[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42753-42756]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17404]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2490]

Bird Strike Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on bird strike requirements for transport
category airplanes.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits public comments on the need for, and
the possible scope of, changes to the bird strike certification
requirements for transport category airplanes. The FAA is not currently
proposing a specific regulatory action. The purpose of this request is
to gather comments from airplane manufacturers and other interested
parties on this subject.

DATES: Send comments by November 17, 2015.
    Comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: Send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2015-2490, 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, 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
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 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: Todd Martin, Airframe and Cabin Safety
Branch, ANM-115, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to comment on the need for, and
the possible scope of, changes to the bird strike requirements for
transport category airplanes by submitting written data, views, or
arguments as they may desire. We have conducted a review of bird strike
data, and we are considering whether to revise the requirements, as
described in this document. We invite comments relating to the
technical or economic impact that might result from any of the rule
changes discussed herein, as well as any alternative suggestions.
Substantive comments should be accompanied by estimates of their
economic impact if possible. All comments received by the closing date
for comments will be considered by the FAA.

Background

    Bird strike requirements for transport category airplanes are
specified in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 25,
and vary depending on the structural component being evaluated. Section
25.775 requires windshields and their supporting structure withstand,
without penetration, impact with a four-pound bird at VC
(design cruising speed) at sea level. This regulation has been in place
and is unchanged since part 25 was introduced in 1965.
    Section 25.631 requires the empennage structure be designed to
assure continued safe flight after impact with an eight-pound bird at
VC at sea level, including consideration of control system
elements. This regulation was introduced at Amendment 25-23 (effective
May 8, 1970) as a result of the 1962 Vickers Viscount accident, which
was caused by impact with a swan, estimated to weigh between 12 and 17
pounds, that damaged the horizontal stabilizer and elevator.
    Section 25.571 considers the rest of the airframe and requires the
airplane be capable of continued safe flight after impact with a four-
pound bird at VC at sea level, and .85 VC at 8000
feet. This regulation was introduced at Amendment 25-45 (effective
December 1, 1978) with some changes in the speed definition since then.
A speed criterion is provided at 8000 feet to ensure adequate bird
strike resistance capability up to that altitude.
    In 1993, the FAA was developing a notice of proposed rulemaking to
establish a consistent eight-pound bird requirement for all structures.
The FAA decided instead to task the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) to evaluate the bird strike requirements and make
recommendations. The working group completed its deliberations in 2003
without reaching agreement. All members in the working group, except
the FAA, favored reducing the eight-pound bird requirement in Sec.
25.631 to four pounds, thus establishing a consistent four-pound bird
requirement for all structures. Other changes to the requirements were
considered by the group, but none were adopted. The working group
report is available at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TAEgshT1-031593.pdf.
    More recently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
issued the following Safety Recommendation to the FAA as a result of a
fatal Cessna 500 accident that occurred in 2008: A-09-072, ``Revise the
bird-strike certification requirements for Part 25 airplanes so that
protection from in-flight impact with birds is consistent across all
airframe structures. Consider the most current military and

civilian bird-strike database information and trends in bird
populations in drafting this revision.''
    To determine the adequacy of current bird strike certification
requirements, the FAA reviewed a number of reports, including the 2003
ARAC report, and other reports that address bird populations. We also
reviewed recent bird strike event data and compared the energy levels
of bird strike events to the energy levels prescribed in the current
requirements. We found numerous bird strike events in which the energy
level exceeded that specified in current part 25 requirements.

Sample of Bird Strike Event Data

    The severity of a bird strike depends primarily on kinetic energy,
which is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Bird strikes
involving birds greater than four pounds occur often, but usually at
speeds below the design cruising speed, VC. Therefore, the
energy level of such strikes is usually below that specified in current
requirements. However, in some cases, that energy level is exceeded.
    In each of the bird strike events shown below, the FAA estimates
that the energy level of the strike exceeded that specified in current
requirements. This is not an exhaustive list; these are just some
examples of events that occurred in the US since the 2008 Cessna
accident. For these events, we estimated the energy level of the event
and compared it to the current four-pound bird requirement specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.571 and 25.775.

