[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57814-57817]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0805; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00951-R;
Amendment 39-22182; AD 2022-19-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,

and AS355NP helicopters. This AD was prompted by the identification of
certain parts needing maintenance actions, including life limits and
maintenance tasks. This AD requires incorporating into existing
maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations), as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 27, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 27,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
final rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus Helicopters service information
identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North
Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800)
232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this material at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Service information that
is IBRed is also available in the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0805.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0805; 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 final rule, the EASA AD,
any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Bradley, Program Manager, COS
Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0193, dated August 20, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0193) to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, and
Aerospatiale, Model AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N,
and AS 355 NP helicopters, all serial numbers. EASA AD 2021-0193
requires accomplishment of the actions in the applicable Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) as defined in EASA AD 2021-0193.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters
Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30,
2022 (87 FR 39019). The NPRM was prompted by the identification of
certain parts needing maintenance actions, including life limits and
maintenance tasks. The NPRM proposed to require incorporating into
maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations), as
specified in EASA AD 2021-0193.

Relationship Between This AD and Other Relevant Rulemaking

    EASA AD 2021-0193 states that it takes over the requirements for
Model AS 355 helicopters from EASA AD 2010-0006, dated January 7, 2010
(EASA AD 2010-0006) (which prompted FAA AD 2011-22-05 R1, Amendment 39-
17765 (79 FR 14169, March 13, 2014) (AD 2011-22-05 R1)) and EASA AD
2015-0094, dated May 29, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0094) (which prompted FAA
AD 2016-25-20, Amendment 39-18746 (81 FR 94954, December 27, 2016) (AD
2016-25-20)). EASA AD 2021-0193 also notes that the requirements of
EASA AD 2010-0006 and EASA AD 2015-0094 have been incorporated into the
applicable ALS specified in EASA AD 2021-0193.
    Accordingly, this final rule does not supersede AD 2011-22-05 R1 or
AD 2016-25-20. Rather, the FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD is
more appropriate to address the changes in EASA AD 2021-0193.
Therefore, this AD requires incorporating into existing maintenance
records requirements (airworthiness limitations), as specified in the
applicable ALS, as defined in EASA AD 2021-0193. Accomplishment of the
required actions terminates all of the requirements of AD 2011-22-05 R1
and AD 2016-25-20 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N,
and AS355NP helicopters only.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0193 requires certain actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks.
    This material 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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters AS 355 E Chapter 04 ALS
Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 F
Chapter 04 ALS Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; Airbus
Helicopters AS 355 F1 Chapter 04 ALS Revision 010, dated September 14,
2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 F2 Chapter 04 ALS Revision 011, dated
September 14, 2020; Airbus Helicopters AS 355 N Chapter 04 ALS,
Revision 010, dated September 14, 2020; and Airbus Helicopters AS 355
NP Chapter 04 ALS Revision 009, dated February 4, 2019. This service
information specifies procedures for mandatory actions for continued
airworthiness.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations

    The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by
mandating each airworthiness limitation task (e.g., inspections and
replacements (life limits)) as an AD requirement or issuing ADs that
require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual or
instructions for continued airworthiness

to incorporate new or revised inspections and life limits. This AD,
however, requires operators to incorporate into maintenance records
required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for
your helicopter, the requirements (airworthiness limitations) specified
in a civil aviation authority AD. The FAA does not intend this as a
substantive change. For these ADs, the ALS requirements for operators
are the same but are complied with differently. Requiring the
incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the existing maintenance
records, rather than requiring individual ALS tasks (e.g., repetitive
inspections and replacements), requires operators to record AD
compliance once after updating the maintenance records, rather than
after every time the ALS task is completed.
    In addition, paragraph (h) of this AD allows operators to
incorporate later approved revisions of the ALS document as specified
in the Ref. Publications section of EASA AD 2021-0193 without the need
for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC).

