[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60205-60207]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73268; File No. SR-CHX-2014-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt and Amend Fees for the CHX Routing Services

September 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on September 19, 2014, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Assessments (the
``Fee Schedule'') to adopt and amend fees for the CHX Routing Services.
The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at (www.chx.com) and in 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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    On September 8, 2014, the Exchange filed SR-CHX-2014-15 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ to,
inter alia, adopt the CHX Routing Services.\6\ The filing was
immediately effective upon filing, but the proposed rule change will be
implemented upon two weeks' notice from the Exchange to its
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See CHX Article 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes (1) to amend Section E.6 of the Fee
Schedule to adopt fees for the CHX Routing Services and (2) to amend
Section E.8(c) of the Fee Schedule to clarify that the Average Daily
Volume (``ADV'') exemption from the Order Cancellation Fee is based on
all executions resulting from single-sided orders submitted to the CHX
Matching System (``Matching System''), which includes executions within
the Matching System and at away markets pursuant to the CHX Routing
Services.
Proposed CHX Routing Services Fees
    In sum, the CHX Routing Services will permit Routable Orders \7\
submitted to the Matching System to be routed away from the Matching
System if a Routing Event \8\ is triggered. Orders that are not
Routable Orders and orders that have either been cancelled from or have
not been submitted to the Matching System are not eligible for the CHX
Routing Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CHX Article 1, Rule 1(oo) defines ``Routable Order'' as
``any incoming Limit order, as defined under Article 1, Rule
2(a)(1), of any size, not marked by any order modifiers or related
terms listed under Article 1, Rule 2 that prohibit the routing of
the order to another Trading Center.''
    \8\ See CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section E.6 of the Fee Schedule, entitled ``CHX Routing
Services Fees,'' provides that executions that result from orders that
have been routed away from the Matching System pursuant to the CHX
Routing Services shall be subject to the following fees:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order size as submitted to the matching
                 system                           Security price                        Routing fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odd Lots...............................  All Prices.....................  $0.0040/share.
                                                                          <$1.00/share.
Round and Mixed Lots...................  >=$1.00/share..................  $0.0030/share.
                                                                          0.30% of trade value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed CHX Routing Fee for Odd Lots is identical to current
Section E.4 of the Fee Schedule, which provides that $0.0040/share will
be charged for all executions resulting from Odd Lot orders \9\
submitted to the Matching System. Also, the proposed CHX Routing Fees
for Round Lot \10\ and Mixed Lot \11\ orders are identical to current
Section E.1 of the Fee Schedule, which provides that $0.0030/share will
be charged for any executions resulting from Round Lot or Mixed Lot
orders where the execution price was at or greater than $1.00/share and
0.30% of