Recent Examples of Bird Strike Events in Which the Energy Level Exceeded
                   the Current Airplane-Level Standard
                          [4 Pound Bird at VC]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Energy level approximately 1.8 times current certification standard:
    Date: 4 March 2008.
    Aircraft: Cessna Citation Model 500.
    Airport: Wiley Post (OK).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (3,100' MSL (mean sea level)).
    Estimated Airspeed: 198 KTAS (knots true airspeed).
    Effect on Flight: Crashed.
    Wildlife Species: American white pelican (mean weight 12.5 lb.).
     Multiple birds.
    Damage: Aircraft destroyed. Five fatalities. Shortly after takeoff,
     the airplane flew through a flock of birds. There was no evidence
     that any pieces of the airplane separated in flight. Bird residues
     were identified on the right horizontal stabilizer and the right
     side of the vertical stabilizer.
2. Energy level approximately 2.3 times current certification standard:
    Date: 8 April 2008.
    Aircraft: Bombardier Challenger 600.
    Airport: Colorado Springs (CO).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (8,000' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 260 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing.
    Wildlife Species: American white pelican (mean weight 12.5 lb.).
     Multiple birds.
    Damage: One bird penetrated the fuselage below the cockpit windows,
     through the forward pressure bulkhead and into the cockpit. Both
     engines ingested at least 1 bird. The #1 engine had fan damage; the
     #2 engine lost power and had a dented inlet lip. Noise and wind in
     the flightdeck. The left engine had high vibration levels. The
     fuselage skin and forward pressure bulkhead were penetrated and
     contained bird matter. The left engine thrust reverser torque box
     assembly and pylon tracks were bent, and the engine cowl supports
     were broken.
3. Energy level approximately 1.5 times current certification standard:
    Date: 3 February 2009.
    Aircraft: Boeing 757-200.
    Airport: Denver International (CO).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (7,500' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 270 KTAS (Airspeed not recorded. Airspeed
     estimate assumes airplane was flying 10 knots below 250 KIAS speed
     restriction. At 7500' MSL, 250 KIAS is approximately equal to 280
     KTAS).
    Effect on Flight: Emergency landing.
    Wildlife Species: Bald eagle (mean weight 10.4 lb.). Single bird.
    Damage: Bird hit right side of engine cowling making a large dent
     before entering the engine where it damaged all fan blades.
4. Energy level approximately 4.2 times current certification standard:
    Date: 10 August 2010.
    Aircraft: Embraer 145.
    Airport: Salt Lake City International (UT).
    Phase of Flight: Approach (11,000' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 290 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Landed using back up radio.
    Wildlife Species: American white pelican (mean weight 12.5 lb.).
     Multiple birds.
    Damage: Birds punctured the nose of the aircraft between the nose
     cone and windshield. The birds damaged the skin, stringers,
     structural mounts and various avionics equipment. One bird
     penetrated the airplane's skin and entered the forward avionics
     bay. The captain lost a number of his primary instruments.
5. Energy level approximately 2.3 times current certification standard:
    Date: 08 November 2010.
    Aircraft: Bombardier DHC-8.
    Airport: Los Angeles International (CA).
    Phase of Flight: Approach (6,600' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 243 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Emergency landing.
    Wildlife Species: Common loon (mean weight 9.1 lb.). Single bird.