Differences Between This AD and EASA AD 2021-0193

    Paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0193 requires compliance with actions
and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and
maintenance tasks, from the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0193.
Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0193 requires incorporating the actions
and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and
maintenance tasks, into the approved maintenance program within 12
months after the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0193. This AD requires
incorporating into existing maintenance records requirements
(airworthiness limitations) within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 45 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Incorporating into existing maintenance records, requirements
(airworthiness limitations) takes about 2 work-hours for an estimated
cost of $170 per helicopter and $7,650 for the U.S. fleet.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-19-13 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-22182; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0805; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00951-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 27, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-22-05 R1, Amendment 39-17765 (79 FR
14169, March 13, 2014) (AD 2011-22-05 R1); and AD 2016-25-20,
Amendment 39-18746 (81 FR 94954, December 27, 2016) (AD 2016-25-20).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the identification of certain parts
needing maintenance actions, including life limits and maintenance
tasks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failure of certain
parts, which could result in the loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, incorporate
into maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or
135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your rotorcraft, the requirements
(airworthiness limitations) specified in paragraph (1) of European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0193, dated August 20,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0193).

(h) Provisions for Alternative Requirements (Airworthiness Limitations)

    After the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been
done, no alternative requirements (airworthiness limitations) are
allowed unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of
the ``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2021-0193.

(i) Terminating Action for ADs 2011-22-05 R1 and 2016-25-20

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2011-22-05 R1 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,
AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters only.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all
requirements of AD 2016-25-20 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,
AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters only.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are prohibited.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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
International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kristi Bradley,
Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0193,
dated August 20, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0193, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0805.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 9, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20542 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3019]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1026]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66149; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Post-Trade
Transparency for Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities Traded
TBA

January 13, 2012.
    On November 22, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change related to post-trade transparency for agency
pass-through mortgage-backed securities traded ``to be announced''
(``MBS TBA Transactions''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011.\3\ The Commission
received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65877 (December 2,
2011), 76 FR 76777.
    \4\ See letter from Chris Killian, Managing Director,
Securitization, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
December 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ 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 the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is January 22, 2012. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the proposed rule change, the
comment received, and any response to the comment submitted by FINRA.
The proposed rule change would, among other things, provide for post-
trade transparency of MBS TBA Transactions that are reported to the
Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'').
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates March 7, 2012, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-1026 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63252-63257]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22029]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78788; File No. SR-ISE-2016-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Add Specificity to the Definition of a Professional in the
Exchange's Rules

September 8, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 30, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 100(a)(37C)
(Definitions) to add specificity to the definition of a Professional
with respect to the manner in which the volume threshold will be
calculated by the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office

