
respectively) which occurred as early as Day 74 in the high-dose animals
compared to Day 508 in the control animals.  Serum alkaline phosphatase
was significantly increased in high-dose females at 24 (29%) and 66
weeks (88%) and in high dose-males at 66 weeks (11%).  Serum phosphorus
levels were significantly decreased (13%) in high-dose males at 66
weeks.  There was a significant increase in incisor dentine dysplasia in
high-dose males (78% in controls versus 91% at the high dose).  There
was an increase in the incidence of myelofibrosis (femoral, humerus,
maxilla, and thoracic) in female mice at all doses.

870.4300

Chronic/Oncogenicity

(Rodent)

Purity = 99%

Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride (CAS No.
7681-49-4) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies).
National Toxicology Program, Technical Report Series No. 393, NIH
Publication No. 91-2848, December 1990, Pgs. 1-477.

Acceptable

Guideline

100, 70, 70, or 100 F344/N rats/sex administered sodium fluoride in the
drinking water at doses of 0, 25, 100, or 175 ppm (mice/sex) for 103
weeks.

(male: 0, 1.3, 5.2, or 8.6 mg/kg/day)

(female: 0, 1.3, 5.5, or 9.5 mg/kg/day)

Three bone osteosarcomas were noted in high-dose males and one in a
mid-dose male, with none in controls.  A fourth osteosarcoma, not
originating in the bone, was observed in an additional high-dose male.
Dosing was considered adequate based on tooth deformities and
discoloration; dentine dysplasia and degeneration in the ameloblasts and
odontoblasts, bone osteosarcomas in males and osteosclerosis in females.
 Trend analyses revealed that, at the doses tested, there was a
significant treatment-related increase in the incidence of bone
osteosarcomas in males but the incidence was not significantly increased
in the high-dose males as compared to controls when comparisons were
made either within the animals scheduled for terminal sacrifice or all
animals (including the interim sacrifice and concurrent control
animals).  In those animals scheduled for terminal sacrifice,
statistical analysis of all organ osteosarcoma in dosed animals as
compared to controls also failed to show significance.  The study
authors failed to perform the statistical analysis all osteosarcoma
analysis among all animals. That analysis, done by the contractor, did
reveal a significant difference between the high dose and control
groups.  Due to the fact that bone osteosarcoma incidence of the
high-dose as compared to the control group was not significant, but
displayed a significant positive trend, the occurrence of these rare
tumors was considered equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male rats
by the study authors.  Such a conclusion was bolstered by the fact that
bone osteosarcomas were not observed in treated females or in the
parallel study in B6C3F1 mice (TR393).  However, with the significant
difference between high dose animals and controls in the all organ
osteosarcoma incidence analysis when all animals are considered, the
reviewer believes that the occurrence of osteosarcomas in the male rats
should have been considered some evidence, if not clear evidence, of the
carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride.

NOAEL < 1.3 mg/kg/day (lowest dose tested)

LOAEL = 1.3 mg/kg/day, based on dentine dysplasia in males and females,
and ameloblast degeneration in males

Mortality, body weight, body weight gain, food consumption, water
consumption, hematology, and organ weights were not affected by exposure
to NaF.  Fluoride concentration increased with dose in blood (serum) at
Weeks 27 and 66, and bone and urine at Weeks 27, 66, and 105.  Analysis
of bone fluoride revealed an increase with dose and age.  Urinary
calcium was observed to be significantly increased in high-dose females.

Tooth discoloration (whitening and mottling) was noted in all treated
animals with attrition, deformity, and occasional malocclusions noted in
the high- and/or mid-dose males. Histopathology of the incisors noted
dentine dysplasia (all dosed animals), degeneration of the ameloblasts
(mid- and high-dose animals), and, to a lesser extent, degeneration of
the odontoblasts (principally dosed males).  Increases in the incidence
and severity of osteosclerosis of the long bones were noted in the
high-dose females (6/80 control; 18/81 high- dose, P=0.04).

Special Study Developmental Neurotoxicity

Purity not reported

Mullenix et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17:169-177.

Open Literature

Sprague-Dawley rats administered NaF via subcutaneous injection during
the prenatal period on gestation periods 14-18 and 17-19.  Weanlings
received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 to 20
weeks.  3-month old adults received 100 ppm for 6 weeks.