    Damage: Bird impact resulted in a 12-inch hole in the right wing
     leading edge, and internal structural damage to the right wing and
     fuel tank.
6. Energy level approximately 1.2 times current certification standard:
    Date: 15 November 2010.
    Aircraft: Embraer 170.
    Airport: Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MN).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (5000' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 270 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing.
    Wildlife Species: Snow goose (mean weight 5.8 lb.). Multiple birds.
    Damage: Radome, engine, fuselage. Autothrottle system disengaged.
     First officer's primary flight display had alert flags for the
     indicated airspeed and altitude parameters. Substantial damage to
     the radome and its underlying structural components. The forward
     pressure bulkhead web contained a dent and puncture. The left
     engine compressor section was damaged.
7. Energy level approximately 1.4 times current certification standard:
    Date: 01 November 2011.
    Aircraft: Airbus 320.
    Airport: Minneapolis-St Paul International (MN).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (3300' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 220 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing, emergency declared.
    Wildlife Species: Tundra swan (mean weight 14.8 lb.). Single bird.
    Damage: Bird hit right side of nose. Substantial damage to the
     radome, nose, #2 engine and forward pressure bulkhead.
8. Energy level approximately 1.8 times current certification standard:
    Date: 25 October 2012.
    Aircraft: Boeing 757-200.
    Airport: Boise Air Terminal (ID).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (14,000' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 390 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing.
    Wildlife Species: Snow goose (mean weight 5.8 lb.). Multiple birds.
    Damage: The radome was penetrated and the bulkhead was punctured.
     There was extensive damage to the #2 engine.
9. Energy level approximately 2.2 times current certification standard:
    Date: 12 October 2013.
    Aircraft: Cessna 525.
    Airport: Lincoln (NE).
    Phase of Flight: Climb (6400' MSL).
    Estimated Airspeed: 220 KTAS.
    Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing.
    Wildlife Species: American white pelican (mean weight 12.5 lb.).
     Single bird.
    Damage: Substantial damage to the outer right wing spar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These event data, including estimated airplane altitude and
airspeed, are derived from the following reports:
    1. The FAA Wildlife Strike Database, available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife.
    2. The FAA Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS)
System, available at: http://www.asias.faa.gov. This includes the FAA
Accident/Incident Data System, and the NTSB Aviation Accident and
Incident Data System.
    3. National Transportation Safety Board. 2009. Aircraft Accident
Report: Crash of Cessna 500, N113SH, Following an In-Flight Collision
with Large Birds, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 4, 2008. Aircraft
Accident Report NTSB/AAR-09/05. Washington, DC.
    In addition to the events listed above, there are hundreds of
examples of bird strike events in which the energy level did not exceed
current requirements, but substantial damage to the airframe occurred.
In addition to structural damage, major damage to electrical, flight
control and fuel systems has occurred, and there have been dozens of
incidents in which the flight deck was penetrated.

Bird Population Trends

    The bird strike threat has increased, especially the threat due to
larger birds. In a report commissioned by the FAA, Assessment of
Wildlife Strike Risk to Airframes; Herricks, Mankin, and Shaeffer;
December 2002; the authors wrote, ``The findings of this report,
supported by other literature, indicate that future operational
environments for aircraft can be expected to contain larger numbers of
birds, and larger numbers of birds with weights greater than four
pounds.''
    According to Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United
States, 1990-2013, US Depts. of Transportation and Agriculture, July
2014: ``Many populations of large bird and mammal species commonly
involved in strikes have increased markedly in the last few decades and
adapted to living in urban environments, including airports. For
example, the resident (non-migratory) Canada goose population in the
USA and Canada increased from about 0.5 million to 3.8 million from
1980 to 2013 (Dolbeer et al. 2014, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2013). During the same time period, the North American snow goose
population increased from about 2.1 million to 6.6 million birds (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013). Other large-bird species that have
shown significant population increases from 1980 to 2012 include bald
eagles (6.4 percent annual rate of increase), wild turkeys (9.5
percent), turkey vultures (2.7 percent), American white pelicans (7.9
percent), double-crested cormorants (6.1 percent), sandhill cranes (5.9
percent), great blue herons (1.2 percent), and ospreys (3.0 percent,
Sauer et al. 2014). Dolbeer and Begier (2013) examined the estimated
population

trends and numbers for the 21 species of birds in North America with
mean body masses greater than 4 pounds and at least 10 strikes with
civil aircraft from 1990-2012. Of these 21 species, 17 had shown
population increases from 1990-2012 with a net gain of 17 million
birds. Previous research had documented that 13 of the 14 bird species
in North America with mean body masses greater than 8 pounds showed
significant population increases from 1970 to the early 1990s (Dolbeer
and Eschenfelder 2003).''

Airspeed Information

    In the U.S., Sec.  91.117 prescribes a speed restriction of 250
knots indicated airspeed below 10,000 feet mean sea level. The 250 knot
speed restriction is also in place in Mexico and Canada, and in many
areas around the world, but not everywhere. Where this speed
restriction is in place, it provides a significant safety benefit with
respect to bird strikes.
    While deviations to this speed restriction are allowed, and the
requirement is not global, it does indicate that limiting airspeed
below 10,000 feet is operationally feasible for transport category
airplanes. Indeed, to meet current bird strike criteria, some
manufacturers specify relatively low VMO and VC
airspeeds up to 8000 feet, that increase above that altitude. These
speed ``cutbacks'' at lower altitudes are beneficial for three reasons:
(1) They increase safety by reducing the energy of any bird strike that
occurs below 8000 feet, (2) they apply to all airspace, not just those
areas covered by US operating regulations, or those of other countries,
and (3) they reduce the bird strike speeds to which the airplane must
be designed.
    To encourage these speed cutbacks, we believe establishing the bird
strike speed criteria based on VMO rather than VC
may be warranted. While most structures rules are based on
VC, allowing these very speed-dependent criteria to be based
on VMO may make the establishment of speed cutbacks easier
to achieve.