of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``Professional''
in Rule 100(a)(37C) to specify the manner in which the Exchange
calculates orders to determine if an order should be treated as
Professional Order.
Background
    Exchange Rule 100(a)(37C) currently states, that the term
Professional Order means an order that is for the account of a person
or entity that is not a Priority Customer. A Priority Customer means a
person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
(ii) does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).\3\
In order to properly represent orders entered on the Exchange, members
are required to indicate whether orders are ``Professional Orders.'' To
comply with this requirement, members are required to review their
Priority Customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to determine
whether orders that are not for the account of a broker-dealer should
be represented as Priority Customer Orders or Professional Orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 100(a)(37A).
    \4\ Orders for any customer that had an average of more than 390
orders per day during any month of a calendar quarter must be
represented as Professional Orders for the next calendar quarter.
Members will be required to conduct a quarterly review and make any
appropriate changes to the way in which they are representing orders
within five days after the end of each calendar quarter. While
Members only will be required to review their accounts on a
quarterly basis, if during a quarter the Exchange identifies a
customer for which orders are being represented as Priority Customer
Orders but that has averaged more than 390 orders per day during a
month, the Exchange will notify the Member and the Member will be
required to change the manner in which it is representing the
customer's orders within five days. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 57254 (February 1, 2008), 73 FR 7345 (February 7, 2008)
(SR-ISE-2006-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange accepts orders routed from other markets that are
marked Professional Orders. The designation of Professional Order does
not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of
Exchange rules concerning away market protection. That is, all non-
broker or dealer orders, including those that meet the definition of
Professional Orders, are treated equally for purposes of Exchange away
market protection rules.\5\ The Exchange continues to believe that
identifying Professional Orders based upon the average number of orders
entered in qualified accounts is an appropriately objective approach to
reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail investors
or market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rules 1901, 1902 and 1903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to count each Professional Order, regardless
of the options exchange to which the order was routed in determining
Professional Orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All order types count toward the 390 orders on average per
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancel and Replace
    A cancel and replace order is a type of order that replaces a prior
order. The Exchange believes that the second order (the replacement
order) should be counted as a new order. Complex Orders \7\ consisting
of eight legs or fewer will be counted as a single order, and with
Complex Orders of nine options \8\ legs or more, each leg will count as
a separate order. With respect to ``single-strike algorithms,'' which
are a series of cancel and replace orders in an individual strike which
track the Best Bid and Offer (``BBO'') or National Best Bid and Offer
(``NBBO''), these orders shall be counted as new orders.\9\ The
Exchange believes that because the Priority Customer is specifically
instructing the executing broker in the ``single-strike algorithm''
scenario to cancel and replace these orders, that this type of activity
is akin to market making in a Priority Customer account and should be
counted, as a new order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, for the same account, in a ratio that is
equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal
to three-to-one (3.00) and for the purpose of executing a particular
investment strategy. Rule 722(a)(1).
    \8\ Orders that have nine legs, where one leg is a stock, will
be considered one order. Stock orders shall not count toward the
number of legs.
    \9\ Cancel messages do not count as an order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent/Child Orders
    An order that converts into multiple subordinate orders to achieve
an execution strategy shall be counted as one order per side and
series, even if the order is routed away.\10\ An order that cancels and
replaces a resulting subordinate order and results in multiple sides/
series shall be counted as a new order on each side and series. For
purposes of counting Professional Orders, the manner in which the
Priority Customer submitted the order and whether the order was on the
same side and series will determine if the order will count as one
order. If one Priority Customer order on the same side and series is
subsequently broken-up by a broker into multiple orders for purposes of
execution or routed away, this order will count as one order. The
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment will provide more
certainty to market participants in determining the manner in which the
Exchange will compute the number of orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) to
determine the Professional Order designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An order which is placed for the beneficial account(s) of a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities that
is broken into multiple parts by a broker or dealer or by an
algorithm housed at a broker or dealer or by an algorithm licensed
from a broker or dealer. Strategies include Complex Orders and
volatility orders, for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to make clear when orders will count as new orders, the
Exchange offers the following scenarios as examples.
     The Exchange proposes to count multiple orders that were
submitted by the member as separate orders as multiple orders.
     The Exchange proposes to count a single order submitted by
a member, which was automatically executed in multiple parts by the
trading system, as one order, because the member did not intervene to
create multiple orders. Another example is where an order was entered
in the trading system and only partially filled, the order would count
as one order. The subsequent fills, which could be multiple executions,
would not count as additional orders in determining the 390 limit. The
manner in which the order is ultimately executed, as one order or
multiple orders, should not itself determine whether the activity
qualified as a Professional Order; also the member did not intervene in
that circumstance.