No maternal or offspring toxicity was indicated by reduced body weight
in dams during prenatal treatment or in their pups soon after birth.
However, prenatal exposure to sodium fluoride altered the behavioral
outcome in male offspring when exposure occurred on GD 17-19 and
consisted of time structure changes in eleven behaviors and behavioral
sequences.  The behavioral differences did not coincide with the plasma
fluoride levels.

Body-weight was significantly reduced from the control group in 3-week
old rats administered 125 ppm fluoride.  Concentrations below 125 ppm
did not affect body weight gain during 6-week exposures.  Plasma
fluoride levels were significantly increased in all test groups compared
to control groups.  The same direction of behavioral change (initiation
and total time) occurred in treated animals when compared to controls.
This change was independent and unrelated to sex of the animal, exposure
time (6 or 16 weeks), or dose level (100 or 125 ppm).  The act of
standing and the related attention cluster tended to increase in total
time, while the other acts consistently decreased in initiations and
total times. The adult exposure to 100 ppm sodium fluoride had a
significant effect on female behavior consistent with the behavioral
change in the 3-week old rats.  Similar behavioral time structure
effects occurred when adult and weanling exposed rats approached 5
months of age.

The effect on behavior varied with the timing of exposure during CNS
development.  There were differences between behavioral changes in
weanling and adult exposure when compared to prenatal exposures.
Prenatally induced behavioral effects were unaccompanied by changes in
body weight or elevated plasma fluoride levels.  The behavioral effects
induced by weanling and adult exposures were accompanied often by weigh
reduction and always by elevated plasma fluoride levels.

Rats were exposed to sodium fluoride at concentrations ranging from
75-125 ppm for 6 or 20 weeks.  Plasma fluoride levels reached
0.059-0.640 ppm and after 6 weeks of consuming 75 and 100 ppm of sodium
fluoride animals exhibited greater plasma fluoride levels than animals
treated with 125 ppm.  The researchers suggest that there was a taste
aversion that limited the water consumption at the 125 ppm level;
prolonging the period needed to attain plasma levels that were achieved
in 6 weeks by the two lower exposure levels.  The levels of fluoride in
plasma best predicted effects on behavior.

870.7485

General Metabolism

Hall et al.  (1977). Kinetic Model of Fluoride Metabolism in the Rabbit.
 Environmental Research 13:285-302.

Open Literature

Adult male New Zealand rabbits were administered sodium fluoride in the
diet, water, and  in a single oral dose injected directly into stomach
through nasal catheter

15 ppm in the diet

1 ppm in the water

0.5 mg/kg oral

6 rabbits

Urine excretion following oral administration of NaF was 5 and 13% for
60 and 600 minutes, respectively.  Under steady state conditions
approximately 15% of fluoride ingested in food and water was absorbed by
animal.  15% was excreted in urine and 85% of ingested fluoride was
involved in fecal excretion.

9.0  REFERENCES

MRID						CITATION

162945	Wingard, B. (1984) Acute Oral LD50 Study in Rats Using NG-84:
Study No. 410-1844. Unpublished study prepared by Toxigenics, Inc. 26 p.

162946	Kreuger, J. (1984). Acute Dermal Toxicity Study in Rabbits Using
NG-84at a Dose Level of 2 Grams per Kilogram of Body Weight: Study No.
410-1845. Unpublished study prepared by Toxigenics, Inc. 14p.

162947	Mellon, K. (1984). Primary Dermal Irritation Study in Rabbits
Using NG-84: Study No. 410-1846. Unpublished study prepared by
Toxigenics, Inc. 14 p.

162948	Doyle, G. (1984). Primary Eye Irritation Study in Rabbits Using
NG-84: Study No. 410-1847. Unpublished study prepared by Toxigenics,
Inc. 16 p.

40866801	Siglin, J. (1988).  Delayed Contact Hypersensitivity Study in
Guinea Pigs with Patox-Lite: Final Report: SLS Study No. 3191.8.
Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 24 p.

40866901	Siglin, J. (1988). Delayed Contact Hypersensitivity Study in
Guinea Pigs with Adz-Pad (EPA): Final Report: SLS Study No. 3191.9.
Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 23 p.