the trade value where the execution price was below $1.00/share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(f)(2).
    \10\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(f)(3).
    \11\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended ADV Exemption to the Order Cancellation Fee
    Under SR-CHX-2012-15,\12\ the Exchange adopted the current formula-
based Order Cancellation Fee detailed under Section E.8 of the Fee
Schedule, amended under SR-CHX-2013-11,\13\ SR-CHX-2013-12,\14\ and SR-
CHX-2014-01,\15\ which assesses a daily cancellation fee per account
symbol \16\ and security, if the order cancellation ratio exceeds a
designated threshold, which is billed monthly. However, current Section
E.8(c) provides an ADV exemption from the Order Cancellation Fees per
account symbol per month if the ADV attributable to an account symbol
for a given month is at least 100,000 shares from single-sided orders
executed at or greater than $1.00/share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68219 (November 13,
2012), 77 FR 69673 (November 20, 2012) (SR-CHX-2012-15) (``Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Order Cancellation Fee'').
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69701 (June 5,
2013), 78 FR 35082 (June 11, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-11) (``Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Order Cancellation Fee'').
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69903 (July 1,
2013), 78 FR 40788 (July 8, 2013) (SR-CHX-2013-12) (``Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Single-Sided Order Fees and Credits and the Order Cancellation
Fee'').
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71404 (January 27,
2014), 79 FR 5476 (January 31, 2014) (SR-CHX-2014-01) (``Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Order Cancellation Fee'').
    \16\ An account symbol identifies a specific CHX Trading
Account. CHX Article 1, Rule 1(ll) defines ``Trading Account,'' in
pertinent part, as ``an account under a Trading Permit, identified
by a unique CHX account symbol, from which orders are sent to the
Exchange's Trading Facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the Exchange does not currently route orders away from
the Matching System, the only executions that are currently included in
the ADV calculation are single-sided order executions within the
Matching System. However, in light of the CHX Routing Services, the
Exchange now proposes to adopt language that clarifies that eligible
executions (i.e., executions that are included in the ADV calculation)
shall only include executions resulting from single-sided orders
submitted to the Matching System, which will include executions within
the Matching System and executions at away markets resulting from
orders routed away from the Matching System pursuant to the CHX Routing
Services. Executions that result from single-sided orders that were
never submitted to the Matching System or executions resulting from
orders routed to away markets outside of the CHX Routing Services will
continue to not be included in the ADV calculation since such
executions are never attributed to a Trading Account. As such, the
Exchange also proposes to adopt language that states that eligible
executions shall not include away executions effected outside of the
CHX Routing Services.
    The Exchange notes that current Section E.8(c) already contemplates
the inclusion of away executions pursuant to the CHX Routing Services
because such away executions will only result from Routable Orders
submitted to the Matching System, which will always be attributed to a
Trading Account. As such, the proposed amendment merely clarifies the
scope of the current ADV exemption. The Exchange does not propose to
otherwise amend the operation of the Order Cancellation Fee or the ADV
exemption.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \17\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \18\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed CHX Routing Services fees
equitably allocate fees among Participants in a non-discriminatory
manner as the fee is assessed according to a Participant's use of the
CHX Routing Services. Moreover, the CHX Routing Services Fee is
reasonable in light of the fact that the proposed fees are identical to
the current liquidity removing fee for single-sided order executions
within the Matching System detailed under Section E of the Fee Schedule
and is similar to the routing fees of other exchanges, such as BATS Y-
Exchange (``BYX'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See BYX Fee Schedule. The BYX Fee Schedule provides
different fees depending on, inter alia, the type of routing
destination and/or routing option selected. The proposed CHX Routing
Fees are most analogous with the BYX routing fees of $0.0029/share
or $0.0033/share, which are assessed for executions for routed
orders at venues other than ``dark liquidity'' venues. As currently
contemplated, the CHX Routing Services will not route orders to dark
liquidity venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amended ADV exemption
from the Order Cancellation Fee described herein will promote the
equitable allocation of the Order Cancellation Fee as it will continue
to fairly allocate costs among Participants according to their
respective trading activity by clarifying that executions resulting
from the CHX Routing Services will be included in the ADV calculation.
Similar to executions within the Matching System, a Participant that
submits Routable Orders that are executed at away market(s) pursuant to
the CHX Routing Services will provide additional revenue to the
Exchange in the form of the proposed CHX Routing Services fees, which
may be used to recoup some of the costs of administering and processing
cancelled orders. Thus, the Exchange believes that Participants that
meet the ADV exemption through executions within the Matching System
and/or at away markets pursuant to the CHX Routing Services should not
be billed Order Cancellation Fees assessed to applicable Trading
Accounts for that month.
    In addition, these changes to the Fee Schedule would equitably
allocate reasonable fees among Participants in a non-discriminatory
manner by assessing cancellation fees on all Trading Accounts that
exceed a fixed Cancellation Ratio and by waiving cancellation fees on
all Trading Accounts that satisfy the requirements of the amended ADV
exemption. Since all Participants are subject to the Order Cancellation
Fee and given that the amended ADV exemption and the CHX Routing
Services will be available to all Participants, the Exchange submits
that the amended Order Cancellation Fee is non-discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed CHX Routing Services fee and the proposed
amended ADV exemption from the Order Cancellation Fee will burden
competition, but instead, enhance competition, as it is intended to
increase the competitiveness of, and draw additional volume to, the
Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels set by the Exchange to be excessive. The
proposed CHX Routing Services fee is similar to that of other
exchanges, such as BYX.\20\ Thus, the proposed rule change is a
competitive proposal that is intended to add additional liquidity and
order executions to the Exchange, which will,

in turn, benefit the Exchange and all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Changes 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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \21\ and subparagraph(f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder \22\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2014-17 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-CHX-2014-17. 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 CHX. 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-CHX-2014-17 and should be submitted on
or before October 27, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23705 Filed 10-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66172-66175]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1011; Product Identifier 2018-NM-131-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded
movements of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. This proposed AD
would require an identification of the part number, and if applicable
the serial number, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and
applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also require a
one-time detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the horizontal
movement system of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and
applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also provide an
optional terminating action for the repetitive checks of the horizontal
movement system for certain airplanes. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 11,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching

for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1011.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1011; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3569; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-1011;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-131-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports indicating that there have been
uncommanded movements of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. A
Model 747 operator reported that during a takeoff, the First Officer's
seat unlocked from its seat tracks and moved aft. The First Officer was
unable to control the airplane and the Captain took over the controls
to avoid a rejected takeoff. The unlocking of the seat from the seat
tracks was caused by actuator damage, which was a result of incorrect
adjustment of the seat's manual release lever cable, which allowed the
clutch mechanism to only partially engage. Captain's and First
Officer's seats having the same part numbers are installed on both
Model 747 and Model 767 airplanes. We are considering additional
rulemaking to address the unsafe condition for Model 747 airplanes.
    In addition, one operator reported that the Captain's seat could
not be locked in position after the horizontal position of the seat was
adjusted in flight. The seat became unlocked from the track and moved
freely forward and aft. Control was given to the First Officer for
approach and landing. An inspection found that the horizontal actuator
output shaft had broken. When a horizontal actuator output shaft
breaks, the pilot cannot prevent seat movement in a forward and aft
direction and cannot lock the seat in position. A broken horizontal
actuator output shaft is the result of high loads that exceed the
design limits that are caused by a stalled motor that can occur due to
high mechanical resistance to motion during powered operation of the
seat. Foreign object debris (FOD) in the seat tracks is another
condition that can result in a stalled motor and cause the horizontal
actuator output shaft to break.
    An un-commanded seat movement during a critical part of a flight,
such as take-off or landing, could cause a flight control obstruction
or unintended flight control input, which could result in the loss of
the ability to control the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0539,
Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0539, Revision 1'').
The service information describes procedures for identification of the
part number, and, if applicable, the serial number of the Captain's and
First Officer's seats, and applicable on-condition actions. The on-
condition actions include an inspection of each seat's fore/aft and
vertical manual control levers for looseness, installation of
serviceable seats, and a seat functional test after any cable
adjustment.
    We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-
0549, Revision 1, dated August 10, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision
1''). The service information describes procedures for a one-time
detailed inspection and repetitive checks of the horizontal movement
system of the Captain's and First Officer's seats for findings (e.g.,
evidence of cracks, scores, corrosion, dents, deformation or visible
wear); and incorrectly assembled components (e.g., microswitch
assemblies, actuators, and limit switches), and applicable on-condition
actions. The on-condition actions include overhaul of the horizontal
movement system, clearing the seat tracks of FOD, replacement of the
horizontal actuator, and replacement of the horizontal movement system.
The service information also describes procedures for an optional
terminating action for the repetitive checks by installing a
serviceable Captain's or First Officer's seat.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0539,
Revision 1, described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,''
and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1, described previously,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1011.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The effectivity of BSASB 767-25-0539, Revision 1; and BSASB 767-25-
0549, Revision 1, is limited to Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER
series airplanes with Ipeco part number series 3A090 and 3A258
Captain's and First Officer's powered seats installed, line numbers 161
and on. However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all
Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. Because the
affected Captain's and First Officer's seats are rotable parts, we have

determined that these seats could later be installed on airplanes that
were initially delivered with acceptable seats, thereby subjecting
those airplanes to the unsafe condition. The referenced service
bulletins can be used on airplanes not included in the service bulletin
effectivity. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
    Where BSASB 767-25-0539, Revision 1, specifies to do the actions
``within 72 months after the Original Issue date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD would require accomplishment of those actions
``within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.'' The 36-month
compliance time corresponds with the compliance time in BSASB 767-25-
0549, Revision 1. We have determined a 36-month compliance time is
appropriate for doing the actions specified in this proposed AD. We
have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 90 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification, seat.............  1 work-hour x $85                $0  $85................  $7,650 per seat.
                                    per hour = $85.
Detailed inspection, horizontal    1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85 per seat.......  $7,650 per seat.
 movement system.                   per hour = $85,
                                    per seat.
Checks, horizontal movement        2 work-hour x $85                 0  $170 per seat, per   $15,130 per seat,
 system.                            per hour = $170                      check cycle.         per check cycle.
                                    per seat, per
                                    check cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost                Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment, control lever cable..  1 work-hour x $85     $0..................  $85 per seat.
                                    per hour = $85, per
                                    seat.
Overhaul or replacement,           Up to 15 work-hours   Up to $6,400 per      Up to $7,675 per seat.
 horizontal movement system.        x $85 per hour =      seat.
                                    $1,275, per seat.
Inspection of each seat's fore/    1 work-hour x $85     $0..................  $85 per seat.
 aft and vertical manual control    per hour = $85, per
 levers.                            seat.
Installation of serviceable seats  1 work-hour x $85     $0..................  $85 per seat.
                                    per hour = $85, per
                                    seat.
Clearing FOD.....................  1 work-hour x $85     $0..................  $85 per seat.
                                    per hour = $85, per
                                    seat.
Replacement of the horizontal      1 work-hour x $85     $205................  $290, per actuator.
 actuator.                          per hour = $85, per
                                    actuator.
Functional test, adjusted control  1 work-hour x $85     $0..................  $85, per seat.
 lever cable.                       per hour = $85, per
                                    seat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimated cost for tooling to align an affected seat for adjustment of the control lever cable is up to
  $46,064.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the optional terminating action for the on-condition
repetitive checks specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-1011; Product Identifier
2018-NM-131-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 11, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded movements of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats. We are issuing this AD to
address uncommanded movement of the Captain's and First Officer's
seats. An uncommanded seat movement during a critical part of a
flight, such as take-off or landing, could cause a flight control
obstruction or unintended flight control input, which could result
in the loss of the ability to control the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Seat Identification and On-Condition Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection to determine the part number, and serial number as
applicable, of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and do all
applicable on-condition actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-25-0539, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018.

(h) Detailed Inspection and Repetitive Checks of Horizontal Movement
System and On-Condition Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
dated August 10, 2018 (``BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1''), do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB
767-25-0549, Revision 1.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this AD: Where BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1, uses the phrase ``the
original issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(j) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Checks

    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 and 4 airplanes identified in
BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1: Installation of a serviceable
Captain's seat, as specified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
terminates the repetitive checks of the Captain's seat as required
by paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane only.
    (2) For Group 1, Configuration 3 and 4 airplanes: Installation
of a serviceable First Officer's seat BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1,
as specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of BSASB 767-25-0549, Revision 1, terminates the
repetitive checks of the First Officer's seat as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on December 13, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-27882 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 68118]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. PR13-4-000]

TexStar Transmission, LP; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

    Take notice that on November 2, 2012, TexStar Transmission, LP
(TexStar) filed a Petition for Rate Approval pursuant to 284.123(b)(2)
of the Commissions regulations for firm and interruptible natural gas
transportation services, as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 16, 2012.