Summary of FAA Findings

    Our review of bird strike event data and bird population data
indicates the following:
    1. Bird strikes have occurred and will continue to occur at energy
levels that exceed the level provided by current requirements.
    2. Numerous bird strikes have resulted in penetration into the
flight deck, mostly below the windshield, even at energy levels below
current requirements. Penetration of the cockpit obviously introduces a
number of significant risks to the airplane. Currently, there is no
requirement that specifically prohibits penetration of the flight deck
through structure other than the windshield.
    3. The bird strike threat has increased, especially the threat due
to larger birds. Therefore, current fleet history may not be indicative
of what to expect in the future.
    4. Bird strike events often involve more than one bird. Such
multiple bird strikes may result in structural damage in several areas,
pilot disorientation, engine failure and systems failures. Any one of
these effects can significantly reduce the controllability of the
airplane. Sections 25.571 and 25.631 assume a single bird strike,
rather than multiple bird strikes. The FAA believes that this single
bird strike approach is an adequate approach for airframe structure as
long as the single bird strike criteria are robust. By showing the
structure capable of withstanding a significant bird strike in any one
area, a bird strike to that area should not compound the hazard from
strikes in other areas.
    5. Limiting airspeed below 10,000 feet is operationally feasible
for transport category airplanes. Bird strike data indicate numerous
damaging bird strikes have occurred above 8000 feet, but above 10,000
feet, bird strikes are rare. Therefore, expanding the envelope above
8000 feet, but limiting it at 10,000 feet, may be warranted.
    6. Establishing reduced VMO and VC airspeeds
at lower altitudes provides a significant safety benefit with respect
to bird strikes.

Request for Comments

    The FAA invites interested persons to comment on the need for, and
the possible scope of, changes to the bird strike requirements for
transport category airplanes by submitting written data, views, or
arguments as they may desire. We invite comments relating to the
technical or economic impact that might result from any considerations
discussed herein, as well as any alternative suggestions. In
particular, we invite information, comments, and opinion on the
following questions:
    1. Should the bird weight requirement be applied consistently
across the airplane?
    2. Should the bird weight requirement be increased, to eight pounds
or some other value?
    3. Should a ``no-penetration'' requirement be applied to the entire
fuselage, not just the windshields?
    4. Should the bird strike criteria be expanded to 10,000 feet?
    5. Should the 0.85 speed reduction factor at 8000 feet, currently
specified in Sec.  25.571, be removed?
    6. Should the speed criterion for bird strikes be based on
VMO rather than VC?

Conclusion

    This document solicits public comments on the need for, and the
possible scope of, changes to the bird strike certification
requirements for transport category airplanes.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aircraft safety.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17404 Filed 7-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8325-8326]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Society of Clinical Research Associates--Food and Drug
Administration; ``Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial
Requirements, Regulations, Compliance and Good Clinical Practice''

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of Public Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
following conference: Educational Conference co-sponsored with the
Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA). The public workshop
FDA's clinical trial requirements is designed to aid the Clinical
Research Professional's understanding of the mission, responsibilities
and authority of the FDA and to facilitate interaction with FDA
representatives. The program will focus on the relationships among the
FDA and clinical trial staff, investigators and institutional review
boards (IRB). Individual FDA representatives will discuss the informed
consent process and informed consent documents; regulations relating to
drugs, devices and biologics, as well as inspections of