     The Exchange proposes to count orders, which result in
multiple orders due to cancel and replacement orders, as new orders.
This is because in this situation the member did intervene to create
the subsequent orders.
     The Exchange proposes to count an order submitted by the
Priority Customer as a single order, on the same side and series, as a
single order despite the fact that a broker broke-up the order into
multiple orders for purposes of execution.
    The Exchange previously issued a notice which described the manner
in which it believed thresholds should be computed for determining if
an order qualifies as a Professional Order.\11\ This rule supersedes
the Exchange's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See International Securities Exchange LLC's Regulatory
Information Circular (2009-179) dated June 23, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that there has been industry confusion as to
which orders count toward the 390 contract threshold. The Exchange's
proposal is intended to provide clarity and to continue to promote
consistency in the treatment of orders as Professional Orders by filing
a rule change similar to other options exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NASDAQ BX, Inc, and NASDAQ Options Market LLC have similar
rules in place for computing Professional orders. See BX Rules at
Chapter I, Section 1(49). See NOM Rules at Chapter I, Section 1(48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below are some examples of the calculation of Professional Orders.
Example #1
    A Priority Customer has an order to buy 100 calls at a volatility
level of 35. The order then generates a child order resulting in a 1.00
bid for 100 options which is sent to Exchange A. After the underlying
stock price ticks up 2 cents the child order is then adjusted to
reflect a 35 level volatility which in this case (50 delta) results in
a 1.01 bid sent to Exchange A replacing the current 1.00 bid.
    In determining the number of orders that attribute to the 390 order
count, in this case, because the child order is being canceled and
replaced in the ``same series'' this would only count as one (1) order
for purposes of Professional designation calculation.
Example #2
    A Priority Customer has an order to buy 20k Vega at a 35 volatility
level in symbol XYZ. The order then generates 50 child orders across
different strikes. Throughout the day those 50 orders are adjusted as
the stock moves resulting in the replacement of child orders to the
tune of 5 times per order (50 x 5 cancels) resulting in 250 total
orders generated to Exchange A.
    In determining the number of orders that attribute to the 390 order
count, in this case, because the child orders generated are across
multiple series it would be necessary to count all 250 orders
    In addition to the above examples, the Exchange provides the below
chart to demonstrate the manner in which it will count orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Single                      Multiple
--------------------------------------------------------
                         Single Strike Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer Order posted to 1                  x   ...............
 SRO order Book.......................
Priority Customer Order posted to                    x   ...............
 Multiple SRO order Books
 simultaneously.......................
Cancel/Replace Activity...............               x   ...............
Cancel/Replace Activity tracking BBO    ...............               x
 or NBBO..............................
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr---------------------------------
           Complex Order Activity (8 option strikes or fewer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer Order posted to 1                  x   ...............
 SRO order book.......................
Priority Customer Order posted to                    x   ...............
 Multiple SRO Complex Order books
 simultaneously.......................
Cancel/Replace Activity...............               x   ...............
Cancel/Replace Activity tracking BBO                 x   ...............
 or NBBO..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Complex Order Activity (9 option strikes or greater)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer Order posted to 1     ...............               x
 SRO order book.......................
Priority Customer Order posted to       ...............               x
 Multiple SRO Complex Order Books
 simultaneously.......................
Cancel/Replace Activity...............  ...............               x
Cancel/Replace Activity tracking BBO    ...............               x
 or NBBO..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singular--counts as a single order towards the 390 count
Multiple--each order applies towards the 390 count
    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule on October 3, 2016 to
provide market participants with advance notice for their quarterly
calculations. The Exchange will issue a Market Information Circular in
advance to inform market participants of such date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by promoting the consistent application of its rules by
further defining the manner in which the Exchange will compute the
number of orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar
month for its own beneficial account(s) for purposes of determining the
Professional Order designation. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that
specifying the manner in which the 390 threshold will be calculated
within its Rules will provide members with certainty and provide them
with insight as they conduct their own quarterly reviews for purposes
of designating orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that counting all orders toward the number of
orders, regardless of the options exchange to which the order was
routed, will promote the consistent application of its rules by making
clear that all order types shall be counted as well as all orders for
the purpose of determining whether the definition of Professional Order
has been met. The Exchange

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
previously noted in its filing which created Professional Orders that,