    Dated: November 8, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27733 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32937]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR14-32-000]

Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 30, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)
(2014), Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Company LLC (THPP) filed a petition
for a declaratory order requesting that THPP's tariff rates and terms
proposed in a recently concluded Open Season for the Dunn Center
Gathering System will be honored for the term of the Transportation
Service Agreement entered into by each shipper. In addition, THPP seeks
approval of the rate design it proposes to employ, including the
initial rate, for uncommitted shippers, as more fully explained in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 30, 2014.

    Dated: June 3, 2014.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13363 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22751-22752]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09431]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74763; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules 11.6, 11.8,
11.9, 11.10 and 11.11 of EDGA Exchange, Inc.

April 17, 2015.
    On February 20, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rules 11.6, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10 and 11.11
to clarify and to include additional specificity regarding the current
functionality of the Exchange's System,\3\ including the operation of
its order types and order instructions. On February 27, 2015, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 10, 2015.\5\ The Commission received no
comment letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The term ``System'' is defined as ``the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(cc).
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced SR-EDGA-2015-10 and superseded such
filing in its entirety.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74435 (March 4,
2015), 80 FR 12655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute

proceedings to determine whether these proposed rule changes should be
disapproved. The 45th day for this filing is April 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Exchange's proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act \7\
and for the reasons stated above, the Commission designates June 8,
2015, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(File No. SR-EDGA-2015-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09431 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Document">
<META name="creation-date" content="05/12/2008 09:24:28 ">
<TITLE>Document</TITLE>

30949
Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 104 /Thursday, May 29, 2008 /Notices
a person with Medicare could be
identified because the sample is small
enough to identify participants. CMS
would make exceptions if the
information is needed for one of the
routine uses or if itís required by law.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,
RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND
DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
Records are stored on both tape
cartridges (magnetic storage media) and
in a DB2 relational database
management environment (DASD data
storage media).
RETRIEVABILITY:
Information is most frequently
retrieved by HICN, provider number
(facility, physician, IDs), service dates,
and beneficiary state code.
SAFEGUARDS AND PROTECTIONS:
CMS has protections in place for
authorized users to make sure they are
properly using the data and there is no
unauthorized use. Personnel having
access to the system have been trained
in the Privacy Act and information
security requirements. Employees who
maintain records in this system cannot
use or disclose data until the recipient
agrees to implement appropriate
management, operational and technical
safeguards that will protect the
confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of the information and
information systems.
This system would follow all
applicable Federal laws and regulations,
and Federal, HHS, and CMS security
and data privacy policies and standards.
These laws and regulations include but
are not limited to: the Privacy Act of
1974; the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 (when
applicable); the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of
1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the
Medicare Modernization Act of 2003,
and the corresponding implementing
regulations. OMB Circular Añ130,
Management of Federal Resources,
Appendix III, Security of Federal
Automated Information Resources also
applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS
policies and standards include but are
not limited to all pertinent National
Institute of Standards and Technology
publications, the HHS Information
Systems Program Handbook, and the
CMS Information Security Handbook.
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records are maintained with
identifiers for all transactions after they
are entered into the system for a period
of 20 years. Records are housed in both
active and archival files. All claims-
related records are encompassed by the
document preservation order and will
be retained until notification is received
from the Department of Justice.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Director, Centers for Beneficiary
Choices, CMS, Mail stop C5ñ19ñ07,
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland 21244ñ1850.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
For purpose of notification, the
subject individual should write to the
system manager who will require the
system name, and the retrieval selection
criteria (e.g., HICN, facility/pharmacy
number, service dates, etc.).
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
For purpose of access, use the same
procedures outlined in Notification
Procedures above. Requestors should
also reasonably specify the record
contents being sought. (These
procedures are in accordance with
Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5
(a)(2).)
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
The subject individual should contact
the system manager named above, and
reasonably identify the record and
specify the information to be contested.
State the corrective action sought and
the reasons for the correction with
supporting justification. (These
procedures are in accordance with
Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7.)
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Summary prescription drug claim
information contained in this system is
obtained from the Part D Sponsor daily
and monthly drug event transaction
reports, Medicare Beneficiary Database
(09ñ70ñ0530), and other payer
information to be provided by the
TROOP Facilitator.
SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT:
None.
[FR Doc. E8ñ11949 Filed 5ñ28ñ08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket Nos. FDA–2007–E–0461 (formerly
Docket No. 2007E–0424), FDA–2007–E–0165
(formerly Docket No. 2007E–0425), FDA–
2007
–E–0459 (formerly Docket No. 2007E–
0146)]
Determination of Regulatory Review
Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; LUCENTIS
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has determined
the regulatory review period for
LUCENTIS and is publishing this notice
of that determination as required by
law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of
applications to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of
Commerce, for the extension of patents
which claim that human biological
product.
ADDRESSES:
Submit written or electronic
comments and petitions to the Division
of Dockets Management (HFAñ305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD
20852. Submit electronic comments to
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beverly Friedman, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6222,
Silver Spring, MD, 20993ñ0002, 301ñ
796
–3602.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Drug
Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98ñ
417) and the Generic Animal Drug and
Patent Term Restoration Act (Public
Law 100ñ670) generally provide that a
patent may be extended for a period of
up to 5 years so long as the patented
item (human drug product, animal drug
product, medical device, food additive,
or color additive) was subject to
regulatory review by FDA before the
item was marketed. Under these acts, a
productís regulatory review period
forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may
receive.
A regulatory review period consists of
two periods of time: A testing phase and
an approval phase. For human
biological products, the testing phase
begins when the exemption to permit
the clinical investigations of the
biological product becomes effective
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1