clinical investigators, of IRB, and of research sponsors.
    Date and Time: The conference will be held on March 11 and 12,
(Wednesday and Thursday) 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The conference will be held at the Holiday Inn Golden
Gateway Hotel, 1500 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 91409, 415-441-
4000.
    Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. Please
mention SOCRA to receive the hotel room rate of $159.00 plus applicable
taxes (available until February 13, 2015, or until the SOCRA room block
is filled).
    Contact Person: Jane Kreis, Food and Drug, Administration, 1301
Clay St., Suite 1180N, Oakland, CA 94612,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 510-287-
2739 or Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA), 530 West
Butler Ave., Suite 109, Chalfont, PA 18914.<PHONE_NUMBER> or 215-822-
8644, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
www.socra.org. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this
document, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the
Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register).
    Registration: The registration fee will cover actual expenses
including refreshments, lunch, materials and speaker expenses. Seats
are limited; please submit your registration as soon as possible.
Workshop space will be filled in order of receipt of registration.
Those accepted into the workshop will receive confirmation. The cost of
the registration is as follows: SOCRA member--$575, SOCRA nonmember
(includes membership)--$650, Federal Government member--$450.00,
Federal Government nonmember--$525.00, FDA Employee--(free) Fee Waived.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact SOCRA (see Contact Person) at least 21 days in advance.
    Extended periods of question and answer and discussion have been
included in the program schedule. SOCRA designates this education
activity for a maximum of 13.3 Continuing Education Credits for SOCRA
continuing education (CE) and Nurse continuing nurse education (CNE),
SOCRA designates this live activity for a maximum of 13.3 American
Medical Association Physician's Recognition Award Category 1
Credit(s)TM. Physicians should claim only the credit
commensurate with the extent of their participation. Continuing medical
education (CME) for Physicians: SOCRA is accredited by the
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide CME
for physicians. CNE for Nurses: Society of Clinical Research Associates
is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the
American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.
    Registration Instructions: To register, please submit a
registration form with your name, affiliation, mailing address,
telephone, FAX number, and email, along with a check or money order
payable to ``SOCRA''. Mail to: SOCRA(see Contact Person for address).
To register via the Internet, go to http://www.socra.org/html/FDA_Conference.htm. Payment by major credit card is accepted (Visa/
MasterCard/AMEX only). For more information on the meeting
registration, or for questions on the workshop, contact SOCRA (see
Contact Person).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public workshop helps fulfill the
Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to
protect the public health. The workshop will provide those engaged in
FDA-regulated (human) clinical trials with information on a number of
topics concerning FDA requirements related informed consent, clinical
investigation requirements, institutional review board inspections,
electronic record requirements, and investigator initiated research
Topics for discussion include the following: (1) The Role of the FDA
District Office Relative to the Bioresearch Monitoring Program (BIMO);
(2) Modernizing FDA's Clinical Trials/BIMO Programs; (3) What FDA
Expects in a Pharmaceutical Clinical Trial: (4) Medical Device Aspects
of Clinical Research; (5) Adverse Event Reporting--Science, Regulation,
Error and Safety; (6) Working with FDA's Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research; (7) Ethical Issues in Subject Enrollment; (8)
Keeping Informed and Working Together; (9) FDA Conduct of Clinical
Investigator Inspections; (10) Investigator Initiated Research; (11)
Meetings with the FDA--Why, When and How; (12) Part 11 Compliance--
Electronic Signatures; (13) IRB Regulations and FDA Inspections; (14)
Informed Consent Regulations; (15) The Inspection is Over--What Happens
Next? Possible FDA Compliance Actions; (16) Question and Answer
Session/Panel Discussion.
    FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing
community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated
drugs and devices. The workshop helps to achieve objectives set forth
in section 406 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393)
which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the
availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public.
The workshop also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as outreach
activities by Government Agencies to small businesses.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03118 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 179)]
[Notices]
[Page 52868-52869]
[DOCID:fr17se07-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1199-000]

Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

September 11, 2007.
    Airtricity Munnsville Wind Farm, LLC (Munnsville) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates.
Munnsville also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, Munnsville requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Munnsville.
    On September 10, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the
Director,

Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Munnsville, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
October 10, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Munnsville is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Munnsville, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Munnsville's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18250 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62780-62782]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24664]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70673; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Clarifying
Rule 1014 Regarding Daily Quoting Obligations

October 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on October 2, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to clarify
that Rule 1014 (Obligations and Restrictions

Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders) quoting
obligations remain in effect on a daily basis even though compliance
with such obligations may be determined on a monthly basis.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to clarify that Rule
1014 quoting obligations remain in effect on a daily basis even though
compliance with such obligations may be determined on a monthly basis.
Background
    Market makers on the Exchange include Registered Options Traders
(``ROTs''),\3\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs''),\4\ Remote Streaming
Quote Traders (``RSQTs''),\5\ specialists,\6\ and Remote
Specialists.\7\ As set forth in Rule 1014, market makers have an
obligation to make two-sided markets in options products listed on the
Exchange. This rule change proposal does not negate, or attempt to
change, any of the existing daily market making obligations established
in Rule 1014. These Rule 1014 market making obligations continue in
force. This proposal only clarifies that Rule 1014 quoting obligations
remain in effect on a daily basis. This has been the case prior to the
recent Exchange proposal establishing that compliance with quoting
obligations may be determined on a monthly basis,\8\ and remains so
without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ROT is a regular member or a foreign currency options
participant of the Exchange located on the trading floor who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in options for his
own account. See Rule 1014(b)(i).
    \4\ An SQT is an ROT who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically in
options to which such SQT is assigned. An SQT may only submit such
quotations while such SQT is physically present on the floor of the
Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \5\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically in options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An
RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the
floor of the Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
    Rule 1014 also discusses other market makers including Directed
SQTs and Directed RSQTs, which receive Directed Orders as defined in
Rule 1080(l)(i)(A). Specialists may likewise receive Directed
Orders.
    \6\ A member may not act as an options specialist (to include a
Remote Specialist as defined in Rule 1020(a)(ii)) in any option
unless such member is registered as an options specialist in such
option by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501 and such registration
may be revoked or suspended at any time by the Exchange. See Rule
1020(a)(i).
    \7\ A Remote Specialist is an options specialist in one or more
classes that does not have a physical presence on an Exchange floor
and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 501. See Rule
1020(a)(ii).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67700 (August 21,
2012) 77 FR 51835 (August 27, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-108) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness) (the ``monthly compliance review
proposal''). In the monthly compliance review proposal, the Exchange
proposed in sub-sections (b)(ii)(D)(1) and (b)(ii)(D)(2) of Rule
1014 that compliance with the quoting obligation will be determined
on a monthly basis. This puts the Exchange and its members on an
equal footing with other options markets such as NYSE Arca (Rule
6.37B) and NYSE MKT (Rule 925.1NY) in terms of monthly compliance
with the noted quoting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The daily market making obligations of market makers on the
Exchange are set forth in Rule 1014. In particular, subsection
(b)(ii)(D)(1) of Rule 1014 states that SQTs and RSQTs (when they do not
function as Remote Specialists) shall be responsible to quote two-sided
markets in not less than 60% of the series in which such SQTs or RSQTs
are assigned; provided that, on any given day, a DRSQT or DSQT shall be
responsible to quote two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the
series listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series listed on the
Exchange minus one call-put pair. The sub-section states also that
whenever a DSQT or DRSQT enters a quotation in an option in which such
DSQT or DRSQT is assigned, such DSQT or DRSQT must maintain until the
close of that trading day quotations for the lesser of 99% of the
series of the option listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series of
the option listed on the Exchange minus one call-put pair. To satisfy
the applicable requirements of this subparagraph (D)(1) with respect to
quoting a series, an SQT, RSQT, DSQT, or DRSQT must quote such series
90% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes
in such trading day) or such higher percentage as the Exchange may
announce in advance. Subsection (b)(ii)(D)(2) of Rule 1014 states that
a specialist (including the RSQT functioning as a Remote Specialist in
particular options) shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in
the lesser of 99% of the series or 100% of the series minus one call-
put pair in each option in which such specialist is assigned. To
satisfy the requirement of subsection (b)(ii)(D)(2) with respect to
quoting a series, the specialist must quote such series 90% of the
trading day (as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such
trading day) or such higher percentage as the Exchange may announce in
advance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For all market making obligations, see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed, subsections (b)(ii)(D)(1) and (b)(ii)(D)(2) of Rule
1014 currently state that compliance with quoting obligations may be
determined on a monthly basis. To make it clear that daily quoting
obligations remain, however, the Exchange is adding language to these
subsections to state that determining compliance with the continuous
quoting requirement on a monthly basis does not relieve market makers
of their obligation to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily
basis, nor will it prohibit the Exchange from taking disciplinary
action against market makers for failing to meet the continuous quoting
obligation each trading day. Compliance on a monthly basis allows the
Exchange to review the market makers' daily compliance in the aggregate
and determine the appropriate disciplinary action for single or
multiple failures to comply with the continuous quoting requirement
during the month period.
    This proposal clarifies that daily quoting requirements for market
makers per Rule 1014 as specified remain the same and are not changed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange would do this though a proposed rule change
clarifying that daily quoting requirements pursuant to Rule 1014 are
not changed by the monthly compliance review proposal, and remain the
same, to the benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that this proposal should have any competitive impact because the
Exchange's rules as noted are similar to those of other options
exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \13\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-99 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-Phlx-2013-99. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.. Copies of the 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-Phlx-2013-99 and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24664 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10846-10848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02997]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80003; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

