Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer, voter, and U.S. taxpayer, to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. Considering the sheer volume of questions raised by FDA, I believe it is in the best interest of the entire nation, that a lengthened time frame be granted to allow those of us whose lives are on the line time to accurately reply. Especially considering this is the only opportunity which we will be given to formally reply to the Proposed Rule.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarette ("vaping") as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. Any of my family members would agree. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further at any time.

Thank you.


[Federal Register: May 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27419-27422]
[DOCID:fr17my10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1254; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-040-AD;
Amendment 39-16292; AD 2010-10-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During the removal of the wing removable leading edge on a BAe
146 aircraft for a repair (not related to the subject addressed by
this AD), corrosion was found on the wing fixed leading edge
structure. The investigation determined that the existing scheduled
environmental and fatigue inspections would not have detected the
corrosion or fatigue damage.
    Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to degradation of the structural integrity of
the wing.
* * * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 21, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 21,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2010 (75
FR 1560). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During the removal of the wing removable leading edge on a BAe
146 aircraft for a repair (not related to the subject addressed by
this AD), corrosion was found on the wing fixed leading edge
structure. The investigation determined that the existing scheduled
environmental and fatigue inspections would not have detected the
corrosion or fatigue damage.
    Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to degradation of the structural integrity of
the wing.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure
for corrosion and/or fatigue damage [e.g., cracking] and repair,
depending on findings.

There are two alternative inspection methods: Method 1 is a combination
of a detailed visual inspection and a visual inspection; Method 2 is a
detailed visual inspection. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Clarification of Compliance Time Language

    We have revised paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this AD to clarify the
compliance time language as specified in Note 4 of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We determined that this change will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operator to be $1,020.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-10-13 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16292.
Docket No. FAA-2009-1254; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-040-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 21,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes; and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During the removal of the wing removable leading edge on a BAe
146 aircraft for a repair (not related to the subject addressed by
this AD), corrosion was found on the wing fixed leading edge
structure. The investigation determined that the existing scheduled
environmental and fatigue inspections would not have detected the
corrosion or fatigue damage.
    Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, if not detected and
corrected, could lead to degradation of the structural integrity of
the wing.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar structure
for corrosion and/or fatigue damage [e.g., cracking] and repair,
depending on findings.

There are two alternative inspection methods: Method 1 is a
combination of a detailed visual inspection and a visual inspection;
Method 2 is a detailed visual inspection.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the applicable time identified in paragraph (f)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(ii), or (f)(1)(iii) of this AD: Perform a detailed visual
inspection and visual inspection (Method 1) or a detailed visual
inspection (Method 2) for cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed
leading edge and front spar structure, in accordance with paragraph
2.C. or 2.D., as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-
072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.
    (i) For airplanes with less than 9 years since date of issuance
of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective
date of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this
AD.
    (ii) For airplanes with 9 years or more, but less than 15 years,
since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or
the date of issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD or within 16 years since date of
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness,
whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For airplanes with 15 years or more since date of issuance
of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective
date of this AD: Within 6 months after the effective date of this
AD.

    Note 1:  Where BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008,
refers to a ``visual inspection,'' this term describes an inspection
using visual inspection equipment as defined in Appendix 3 of that
service bulletin. In other BAE Systems instructions for continued
airworthiness, including the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) and
the Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme (CPCP), such an
inspection is referred to as a ``Special Detailed Inspection''
(SDI).

    Note 2: At the discretion of the airplane owner/operator,
corrosion protection may be embodied on those areas subject to a
detailed visual inspection, in accordance with paragraph 2.E. or
paragraph 2.F. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072,
Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Embodiment of enhanced
corrosion protection in accordance with paragraph 2.E. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September
25, 2008, allows the interval of the repetitive inspection (as
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD) to be extended in the
area(s) of application in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(i) or
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (2) After doing the initial inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, at the applicable intervals specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, accomplish the
repetitive inspections of the wing fixed leading edge and front spar
structure for cracking and corrosion in the ``area of inspection''
specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.D., ``Compliance,'' of BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072,
Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Do the inspections in
accordance with paragraph 2.C. (Method 1) or paragraph 2.D. (Method
2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated
September 25, 2008. Where previously applied, enhanced corrosion
protection may then be re-applied, as an option, in accordance with
paragraph 2.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072,
Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. Perform the repetitive
inspections at the times specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or
(f)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For airplanes having enhanced corrosion protection that was
applied during the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals not to
exceed 144 months.
    (ii) For airplanes not having enhanced corrosion protection that
was applied during the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals not
to exceed 72 months.
    (3) After doing the initial inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed 36,000 flight cycles,
accomplish fatigue inspections in accordance with paragraph 2.C.
(Method 1) or paragraph 2.D. (Method 2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.
    (4) If any cracking or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated
September 25, 2008.
    (5) No repair terminates the inspection requirements of this AD.
    (6) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-072, dated February 22, 2008, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in this AD.
    (7) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative)
of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to
Customer Liaison, Customer Support (Building 37), BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9
2RW, Scotland; fax +44 (0) 1292 675432; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in
paragraphs (f)(7)(i) and (f)(7)(ii) of this AD. The report must
include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and
flight hours on the airplane.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