    The Exchange believes that identifying professional account
holders based upon the average number of orders entered for a
beneficial account is an appropriately objective approach that will
reasonably distinguish such persons and entities from retail
investors. The Exchange proposes the threshold of 390 orders per day
on average over a calendar month because it believes it far exceeds
the number of orders that are entered by retail investors in a
single day, while being a sufficiently low number of orders to cover
the professional account holders that are competing with broker-
dealers in the ISE marketplace. In addition, basing the standard on
the number of orders that are entered in listed options for a
beneficial account(s) assures that professional account holders
cannot inappropriately avoid the purpose of the rule by spreading
their trading activity over multiple exchanges, and using an average
number over a calendar month will prevent gaming of the 390 order
threshold.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57254 (February 1,
2008), 73 FR 7345 (February 7, 2008) (SR-ISE-2006-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancel and Replace
    With respect to determining the Professional Order designation, a
cancel and replace order which replaces a prior order shall be counted
as a second order. An order that is filled partially or in its entirety
or is a replacement order that is automatically canceled or reduced by
the number of contracts that were executed will not count as second
order because it was not replaced. The Exchange believes that counting
the replacement order as a second order is consistent with Exchange
Rules because the replacement order is viewed as a new order with its
own unique identifier.
    The Exchange believes that counting cancel and replace orders with
``single-strike algorithms,'' which are a series of cancel and replace
orders in an individual strike which track the BBO or NBBO, as new
orders is consistent with the Act because the Priority Customer is
specifically instructing the executing broker in the ``single-strike
algorithm'' scenario to cancel and replace these orders. Tracking the
BBO or NBBO \16\ is akin to market making on the Exchange in a Priority
Customer account and should be counted as new orders. The Exchange
believes that the Priority Customers order designation should be
reserved for a Priority Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Tracking the BBO or NBBO shall mean any parent order that
consumes any self-regulatory organization order book data feed, or
the OPRA feed, to generate automated child orders, and move with, or
follow the Bid or Offer of the series in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange's interpretation that Complex Orders
consisting of eight legs or fewer will be counted as a single order,
and respecting Complex Orders of nine options legs or more, each leg
will count as a separate order is consistent with the Act, because the
Exchange believes that nine or more options legs is sufficient quantity
to justify counting these orders separately toward the volume count.
The initial purpose of the rule change was to distinguish retail
investors over market Professionals. The Exchange believes that
typically Priority Customer Orders will not be as complex as to have
nine legs and therefore using nine as the threshold reasonably
differentiates Priority Customer Orders from Professional Orders. The
Exchange believes that nine or more options legs evidences the
distinction between the trading behavior of a retail investors as
compared to a market Professional that would engaged in Complex Orders
with nine or more options legs.
Parent/Child Orders
    The Exchange's adoption of the Professional Order was to treat
orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month in
his or her own beneficial account differently from Priority Customer
Orders for purposes of priority within the order book and pricing.\17\
For this reason, the Exchange is adopting rules concerning the
computation of orders which convert into multiple subordinate orders
for the purpose of determining the Professional Order designation. The
Exchange's proposal to count multiple subordinate orders that achieve
an execution strategy as one order per side and series and count an
order that cancels and replaces a resulting subordinate order and
results in multiple sides/series as a new order is consistent with the
Act, because the Exchange is distinguishing where the member is
actively entering orders that result in multiple orders and canceling
and replacing orders that result in multiple orders versus where the
member had no control of the resulting executions. Allowing orders on
the same side of the market to be counted as a single order is
consistent with the original intent of the Professional Order
designation. The same side of market distinction protects Priority
Customers. This practice is typically the type of transaction Priority
Customers execute versus a Professional trader. Multiple related orders
resulting from a large order filled in part, or an order which is
cancelled and replaced several times are considered part of a related
order. The Exchange does not desire to count large orders filled in
part as multiple orders because the member did not intervene in the
outcome of the execution. An order that results in several separate and
unrelated orders would be counted as multiple orders because the member
intervened in this circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\See Exchange Rule 713 and the Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment will provide more
certainty to market participants in determining the computation of the
number of orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar
month for its own beneficial account(s) to determine the Professional
Order designation. The Exchange believes that there is confusion as to
which orders count toward the 390 contract threshold. The Exchange
proposes to provide clarity to its Rules with specific guidance as to
the computation of Professional Orders, which it believes will promote
consistency in the treatment of orders as Professional orders. The
Exchange believes that this proposed guidance will promote consistency
and permit the proper calculation of options orders to prevent members
with high volume from receiving benefits reserved for Priority Customer
Orders. The Professional Order designation focuses specifically on the
number of orders generated.
    Priority is one of the marketplace advantages provided to Priority
Customer orders on the Exchange. Priority Customer orders are given
execution priority over non-Customer orders and quotations of market
makers at the same price. Another marketplace advantage afforded to
Priority Customer Orders on the Exchange is that members are generally
not assessed transaction fees for the execution of Priority Customer
Orders. The purpose of these marketplace advantages is to attract
retail order flow to the Exchange by leveling the playing field for
retail investors over market Professionals.\18\ The Exchange believes
that permitting certain types of orders to be counted as a single order
and other types of orders to be counted as multiple orders is
consistent with the original intent of the Professional Order
designation which was to continue to provide Priority Customer accounts
with marketplace advantages and distinguish those