February 9, 2017.
    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 January 27, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Marketing Fee program, effective
February 1, 2017. By way of background the Marketing Fee is assessed on
certain transactions of Market-Makers resulting from (i) customer
orders from payment accepting firms, or (ii) customer orders that have
designated a ``Preferred Market-Maker'' (``PMM'') under CBOE Rule 8.13.
The funds collected via this Marketing Fee are then put into pools
controlled by DPMs and PMMs. The DPM or PMM controlling a certain pool
of funds can then determine the order flow provider(s) to which the
funds should be directed in order to encourage such order flow
provider(s) to send orders to the Exchange. On each order, an order
flow provider can designate the Preferred Market-Maker to which the
funds generated from the order sent by the order flow provider should
be allocated (a ``Preferred order'').
    The Exchange proposes to expand the Marketing Fee program to Lead
Market-Makers (``LMMs''). Under the proposed rule change, LMMs would be
given access to the Marketing Fee funds generated from those orders on
which the LMM was preferred (i.e., designated) and those funds would be
collected by CBOE and disbursed by CBOE according to the instructions
of the LMM. The Exchange notes that expanding the Marketing Fee program
to LMMs allows LMMs to amass a pool of funds with which to use to
incent order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange. This
increased order flow would benefit all market participants on the
Exchange. The Exchange also notes that as with DPMs and PMMs, an LMM
may have access to the Marketing Fee funds generated from a Preferred
order regardless of whether that LMM has an appointment in the class in
which the

Preferred order is received and executed.
    The Exchange also proposes to make certain clarifications to
Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule, which governs the Marketing Fee
program. The Exchange notes that it inadvertently only references
Market-Makers and DPMs as being subject to the fee, even though LMMs,
like DPMs, are also Market-Makers and the fee has therefore always
applied (i.e., all orders with origin code ``M'' are subject to the fee
in accordance with above). As such, the Exchange proposes to explicitly
note in the first line that the Marketing Fee is assessed to
transactions of ``Market-Makers (including DPMs and LMMs)'' and
thereafter refer only to ``Market-Makers'' in the Footnote, instead of
``Market-Makers and DPMs'' since Market-Makers is defined as including
DPMs and LMMs. The Exchange notes this is not a substantive change, but
rather a change to make this point clear in the Fees Schedule to avoid
potential confusion. The Exchange next proposes to include a reference
to ``DPMs under CBOE Rule 8.80'' in the first sentence to explicitly
note that customer orders may also have a designated DPM (i.e., the DPM
may be given access to Marketing Fee funds generated from a Preferred
order on which it was designated). In order to avoid potential
confusion, the Exchange also proposes to add a new term, ``Preferenced
Market-Makers.'' Preferenced Market-Makers will refer collectively to
any DPM, PMM or LMM that is designated on a Preferred order (which the
Exchange also proposes to rename as a ``Preferenced order'' for
consistency).\3\ The Exchange believes using the general term
``Preferred Market-Maker'' for designated DPMs, PMMs or LMMs can be
confused with PMMs under CBOE Rule 8.13. The Exchange believes the
proposed change therefore, provides clarity in the rules and makes the
Fees Schedule easier to read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange's new text in
footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule refers in several places to ``DPM or
Preferenced Market-Maker.'' Though the term ``Preferenced Market-
Maker'' includes DPMs (as well as LMMs and PMMs), use of the phrase
``DPM or Preferenced Market-Maker'' recognizes that DPMs also may be
given access to marketing fee funds collected on orders preferenced
to them in any class in addition to funds collected from non-
preferenced orders in the DPM's assigned classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes expanding the Marketing Fee program to LMMs
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
will allow LMMs to amass a pool of funds with which to use to incent
order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange. This increased
order flow would benefit all market participants on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to expand the Marketing Fee program to LMMs because,
like PMMs under CBOE Rule 8.13, LMMs have increased obligations that
other market participants do not such an heightened quoting
standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CBOE Rule 8.15 (Lead Market-Makers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that clarifying that the reference to
``Market-Makers'' in Footnote 6 actually includes both DPMs and LMMs
maintains clarity in the Fees Schedule and avoids potential confusion.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that clarifying that customer orders
may also designate a DPM (who would then have access to the Marketing
Fees generated from that Preferred order) alleviates potential
confusion. Lastly, the Exchange believes introducing the term
``Preferenced Market-Maker'' to denote any DPM, PMM or LMM that is
designated on a Preferred (or as proposed, ``Preferenced'') order
alleviates potential confusion and makes the Fees Schedule easier to
read. The alleviation of confusion removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protects investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the proposed
change allows LMMs to also amass a pool of funds with which to use to
incent order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange, LMMs,
like PMMs, have heightened quoting standards. Moreover, the proposed
change provides LMMs an opportunity to incent order flow providers to
send order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market
participants.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed change only affects trading on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-CBOE-2017-011 and should be
submitted on or before March 8, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02997 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28989-28990]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC15-139-000.
    Applicants: Coram California Development, L.P.
    Description: Application of Coram California Development, L.P. for
Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests
for Confidential Treatment and Waivers.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-140-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE Clean Energy, Inc., MWW Holdings, LLC, CITIBANK,
N.A., AS SECURITY AGENT, AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration,
Confidential Treatment, and Waivers of ALLETE Clean Energy, Inc., et
al.
    Filed Date: 5/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150514-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1556-007.
    Applicants: Longview Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Longview Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150513-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1701-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First
Revised Service Agreement No. 1127; Queue Nos. Z1-055 and Z1-056 to be
effective 4/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1703-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revisions to OATT Att K-Appx and OA Schedule 1 re FTR Miscellaneous
Changes to be effective 7/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1704-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-5-
13 NSP-Ada T-L Filing-Non-conforming to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1705-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
20150513_Burlington Wheeling Charges to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1706-000.
    Applicants: Newark Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Application re Reactive
Power Tariff to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1707-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 System Impact Study
Agreement, Service Agreement No. 50 to be effective 5/13/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1708-000.
    Applicants: L'Anse Warden Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Amendment to be effective 4/
7/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1709-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): IA (SA
No. 2211) between National Grid and the Village of Skaneateles to be
effective 3/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150514-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1710-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits First Quarter 2015
Capital Budget Report.
    Filed Date: 5/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150513-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1711-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT
Order 676-H Ministerial Filing to be effective 5/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150514-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1712-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): OATT
Schedule 10-A Amendment to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20150514-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/15.