40928201	Naas, D. (1988). Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) Study in Albino
Rats with Copper Naphthenate/Sodium Fluoride Grease: Final Report:
Project No. WIL-127001. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research
Laboratories, Inc. 21 p.

40928202	Naas, D. (1988). Acute Dermal Toxicity (LD50) Study in Albino
Rabbits with Copper Naphthenate/Sodium Fluoride Grease: Final Report:
Project ID WIL-127002. Unpublished study prepared by WIL research
Laboratories, Inc. 29p

z

{

|

}

~

’

&

/

0

|

~

‘

’

S

r

s

t

‡

’

Ä

ã

æ

ê

ý

s

t

ä

å

hV

hV

h

젆

摧⋊&

愀Ĥ摧慤7

愀Ĥ摧㑋*

×

h-

h-

  h-

h-

  h-

h-

h°q

h°q

h°q

h°q

h°q

h°q

h°q

h°q

h¢

Ȁ萮ð萯ð摧熰

摧熰

Ȁ萮ð萯ð摧熰

 h

“

”

 h

 h]r

”ÿî

kd“

”ÿî

 h

 h

 h]r

 h]r

”ÿî

 h

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

”ÿî

  hû

  h

 h

  h

  hû

  h

  hû

  h

  hû

 h

  h

  h

  h

혈F鐃᳿ꐋⰖ"蠆

蠆

蠆

yt

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

gdø

€

‘

’

hø

hø

€

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

	€

‘

’

’

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

gdB

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

hB

hB

hB

hB

hB

gdB

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

hv|

hv|

hv|

hv|

摧籶

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

摧籶

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

 hF-

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

hz

 hz

hz

 hz

hz

hz

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

÷gdz

萏ࡰ萑葞ࡰ葠摧簽¶ကdy prepared by WIL Research
Laboratories, Inc. 17 p.

40928204	Naas, D. (1988). Primary Irritation Study in Albino Rats with
Copper Naphthenate/Sodium Fluoride Grease: Final Report: project ID
WIL-127004. Unpublished study prepared by Bioassay Systems Corp. 19 p.

40932001		Goodband , J. (1982). Primary Eye Irritation Test Performed on

Osmoplastic: Project No. 11005. Unpublished study prepared by Bioassay
Laboratories, Inc. 21 p.

40932002	Goodband, J. (1982). Acute 14-Day Dermal Range Finding
Determination Performed on Osmoplastic, Batch No. C059: Project No.
11005. Unpublished study prepared by Bioassay Systems Corp. 10p.

40932003	Goodband, J. (1982). Acute Oral LD50 Determination Performed on
Osmoplastic: Project No. 11005. Unpublished study prepared by Bioaasay
Systems Corp. 19p.

40932004	Goodband, J. (1982). Primary Dermal Irritation Test Performed
on Osmoplastic: Project No. 11005. Unpublished study prepared by
Bioassay Systems Cor. 12 p.

41204001	Naas, D. (1989).  Primary Eye Irritation Study in Albino
Rabbits with Patox II: Project ID WIL-127009. Unpublished

43778501	Wnorowski G. (1995). Acute Oral Toxicity Defined LD50 (in
Rats): Composite NaF: Lab Project Number: 3719:P320. Unpublished study
prepared by Product Safety Labs. 28 p.

43778502	Wnorowski G. (1995). Acute Dermal Toxicity Limit test (in
Rats): Composite NaF: Lab Project Number: 3722:P322. Unpublished study
prepared by Product Safety Labs. 15 p.

43778503	Wnorowski, G. (1995). Acute Inhalation Toxicity Defined LC50
(in Rats): Composite NaF: Lab project Number: 3724:P330. Unpublished
study prepared by Product Safety Labs. 42p.

43778504	Wnorowski, G. (1995). Primary Eye Irritation (in Rabbits):
Composite NaF: Lab project Number: 3720:P324. Unpublished study prepared
by product Safety Labs. 26 p.

43778505	Wnorowski, G. (1995). Primary Skin Irritation (in Rabbits):
Composite NaF: Lab Project Number: 3721: P326. Unpublished study
prepared by Product Safety Labs. 16 p.