30950
Federal Register /Vol. 73, No. 104 /Thursday, May 29, 2008 /Notices
and runs until the approval phase
begins. The approval phase starts with
the initial submission of an application
to market the human biological product
and continues until FDA grants
permission to market the biological
product. Although only a portion of a
regulatory review period may count
toward the actual amount of extension
that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example,
half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may
have occurred before the patent was
issued), FDAís determination of the
length of a regulatory review period for
a human biological product will include
all of the testing phase and approval
phase as specified in 35 U.S.C.
156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing
the human biologic product LUCENTIS
(ranibizumab). LUCENTIS is indicated
for the treatment of patients with
neovascular (wet) age-related macular
degeneration. Subsequent to this
approval, the Patent and Trademark
Office received patent term restoration
applications for LUCENTIS (U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,407,213; 6,884,879; and
7,060,269) from Genentech, Inc., and the
Patent and Trademark Office requested
FDAís assistance in determining this
patentís eligibility for patent term
restoration. In letters dated July 24,
2007, and November 21, 2007, FDA
advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human biological
product had undergone a regulatory
review period and that the approval of
LUCENTIS represented the first
permitted commercial marketing or use
of the product. Shortly thereafter, the
Patent and Trademark Office requested
that FDA determine the productís
regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the
applicable regulatory review period for
LUCENTIS is 2,430 days. Of this time,
2,247 days occurred during the testing
phase of the regulatory review period,
while 183 days occurred during the
approval phase. These periods of time
were derived from the following dates:
1.
The date an exemption under
section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i))
became effective: November 6, 1999.
The applicant claims October 7, 1999, as
the date the investigational new drug
application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the
IND effective date was November 6,
1999, which was 30 days after FDA
receipt of the IND.
2.
The date the application was
initially submitted with respect to the
human biological product under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 262): December 30, 2005. The
applicant claims December 29, 2005, as
the date the biologics license
application (BLA) for LUCENTIS (BLA
125156/0) was initially submitted.
However, FDA records indicate that
BLA 125156/0 was submitted on
December 30, 2005.
3.
The date the application was
approved: June 30, 2006. FDA has
verified the applicantís claim that BLA
125156/0 was approved on June 30,
2006.
This determination of the regulatory
review period establishes the maximum
potential length of a patent extension.
However, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office applies several
statutory limitations in its calculations
of the actual period for patent extension.
In its applications for patent extension
for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,407,213;
6,884,879; and 7,060,269, this applicant
seeks 378 days; 307 days or 17 days,
respectively, of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of
the dates as published are incorrect may
submit to the Division of Dockets
Management (see
ADDRESSES
) written or
electronic comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 28, 2008.
Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by
November 25, 2008. To meet its burden,
the petition must contain sufficient facts
to merit an FDA investigation. (See H.
Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess.,
pp. 41ñ42, 1984.) Petitions should be in
the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Comments and petitions should be
submitted to the Division of Dockets
Management. Three copies of any
mailed information are to be submitted,
except that individuals may submit one
copy. Comments are to be identified
with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this
document. Comments and petitions may
be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Please note that on January 15, 2008,
the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to
the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a
Government-wide, electronic docket
management system. Electronic
comments or submissions will be
accepted by FDA only through FDMS at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Dated: May 8, 2008.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. E8ñ12007 Filed 5ñ28ñ08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2007–M–0467] (formerly
Docket No. 2007M–0408), [Docket No. FDA–
2007
–M–0481] (formerly Docket No. 2007M–
0467), [Docket No. FDA–2007–M–0480]
(formerly Docket No. 2007M–0409), [Docket
No. FDA–2007–M–0472] (formerly Docket
No. 2007M–0413), [Docket No. FDA–2007–
M–0468] (formerly Docket No. 2007M–0446),
[Docket No. FDA–2007–M–0494] (formerly
Docket No. 2007M–0380), [Docket No. FDA–
2007
–M–0493] (formerly Docket No. 2007M–
0411), [Docket No. FDA–2007–M–0492]
(formerly Docket No. 2007M–0410), [Docket
No. FDA–2007–M–0490] (formerly Docket
No. 2007M–0415), [Docket No. FDA–2007–
M–0491] (formerly Docket No. 2007M–0447]
Medical Devices; Availability of Safety
and Effectiveness Summaries for
Premarket Approval Applications
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is publishing a
list of premarket approval applications
(PMAs) that have been approved. This
list is intended to inform the public of
the availability of safety and
effectiveness summaries of approved
PMAs through the Internet and the
agencyís Division of Dockets
Management.
ADDRESSES:
Submit written requests for
copies of summaries of safety and
effectiveness data to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFAñ305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Please cite the appropriate docket
number as listed in Table 1 of this
document when submitting a written
request. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section for electronic
access to the summaries of safety and
effectiveness.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samie Allen, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZñ402), Food
and Drug Administration, 9200
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,
240
–276–4013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9221-9222]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03389]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0192]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Establishing and Maintaining Lists of United States
Milk Product Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
entitled, ``Establishing and Maintaining Lists of United States (U.S.)
Milk Product Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S. Milk Product Manufacturers/
Processors With Interest in Exporting (OMB Control Number 0910-0509)--
Revision