accounts non-Professional retail investors from the Professionals
accounts some non-broker-dealer individuals and entities have access to
information and technology that enables them to Professionally trade
listed options in the same manner as a broker or dealer in
securities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Market Professionals have access to sophisticated trading
systems that contain functionality not available to retail
customers, including things such as continuously updated pricing
models based upon real-time streaming data, access to multiple
markets simultaneously and order and risk management tools.
    \19\ For example, some broker-dealers provided their
Professional customers with multi-screened trading stations equipped
with trading technology that allows the trader to monitor and place
orders on all six options exchanges simultaneously. These trading
stations also provide compliance filters, order managements tools,
the ability to place orders in the underlying securities, and market
data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed guidance is being issued to stem confusion as
to the manner in which options exchanges compute the Professional Order
volume.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange will
uniformly apply the rules to calculate volume on all members in
determining Professional Orders. The designation of Professional Orders
would not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes
of the Exchange's Rules concerning order protection or routing to away
exchanges. The guidance is being issued to stem confusion as to the
manner in which options exchanges compute the Professional Order
volume.
Counting All Orders
    The Exchange believes that counting all orders entered by a
Professional toward the number of orders, regardless of the options
exchange to which the order was routed, does not create an undue burden
on intra-market competition because this proposed rule change will be
consistently applied to all members in determining Professional Orders.
Cancel and Replace
    The Exchange believes that its application of cancel and replace
orders does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition
because this application is consistent with Exchange Rules, where the
replacement order is viewed as a new order. This treatment is
consistent with the manner in which this order type is applied today
within the order Book.
    The Exchange's interpretation that Complex Orders consisting of
eight legs or fewer will be counted as a single order, and respecting
Complex Orders of nine legs or more, each leg will count as a separate
order does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition
because the Exchange will apply this method of calculation uniformly
among its member organizations.
Parent/Child Orders
    The Exchange's treatment of subordinate orders does not create an
undue burden on intra-market competition because allowing orders on the
same side of the market to be counted as a single order is consistent
with the original intent of the Professional Order designation which is
to count distinct orders and focus on the number of orders generated.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because other
exchanges have adopted similar guidance.\20\ The Exchange believes that
disparate rules regarding Professional Order designation, and a lack of
uniform application of such rules, does not promote the best regulation
and may, in fact, encourage regulatory arbitrage. The Exchange believes
that it is therefore prudent and necessary to conform its rules to that
of other options exchanges for purposes of calculating the threshold
volume of orders to be designated as a Professional Order. This is
particularly true where the Exchange's third-party routing broker-
dealers are members of several exchanges that have rules requiring
Professional Order designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NASDAQ PHLX LLC has a similar rule in place for computing
Professional orders. See Rule 1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2016-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2016-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-ISE-2016-19, and should be submitted on or before October
5, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22029 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20582]
[FR Doc No: E9-10262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 510

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0665]