43778506	Wnorowski, G. (1995). Dermal Sensitization Test-Buehler Method
(in Guinea Pigs): Composite NaF: Lab Project Number: 3723: P328.
Unpublished study prepared by Product Safety Labs. 24 p.

Open Literature

Aardema MJ, et al.  (1989). Sodium Fluoride-Induced Chromosome
Aberrations in Different Stages of the Cell Cycle: A Proposed Mechanism.
 Mutation Research 223:191-203.

Albanese.  (1987). Sodium Fluoride and Chromosome Damage (In Vitro Human
Lymphocyte and In Vivo Micronucleus Assays).  Mutagenesis 2:497-499.

Araibi et al. (1989). The Effect of High Fluoride on the Reproductive
Performance of the Male Rat. J. Biol. Sc. Res. 20:19-20.

Bates et al. (1994). Final report on the developmental toxicity of
sodium fluoride (Cas No. 7681-49-4) in Sprague-dawley rats. RTI, RTP NC,
for NTP (PB95-110193).

Bohatyrewicz, A. (1999). Effects of Fluoride on Mechanical Properties of
Femoral Bone in Growing Rats. Fluoride 32:47-54.

Caspary, W. et al. (1987). Mutagenic Activity of Fluorides in Mouse
Lymphoma Cells. Mutation Res 187:165-180

Chinoy and Patel. (2001). Effects of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum
Chloride on Ovary and Uterus of Mice and Their Reversal by Some
Antidotes. Fluoride 1:9-20.

Collins, T et al. (1995). Developmental Toxicity of Sodium Fluoride in
Rats. Fd Chem Toxicol 33:951-960.

Collins, T et al. (2001). Developmental Toxicity of Sodium Fluoride
Measured During Multiple Generations. Fd Chem Toxicol 39:867-876.

Collins, T et al. (2001). Multigenerational Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride in Rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology 39.6:601-13.

De Lopez O et al. (1976). Plasma Fluoride Concentrations in Rats Acutely
Poisoned with Sodium Fluoride. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
37:75-83.

Elbetieha, A et al. (2000). Fertility Effects of Sodium Fluoride in Male
Mice. Fluoride 33:128-134.

Essman et al. (1981). Histaminergic Mediation of the Response of Rat
Skin to Topical Fluorides. Arch Dermatol Res 21:325-340

Gocke et al. (1981). Mutagenicity of Cosmetics Ingredients Licensed by
the European Communities. Mutation Research 90.2:91-109.

Hall et al.  (1977). Kinetic Model of Fluoride Metabolism in the Rabbit.
 Environmental Research 13:285-302.

Heindel, J. et al. (1996). Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride Administered to Rats and Rabbits in Drinking Water. Fund
Applied Toxicol 30:162-177.

Heindel, J. et al. (1996). Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Sodium
Fluoride Administered to Rats and Rabbits in Drinking Water. Fund
Applied Toxicol 30:162-177.

Haworth et al. (1983). Salmonella Mutagenicity Test Results for 250
Chemicals. Env. Mutagenesis Supplement 1:3-142.

Khalil A, Da'Dara A.  (1994). The Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Activities of
Inorganic Fluoride in Cultured Rat Bone Marrow Cells.  Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 26:60-63.

Khalil.  (1995). Chromosome Aberrations in Cultured Rat Bone Marrow
Cells Treated with Inorganic Fluorides.  Mutation Research 343:67-74.

Li, Y., Dunipace, A., Stookey, G. (1987). Absence of Mutagenic and
Antimutagenic Activities of Fluoride in Ames Salmonella Assays. Mutation
Res 190:229-236.

Li, Dunipace, and Stookey.  (1987). Effect of Fluoride on the Mouse
Sperm Morphology Test.  J. Dent. Res. 66:1509-1511.

Li Y, et al. (1987). Genotoxic Effects of Fluoride Evaluated by
Sister-Chromatid Exchange.  Mutation Res 192:191-201

Lim et al. (1978). LD50 of SnF2, NaF, and Na2PO3 in the Mouse Compared
to the Rat. Caries Res. 12:177-179.

Lim et al. (1978). LD50 of SnF2, NaF, and Na2PO3 in the Mouse Compared
to the Rat. Caries Res. 12:177-179.