    The United States exports a large volume and variety of foods in
international trade. For certain food products, foreign governments may
require assurances from the responsible authority of the country of
origin of an imported food that the processor of the food is in
compliance with applicable country of origin regulatory requirements.
With regard to U.S. milk products, FDA is the competent U.S. food
safety authority to provide this information to foreign governments. We
provide the requested information about processors in the form of
lists. The lists are provided to the foreign governments and also
posted online at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ImportsExports/Exporting/default.htm. The term ``milk product,'' for
purposes of this information collection, includes products defined in
21 CFR 1240.3(j) and any product requested by foreign governments to be
included in this list process.
    We currently provide Chile a list of U.S. milk product
manufacturers/processors that have expressed interest in exporting
their products to Chile, are subject to our jurisdiction, and are not
the subject of a pending judicial enforcement action (i.e., an
injunction or seizure) or a pending warning letter. In the Federal
Register of June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36190), we announced the availability
of a revised guidance document entitled, ``Establishing and Maintaining
a List of U.S. Dairy Product Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in
Exporting to Chile.'' The guidance can be found at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ImportsExports/ucm078936.htm.
    FDA was asked to provide a list to China in response to China's
State General Administration of the People's Republic of China for
Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) issuance of
Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers,
known as AQSIQ Decree 145. Accordingly, we established and maintain for
China a list that identifies U.S. milk product manufacturers/processors
that have expressed interest to us in exporting milk products to China,
are subject to our jurisdiction, and are not the subject of a pending
judicial enforcement action (i.e., an injunction or seizure) or a
pending warning letter. On January 9, 2014, we issued a guidance
document entitled, ``Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Milk
Product Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting to China.''
The guidance can be found at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ImportsExports/ucm378777.htm.
    As noted, we provided the new list to China in response to AQSIQ
Decree 145. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13, FDA requested emergency
OMB review and approval of the collections of information found in the
guidance document. The routine course of OMB approval would not have
been in the best interest of the public health because it would have
delayed our ability to collect the information from firms and, thus,
would have been disruptive in our efforts to facilitate services that
have been requested by China in AQSIQ Decree 145. OMB granted the
approval under the emergency clearance procedures on November 7, 2013.
    The guidance documents are published under the authority of section
701(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)),
which authorizes the Secretary to develop guidance documents with
public participation presenting the views of the Secretary on matters
under the jurisdiction of the FDA.

    The guidance documents explain what information firms should submit
to us in order to be considered for inclusion on the lists and what
criteria we intend to use to determine eligibility for placement on the
lists. The guidance documents also explain how we intend to update the
list and how we intend to communicate any new information to the
government that requested the list. Finally, the guidance documents
note that the information is provided voluntarily by firms with the
understanding that it will be posted on our Web site and communicated
to, and possibly further disseminated by, the government that requested
the list; thus, we consider the information on the lists to be
information that is not protected from disclosure under 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4).
    Application for inclusion on each list is voluntary. In the
guidance documents, we recommend that U.S. firms that want to be placed
on either list send the following information to us: Name and address
of the firm and the manufacturing plant; name, telephone number, and
email address (if available) of the contact person; a list of products
presently shipped and expected to be shipped in the next 3 years;
identities of agencies that inspect the plant and the date of last
inspection; plant number and copy of last inspection notice; and, if
other than an FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report. We
request that this information be updated every 2 years.
    We use the information submitted by firms to determine their
eligibility for placement on the list, which is published on our Web
site. The purpose of the list is to help the governments of Chile and
China in their determination of which U.S. milk product manufacturers
are eligible to export to their respective countries.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this information
collection include U.S. food product manufacturers/processors subject
to our jurisdiction that wish to export products requested by foreign
governments to be included in this list process.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New written requests to be                   125               1             125             1.5             188
 placed on the list.............
Biennial updates................             125               1             125             1.0             125
Occasional updates..............              50               1              50             0.5              25
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             338
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The estimate of the number of firms that will submit new written
requests to be placed on the list, biennial updates, and occasional
updates is based on the FDA's experience maintaining the list over the
past 8 years. The estimate of the number of hours that it will take a
firm to gather the information needed to be placed on the list or
update its information is based on FDA's experience with firms
submitting similar requests. FDA believes that the information to be
submitted will be readily available to the firms.
    Based on submissions received for the Chile list over the past 3
years and the China list over the past 3 months, we estimate that,
annually, an average of 100 new firms will submit written requests to
be placed on the China list and 25 new firms will seek to be placed on
the Chile list, reported as 125 total respondents on line 1 of table 1.
We estimate that a firm will require 1.5 hours to read the guidance, to
gather the information needed, and to prepare a communication to FDA
that contains the information and requests that the firm be placed on
the list, for a total of 187.5 burden hours, rounded to 188, as
reported on line 1 of table 1. Under the guidance, every 2 years each
firm on the list must provide updated information in order to remain on
the list.
    There are approximately 250 firms on the 2 lists combined. We
estimate that, each year, approximately half of the firms on the list,
125 firms, will resubmit the information to remain on the list. We
estimate that a firm already on the list will require 1 hour to
biennially update and resubmit the information to us, including time
reviewing the information and corresponding with us, for a total of 125
hours. In addition, we expect that, each year, approximately 50 firms
will need to submit an occasional update and each firm will require 0.5
hours to prepare a communication to us reporting the change, for a
total of 125 hours.