    Note 3:  The inspections required by this AD prevail over the
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), MPD, CPCP, and Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document (SSID) inspections defined in
paragraph 1.C.(3) of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 4:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: Where the EASA AD refers to ``since entry
into service,'' this AD specifies the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0014, dated January 21, 2009; and BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-072,
Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008,
to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/
index.htm.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11182 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 44995-44996]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62568; File No. SR-ISE-2010-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Foreign Currency Options Orders Fee Discount for
Market Makers and Non-ISE Market Makers

July 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 19, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently has a fee cap for large-size foreign
currency (``FX'') options orders. This fee discount applies for orders
of 250 contracts or more and waives fees on incremental volume above
250 contracts.\3\ Contracts at or under the threshold are charged the
constituent's prescribed execution fee. Pursuant to an incentive plan
currently in place, this fee discount currently applies to all customer
\4\ orders, Firm Proprietary orders, market maker orders and non-ISE
market maker orders in options on the following FX option currencies
traded on the Exchange: New Zealand dollar, Mexican peso, Swedish krona
and the Brazilian real.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62506 (July 15,
2010) (SR-ISE-2010-67).
    \4\ The fee waiver applies to both professional and priority
customer orders. A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule
100(a)(37A) as a person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in
securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). A Customer (Professional) is a person who is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all other FX option currencies traded on the Exchange, this fee
discount currently applies only to customer orders and Firm Proprietary
orders in those products. The Exchange now proposes to extend this fee
discount to market maker orders and non-ISE market maker orders in all
FX option currencies and specifically, to the orders that were
previously not receiving this discount.
    ISE adopted this fee discount to encourage members to execute
large-sized FX options orders on the Exchange in a manner that is cost
effective. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will further
that goal.
2. Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, this proposed rule change would extend a
current fee discount to all orders in FX options traded on the
Exchange, thus effectively maintaining low fees.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \6\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-76 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-76. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-76 and should be
submitted on or before August 20, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18724 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30268-30270]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0235; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-010-AD;
Amendment 39-16311; AD 2010-11-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AeroSpace Technologies of Australia Pty
Ltd Models N22B, N22S, and N24A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    The results of full scale fatigue tests being conducted by the
manufacturer have shown the need for inspection of critical fastener
holes in the stub wing upper front spar cap, near the wing strut
attachment.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 6, 2010.
    On July 6, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10694), and proposed to supersede AD 97-11-12, Amendment 39-10041 (62
FR 28997, May 29, 1997). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The results of full scale fatigue tests being conducted by the
manufacturer have shown the need for inspection of critical fastener
holes in the stub wing upper front spar cap, near the wing strut
attachment.
    Amendment 1 adopts the manufacturer's latest service bulletin.
Its new inspection method avoids having to remove the Huck bolts and
the potential to damage the holes.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 25 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $4,250, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take

about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $2,500, for a cost of
$2,840 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-10041 (62 FR
28997, May 29, 1997), and adding the following new AD:

2010-11-06 AeroSpace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd: Amendment
39-16311; Docket No. FAA-2010-0235; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-
010-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 6,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 97-11-12, Amendment 39-10041.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models N22B, N22S, and N24A airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The results of full scale fatigue tests being conducted by the
manufacturer have shown the need for inspection of critical fastener
holes in the stub wing upper front spar cap, near the wing strut
attachment.
    Amendment 1 adopts the manufacturer's latest service bulletin.
Its new inspection method avoids having to remove the Huck bolts and
the potential to damage the holes.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance
with Nomad Service Bulletin NMD-53-22, dated June 4, 2007:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after July
6, 2010 (the effective date of this AD), or within the next 90 days
after July 6, 2010 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
first, install an inspection hole in the left-hand and right-hand
stub wing bottom skin.
    (2) Before further flight after installing the inspection hole
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, initially inspect the stub
wing front spar cap for cracks. Repetitively thereafter inspect at
intervals not to exceed every 600 hours TIS.
    (3) If any crack is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight contact Customer
Support Manager, Gippsland Aeronautics Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 881,
MORWELL, Victoria, 3040, Australia; phone: +61 3 5172 1200; fax: +61
3 5172 1201; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for an FAA-approved
repair scheme/modification and incorporate the repair scheme/
modification. Due to FAA policy, the repair scheme/modification for
crack damage must include an immediate repair of the crack. The
repair scheme cannot be by repetitive inspection only. The repair
scheme/modification may incorporate repetitive inspections in
addition to the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD. Continued operational flight with un-repaired crack
damage is not permitted.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The MCAI states to follow the service bulletin. The
service bulletin does not specifically call out a corrective action
if cracks are found. The FAA is including specific instruction of
corrective action in the AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD GAF-
N22-52, Amendment 1, dated January 2010; and

Nomad Service Bulletin NMD-53-22, dated June 4, 2007, for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Nomad Service Bulletin NMD-53-22, dated June 4,
2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Gippsland Aeronautics Pty Ltd., Latrobe Regional Airport, P.O. Box
881, Morwell Victoria, 3840, Australia; phone: +61 3 5172 1200; fax:
+61 3 5172 1201; Internet: www.gippsaero.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 13, 2010.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-12176 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP:

MEETING__ X___ SPEECH_____ PHONE CALL_____

DATE: August 17, 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: OAP PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL:

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the comments of Westmoreland Coal and the Crow Tribe.