Martin, G. et al. (1979). Lack of Cytogenic Effects in Mice or Mutations
in Salmonella Receiving Sodium Fluoride. Mutation Res 66:159-167.

Maurer et al. (1990). Two-Year Carcinogenicity Study of Sodium Fluoride
in Rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 82:1118-1126

Messer et al. Influence of Fluoride Intake on Reproduction in Mice. J.
Nutr. 103:1319-1326.

Mohamed and Chandler.  (1982). Cytological Effects of Sodium Fluoride on
Mice.  Dept. of Biology and School of Medicine, University of Kansas
City, Missouri.  Presented at the 12th I.S.F.R. Conference.

Mullenix et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17:169-177.

Oberly et al. (1990). An Evaluation of the CHO/HGPRT Mutation Assay
Involving Suspension Cultures and Soft Agar Cloning: Results for 33
Chemicals. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 16:260-271.

Pati and Bhunya.  (1987). Genotoxic effect of an environmental
pollutant, sodium fluoride, in mammalian in vivo test system.  Carylogia
40:79-87.

Paul, V. et al. (1998). Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Locomotor Behavior
and a Few Biochemical Parameters in rats. Environmental Toxicol and
Pharmacol 6:187-191.

Pillai et al. (1987). Acute Toxicity of Fluorife to Mice. Fluoride
20.2:68-70.

Pillai et al. (1988). Effect of Subacute Dosage of Fluoride on Male
Mice. Toxicology Letters 44:21-29.

Ream et al. (1983). Bone Morphology of Weaning Rats from Dams Subjected
to Fluoride. Cell Tissue Res 233:689-691.

Shahshi et al. (1994). Effect of Long-term Administration of Fluroide on
Levels of Protein, Free Amino Acids and RNA in Rabbit Brain. Fluoride
27.3:155-159.

Shivarajashankara et al. (2002). Histological Changes in the Brain of
Young Fluoride-Intoxicated Rats. Fluoride 35:12-21.

Skare J et al. (1986). Lack of DNA-Strand Breaks in rat Testicular Cells
after In Vivo Treatment with Sodium Fluoride. Mutation Res 170:85-92.

Tong et al. (1988). The Lack of Genotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in a
Battery of Cellular Tests. Cell Biology and Toxicology 4.2:173-186.

Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride (CAS No.
7681-49-4) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies).
National Toxicology Program, Technical Report Series No. 393, NIH
Publication No. 91-2848, December 1990, Pgs. 1-477.

Tsutsui T, et al.  (1984). Sodium Fluoride-Induced Morphological and
Neoplastic Transformation, Chromosome Aberrations, Sister Chromatid
Exchanges, and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Syrian Hamster
Embryo Cells.  Cancer Research 44.3:938-941

Tsutsui, T., N. Suzuki, et al.  (1984). Cytotoxicity, Chromosome
Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Human Diploid
Fibroblasts Induced by Sodium Fluoride.  Mutation Research 139:193-198.

Trabelsi, M et al. (2001). Effect of Fluoride on Thyroid Function and
Cerebellar Development in Mice. Fluoride 34: 165-173.

Turner et al. (1995). Fluoride Reduced Bone Strength in Older Rats. J.
Dent Res. 74:1475-1481.

Varner, J.A. et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride
and Sodium Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal
and Cerebrovascular Integrity. Brain Research 784:284-298.