    Dated: February 12, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-03389 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14254-14256]
[DOCID:fr27mr07-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 292

[Docket No. RM07-11-000]

Applicability of Federal Power Act Section 215 to Qualifying
Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities

March 16, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
proposing to amend its regulations governing qualifying small power
production and cogeneration facilities, to eliminate the exemption from
the requirements of section 215 of the Federal Power Act. From a
reliability perspective, there does not appear to be a meaningful
distinction between QF and non-QF generators that would warrant
exemption of QFs from mandatory Reliability Standards.

DATES: Comments are due April 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM07-11-
000, by one of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://ferc.gov. Follow the instructions

for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment
Procedures section of the Preamble.
     Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically
must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426. Refer to the Comment
Procedures section of the preamble for additional information on how to
file paper comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Singh (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Samuel Higginbottom (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    1. The Commission is proposing to amend the exemptions available to
qualifying facilities (QFs) so that they would no longer be exempt from
newly-added section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).\1\ From a
reliability perspective, there does not appear to be a meaningful
distinction between QF and non-QF generators that would warrant
exemption of QFs from mandatory Reliability Standards. The benefit of
this proposal will be increased reliability of the North American Bulk-
Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. On August 8, 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005,
which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005), was enacted into law.\2\ EPAct 2005 adds a new section 215 to
the Federal Power Act (FPA),\3\ which requires a Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission
review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be
enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, which
implements newly-added section 215 and provides specific processes for
the certification of an entity as the ERO, the development and approval
of mandatory Reliability Standards, and the compliance with and
enforcement of approved Reliability Standards.\4\ On April 4, 2006,
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) made two
filings: (1) An application for certification of NERC as the ERO; and
(2) a petition for Commission approval of Reliability Standards, with
eight regional differences and a glossary of terms. On July 20, 2006,
the Commission issued an order certifying NERC as the ERO.\5\ On
October 20, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
proposing to approve 83 of 107 proposed Reliability Standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR
8662 (Feb. 17, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 (2006), order on
reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (Apr. 18, 2006), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 116 FERC ]
61,062 (2006).
    \6\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power Market,
72 FR 64770 (Oct. 20, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,608 (2006)
(Reliability NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In response to the Reliability NOPR, Cogeneration Association of
California and the Energy Producers and Users Coalition (CAC/EPUC)
filed comments pointing out that QFs are exempt from section 215 by
virtue of section 292.601(c) of the Commission's regulations.\7\ CAC/
EPUC suggest that the Commission intentionally exempted QFs from
section 215. CAC/EPUC explain that in Order No. 671 issued on February
2, 2006,\8\ the Commission stated that it saw no reason to exempt QFs
from the newly added FPA sections 220, 221 and 222,\9\ and explicitly
excluded those sections of the FPA from the QF exemptions contained in
section 292.601 of its regulations, while making no similar mention of
section 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 292.601(c).
    \8\ Revised Regulations Governing Small Power Production and
Cogeneration Facilities, Order No. 671, 71 FR 7852 (Feb. 2, 2006),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,203 (2006), order on rehearing, Order No.
771-A, 71 FERC 30583 (May 22, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31.219
(2006).
    \9\ 16 U.S.C. 824t-v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Section 215(b) grants the Commission jurisdiction over ``all
users, owners, and operators of the bulk-power system'' for ``purposes
of approving