PARTICIPANTS:

Sam Napolitano, Sarah Dunham, Dwight Alpern, & Meghan McGuinness   US EPA, OAP Joe Paisie, Bill Grantham, & Laura McKelvey   US EPA, OAQPS Bonnie Turner, Westmoreland Coal Company Todd Myers, Westmoreland Coal Company Tom Rossetto, Westmoreland Coal Company Carl Venne, Crow Tribe Ed LoneFight, Crow Tribe Isaiah Morning, Crow Tribe COMMENTS:

The discussion covered the Crow Tribe's relationship with the Asaloka Mine and Westmoreland Coal, the potential economic situation facing the mine and tribe under CAIR, and the recommendations put forth by Westmoreland Coal and the Crow Tribe.

ATTACHMENTS ( HANDOUTS):

Crow Tribe and Westmoreland Coal presentation from the meeting.


November 29, 2004 MEMORANDUM From: William H. Maxwell CG/ ESD ( C439 01)

To: Utility MACT Project Files Subject: Municipal Waste Combustor ( MWC) mercury cost effectiveness calculations The attached e mail detailing cost effectiveness calculations for mercury control at MWC facilities is provided for information purposes. MWC regulations were required under the provisions of section 129 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. EPA has now completed the required 5 year review of the MWC regulations and have assurance that all of the units have made the necessary retrofits and are, in fact, in compliance with the standard. Walt Stevenson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 10/ 07/ 2004 03: 14 PM To: Fred Porter/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: RobertJ Wayland/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Maxwell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Fw: MWC mercury control cost effectiveness calcs.

Fred Listed below is the C/ E level for Hg control at large MWCs. The C/ E is about $ 1,000/ lb Hg removed. The note speaks for itself  but I would add two comments. The C/ E levels in the earlier 1994 Nebel memo of 300 to 500 $/ lb principally reflect the fact that uncontrolled Hg levels were about 0.650 mg/ dscm in 1990 and have now been reduced to 0.175 mg/ dscm as a result of Hg reduction in the waste stream by various recycling/ separation programs and the removal of Hg from household batteries. There's less Hg in the waste and the C/ E increases. Also note the calculations assign all costs to Hg control. Remember, ACI not only achieves 90+ % Hg reduction it also achieves + 75% dioxin emission polishing . Some of the cost of ACI should assigned to dioxin control, Let me know if you have any questions.

Walt  Forwarded by Walt Stevenson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 10/ 07/ 2004 02: 55 PM

Jason Huckaby < Jason. Huckaby@ erg. com> 10/ 07/ 2004 01: 54 PM To: Walt Stevenson/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Kelly Martin < Kelly. Martin@ erg. com>, Ruth Mead < Ruth. Mead@ erg. com> Subject: MWC mercury control cost effectiveness calcs.

Walt,

Per the methodology discussed earlier today, $ 1057/ lb mercury ( 2002 dollars) is the calculated cost effectiveness for carbon injection at large MWCs.

The calculations used to derive this are as follows:

 Average LMWC performance is .014 mg/ dscm with 92 percent reduction.  Uncontrolled mercury concentration = .014/( 1. 92) = 0.175 mg/ dscm  F factor: 4560 dscm/ ton MSW fired  lb mercury removed per ton MSW fired = (. 175. 014)* 4560/( 1000* 453.6) = 1.6185E 3 lb/ ton MSW $/ ton MSW for carbon injection in 1987 is $ 1.52/ Mg * ( Mg/ 1.1023 ton) = $ 1.38/ ton MSW in 1987  Multiply 1987 by 1.111 to get to 1990 dollars, and then multiply by 1.106 to get to 2002 dollars: $ 1.38* 1.111* 1.106= $ 1.70/ ton MSW fired Putting it all together: $ 1.70/ 1.6185E 3 = $ 1057/ lb mercury removed As a comparison to earlier MWC cost effectiveness costs: Docket Item A 90 45, II B 33 ( June 21, 1994) Kris Nebel to Walt Stevenson. " Incremental Mercury Control Costs for Large Existing MWC's" presents some cost effectiveness values between $ 206 and $ 453 per pound mercury, depending on the expected level of mercury control and whether or not the unit was equipped with a SD/ ESP or SD/ FF. Assuming the memo is using 1990 dollars, adjusting these values to 2002 dollars yields a range between $ 228 and $ 501/ lb mercury removed. I will be out of the office between 2: 00 and 3: 30, but will be around the rest of the afternoon. Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Jason Jason M. Huckaby Chemical Engineer ERG 1600 Perimeter Park Dr. Morrisville, NC 27560 ( 919) 468 7826, FAX ( 919) 468 7801 Jason. Huckaby@ erg. com