Zeiger et al. (1994). Cytogenetic Studies of Sodium Fluoride in Mice.
Mutagenesis 9:467-471.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72595-72596]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2606-014; ER17-815-003; ER17-816-003.
    Applicants: Consolidated Water Power Company, Verso Luke LLC, Verso
Escanaba LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 24, 2021 Triennial Market Power
Analysis for Central Region of Consolidated Water Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/9/21.
    Accession Number: 20211209-5212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1818-024.
    Applicants: Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Power
Pool Inc. Region of Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20211214-5270.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-673-004.
    Applicants: PA Solar Park II, LLC,
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Power Compliance Filing to
be effective 12/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20211214-5226.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2819-002.
    Applicants: South Field Energy LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filing to be effective 10/5/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-645-000.
    Applicants: Ormat Dixie Valley LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession and
Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 12/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20211214-5228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-647-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2021-
12-15_SA 3299 Att A_Ameren IL-Norris Electric-Hidalgo Tap Proj. No. 5
to be effective 2/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-648-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Rate Schedule
FERC No. 259 to be effective 12/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-649-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6241 to be effective 11/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-650-000.
    Applicants: Horizon West Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: HWT Revisions to TO Tariff
Appendix I TRBAA Annual Update to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-651-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Emergency Energy
Transactions Agreement between SPP and PSCo to be effective 2/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-652-000.
    Applicants: Western Spirit Transmission LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Facilities
Use Agreement to be effective 12/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-653-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-12-15_SA 3084 St.
Joseph Phase II-NIPSCO GIA 2nd Rev (J351) to be effective 12/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-654-000.
    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Rate Update Filing for
Massachusetts Electric Borderline Sales Agreement to be effective 1/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-655-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Cane Creek Solar LGIA Termination
Filing to be effective 12/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-656-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Moonshot Solar LGIA Termination
Filing to be effective 12/15/2021.

    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-657-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6248; Queue No. AE2-206 to be effective 11/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.
    Docket Numbers: ER22-658-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA No. 6237; Queue
No. AE2-290 to be effective 11/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-659-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Access Charge
Balancing Account Adjustment (TACBAA) 2022 to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 12/15/21.
    Accession Number: 20211215-5228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    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: December 15, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27673 Filed 12-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35207]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3173-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance Filing To Make Footnotes Viewable in eTariff Viewer
to be effective 11/15/2010.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3755-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendments to WVPA FERC Electric Tariff
Volume 1--Section 1--Formulary Rate to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3756-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-06-08 CAISO Non
Conforming SCA with WAPA to be effective 7/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3757-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-06-08 Amendment to
CAISO Service Agreement 784 WAPA DSR to be effective 6/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3758-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-06-08 CAISO Non-
Conforming MSA with WAPA DSR to be effective 7/28/2010.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3759-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-06-08 Amendment to
CAISO Non-Conforming MSA with WAPA DSR to be effective 6/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3760-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(ii): Tier 2 Rate Schedule A 205
Filing to be effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110608-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 29, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF11-290-000.
    Applicants: Equistar Chemicals, L.P.
    Description: Form 556--Notice of Self-Certification of Equistar
Chemicals, L.P.
    Filed Date: 06/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110607-5105.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 8, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14884 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30205-30206]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0188; Summary Notice No. 2023-16]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing
Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal

Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the
public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption
process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-0188
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Stedman, AIR-646, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2023.
Daniel J. Commins,
Acting Manager, Integration and Performance Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2023-0188.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.813(e).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner is seeking relief from 14
CFR 25.813(e), which specifies that no door may be installed between
any passenger seat that is occupiable for takeoff and landing and any
passenger emergency exit, such that the door crosses any egress path
(including aisles, crossaisles, and passageways). Specifically, The
Boeing Company is proposing to install up to 32 mini-suites, each with
a door, on its Model 737-7, 737-8, 737-8200, 737-9, and 737-10
airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2023-09971 Filed 5-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 46087]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16574]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303; FRL-10013-12-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in Petroleum Refineries (EPA ICR Number 0983.16, OMB Control Number
2060-0067), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
September 30, 2020. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on May 6, 2019 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 31,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0303 to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG) were
proposed on January 4, 1983; promulgated on May 30, 1984; amended on
November 16, 2007 (to add the regulations published at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart GGGa); and most-recently amended on June 2, 2008. The standards
at Subpart GGG apply to compressors, valves, pumps, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and
flanges or other connectors in VOC service at petroleum refineries that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after January
4, 1983, and on or before November 7, 2006. The standards at Subpart
GGGa apply to compressors, valves, pumps, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, and flanges or
other connectors in VOC service at petroleum refineries that commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 7, 2006.
This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR
part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subparts GGG and GGGa).
    Estimated number of respondents: 116 (total) are subject to Subpart
GGG and 46 of these respondents are also subject to Subpart GGGa.
    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 183,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $21,200,000 (per year), which includes $0 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a small increase in burden from
the most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program
changes, or any increase in the number of sources subject to this
regulation, or any change in the capital/startup or operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-16574 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P