    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: May 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12179 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 76754]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7883-020]

Powerhouse Systems, Inc.; Notice of Technical Conference

    On Wednesday, November 15, 2023, Commission staff will hold a
technical conference to provide clarification to Powerhouse Systems,
Inc (Powerhouse) regarding the Exhibit F Supporting Design Report
(SDR), for the Weston Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 7883.
    The conference will be held via teleconference beginning at 10:30
a.m. eastern standard time. Discussion topics for the technical
conference include: (1) the information provided in the Powerhouse's
Exhibit F SDR filed on October 2, 2023; and (2) information required to
provide an updated SDR that meets Commission regulations.
    All local, State, and Federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no
transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be
prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating
in the meeting you must contact John Baummer at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected] by November 10, 2023 to receive specific
instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: November 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24589 Filed 11-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44644]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4335-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated
September 7, 2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 7, 2017.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20461 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64384]
[FR Doc No: C1-2022-17031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023; Amdt. No. 192-132]
RIN 2137-AF39

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair
Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection,
Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments

Correction

    In Rule Document 2022-17031, appearing on pages 52224-52279, in the
issue of Wednesday, August 24, 2022, make the following correction:

0
On page 52267, in the third column, paragraph ``(2)(i)'' is corrected
to read as set forth below.

Sec.  192.3   Definitions. [Corrected]

* * * * *
    (2)(i) If the length of the wrinkle bend cannot be reliably
determined, then wrinkle bend means a bend in the pipe where (h/D)*100
exceeds 2 when S is less than 37,000 psi (255 MPa), where (h/D)*100
exceeds (47000--S)/10,000 +1 for psi [324--S)/69 +1 for MPa] when S is
greater than 37,000 psi (255 MPa) but less than 47,000 psi (324 MPa),
and where (h/D)*100 exceeds 1 when S is 47,000 psi (324 MPa) or more.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. C1-2022-17031 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P