reliability standards. . . . and enforcing compliance with [section
215]'', and further provides that ``[a]ll users, owners and operators
of the bulk-power system shall comply with reliability standards that
take effect under this section.'' \10\ Given the statutory directive
that all users, owners and operators of the bulk-power system must
comply with the reliability standards that take effect under section
215, it may no longer be appropriate to allow QFs a continued exemption
from compliance with the newly-adopted mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards that apply to generator owners and operators.\11\
Moreover, from a reliability perspective, there would seem to be no
meaningful distinction between QF and non-QF generators that would
warrant exemption of QFs from the newly-adopted mandatory Reliability
Standards. Indeed, QF generators would seem to affect the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System as much as non-QF generators, and so QF
generators should be subject to the newly-adopted mandatory Reliability
Standards. In this regard, we note that while many QFs are small
facilities, others are quite large. We see no justification for large
facilities to be exempt from the newly-adopted mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards. Accordingly, we are proposing to
amend Sec.  292.601(c)(3) to add section 215 to the list of FPA
sections from which QFs are not exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(b). Section 215(b) also states that entities
described in section 201(f), entities that are otherwise exempt from
Part II of the FPA unless a provision is specifically applicable to
those entities, are subject to section 215. Id.
    \11\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 (2007) (issued
concurrently with this NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The threshold for applicability of the Reliability Standards to
generating units is 20 MVA (gross nameplate rating) for an individual
generating unit, or 75 MVA (gross nameplate rating) in aggregate for a
generating plant.\12\ In addition, the Reliability Standards are
applicable to: any generator, regardless of size that is a blackstart
unit material to and designated as part of a transmission operator
entity's restoration plan; or any generator, regardless of size, that
is material to the reliability of the bulk-power system; the
determination to include an otherwise exempt facility would be made on
a facility-by-facility basis by the ERO or Regional Entity. However, an
entity that disagrees with NERC's determination to place it in the
compliance registry may submit a challenge in writing to NERC and, if
still not satisfied, may lodge an appeal with the Commission.
Therefore, a small entity may appeal to the Commission if it believes
it should not be required to comply with the Reliability Standards.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the total
universe of qualifying facilities is 3,265 entities. Of these, 2,423
entities are below 20 MW (which, as noted above, roughly corresponds to
the 20 MVA standard for applicability of the reliability standards),
which leaves 842 entities that could be potentially impacted by the
reliability standards. Of these 842 entities, only 745 are listed by
EIA as being interconnected to the grid. Thus, out of a total of 3265
QFs, only 745, or 23 percent of all QFs would meet the generally
applicable threshold of 20 MVA (although some other QFs may be
specified as either blackstart units material to and designated as part
of a transmission operator entity's restoration plan or as generators
material to the reliability of the bulk-power system). In sum, while
there would seem to be no basis to exempt all QFs from the mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards, as a result of the threshold for
applicability of the Reliability Standards to generating units, and
based on EIA data, it appears that less than a quarter of all QFs will,
in fact, be affected by our proposal to eliminate the QF exemption from
the requirements of section 215 of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. A 20 MVA threshold corresponds to 20 MW, if a unit is
operating at a unity power factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Collection Statement

    7. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \13\ requires each Federal
agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection
of information directed to ten or more persons, or continuing a
collection for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
and validity of the control number are about to expire.\14\ The PRA
defines the phrase ``collection of information'' to be the ``obtaining,
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format, calling for either--(i) answers to
identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the United States; or (ii) answers
to questions posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the
United States which are to be used for general statistical purposes.''
\15\ OMB regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \14\ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3).
    \15\ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
    \16\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As noted above, the Commission is proposing to amend the
exemption available to qualifying facilities from the requirements of
section 215 of the FPA. Because the Commission is not proposing
information collections in this rulemaking, it is not subject to OMB
review under the PRA. However, the Commission will submit for
informational purposes only a copy of this rulemaking to OMB.

Environmental Analysis

    9. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\17\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. As explained above, this proposed rule carries out the
intent of legislation, specifically section 215 of the FPA. It lifts an
exemption and thus makes section 215 of the FPA applicable to QFs; it
does not substantially change the effect of the legislation.
Accordingly, no environmental consideration is necessary.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \18\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \19\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The total
universe of qualifying facilities is 3,265 entities. Of these, 2,423
entities are below 20 MW (the threshold for applicability of the
Reliability Standards is 20 MVA for an individual generating unit, or
75 MVA in aggregate for a generating plant \20\) which leaves 842
entities that could be potentially impacted by the reliability
standards. Of these 842 entities, only 745 are listed as being
interconnected to the grid. Accordingly, we estimate that out of a
total of 3265 QFs, only 745, or 23 per cent of all QFs would likely be
affected by the change in regulations proposed here. Thus, most, if not
all, QFs affected by this rule do not fall

within the definition of small entities,\21\ nor do they meet the
threshold criteria for applicability of the RFA to electric utilities
established by the Small Business Administration, which is based on a
size standard of 4 million MWh.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \20\ The 20 MVA threshold corresponds to 20 MW, if a unit is
operating at a unity power factor.
    \21\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632.
    \22\ The Small Business Size Standard component of the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) defines a small
utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily engaged
in generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy
for sale and whose total electric output for the preceding fiscal
years did not exceed 4 million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Procedures

    11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the change proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due April 16, 2007. Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM07-11-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
Comments and reply comments may be filed either in electronic or paper
format.
    12. Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The

Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters
may attach additional files with supporting information in certain
other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to
make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments and
reply comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    13. All comments and reply comments will be placed in the
Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document Availability section below.
Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their
comments and reply comments on other commenters.

Document Availability

    14. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and

in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    15. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    16. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-
mail at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at
(202) 502-8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 292

    Electric power, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural
gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
part 292, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as
follows.

PART 292--REGULATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 201 AND 210 OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978 WITH REGARD TO SMALL POWER
PRODUCTION AND COGENERATION

    1. The authority citation for part 292 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. In Sec.  292.601 paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  292.601  Exemption to qualifying facilities from the Federal
Power Act.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Sections 202(c), 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 220, 221 and
222;
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-5285 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P