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor's name from IVX Animal
Health, Inc., to Teva Animal Health, Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective May 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IVX Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th
Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, has informed FDA that it has changed
its name to Teva Animal Health, Inc. Accordingly, the agency is
amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600(c) to reflect this change.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600 in the table in paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry
for ``IVX Animal Health, Inc.'' and alphabetically add a new entry for
``Teva Animal Health, Inc.''; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2),
revise the entry for ``059130'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Firm name and address                  Drug labeler code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Teva Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th     059130
 Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Drug labeler code                 Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
059130                       Teva Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th
                              Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. E9-10262 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25203-25205]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0365; Product Identifier 2019-NE-12-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G,
PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G,
PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by corrosion found on the high-pressure compressor (HPC) front
hub, which could result in certain HPC front hubs cracking before
reaching their published life limit. This proposed AD would require
revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the
manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) and air
carrier's approved Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Programs (CAMP)
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 15,
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 Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2019-
0365; 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 is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites 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-2019-0365;
Product Identifier 2019-NE-12-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA was notified that corrosion was found on an HPC front hub
during a routine engine overhaul. This corrosion, also found beneath
the anti-corrosion coating, reduces the low-cycle fatigue capability
and can occur even during engine downtime. As a result, PW decreased
the certified life of the affected HPC front hub. This condition, if
not addressed, could result in uncontained HPC front hub release,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0109-00A-
930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated April 2, 2019 (``PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-
0109-00A-930A-D''), and PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0058-00B-930A-D, Issue
No. 002, dated May 10, 2019 (``PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0058-00B-930A-
D''). PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0109-00A-930A-D describes the revised
maximum cycle limits of the HPC front hub for PW PW1500G engines. PW SB
PW1000G-A-72-00-0058-00B-930A-D describes the revised maximum cycle
limits of the HPC front hub for PW PW1900 engines. 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

    The FAA is proposing this AD because it 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 revisions to the ALS of the
manufacturer's ICA and air carrier's approved CAMP to incorporate
revised airworthiness limitations.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 18 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise the ALS and CAMP...............  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $1,530
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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):

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2019-0365; Product Identifier 2019-
NE-12-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by July 15, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1519G, PW1521G,
PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G, PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, PW1525G-3,
PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan
engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by corrosion found on the high-pressure
compressor (HPC) front hub, which could result in certain HPC front
hubs cracking before reaching their published life limit. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC front hub. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained HPC front
hub release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the PW Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, and for air carrier operations, the
approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program, with the
following maximum cycle limits for HPC front hub, part number
30G3210.
    (1) For PW PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1525G,
PW1521G-3, PW1524G-3, and PW1525G-3 model turbofan engines, use the
cycle limits established in Table 3, Revision to Table of Limits, of
PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0109-00A-930A-D, Issue No.
001, dated April 2, 2019.
    (2) For PW PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A
model turbofan engines, use the cycle limits established in Table 3,
Revision to Table of Limits, of PW SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0058-00B-930A-
D, Issue No. 002, dated May 10, 2019.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 (i)(1) of this AD. You may email your
request 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-
0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 24, 2019.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-11285 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22630-22631]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[OST Docket No. 2012-0057]

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation has submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance utilizing
emergency review procedures in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) information collection requests regarding submission
of tarmac delay plans to DOT and posting of these plans on airlines'
and airports' Web sites. DOT requests that OMB authorize these new
collections of information on or before April 20, 2012, for 90 days
after the date of approval by OMB.

DATES:  OMB approval has been requested by April 20, 2012. Comments are
due April 23, 2012. Interested persons are invited to submit comments
regarding this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments about this request to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Department of Transportation, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (these
are not toll free numbers), email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You
may also submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0057]
through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W-12-140,
1200 New Jersey Ave., 20590-0001 (between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday, except on Federal holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Office of the General
Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (Voice),
202-366-7152 (Fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Email). Arrangements to
receive this notice in an alternative format may be made by contacting
the above-named individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which
was signed into law on February 14, 2012, requires U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled passenger service or public charter service using any
aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more seats, and operators of
large hub, medium hub, small hub, or non-hub U.S. airports to submit
contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays to the Secretary of
Transportation for review and approval no later than May 14, 2012. The
Act also requires each covered carrier and airport to ensure public
access to its plan after DOT approval by posting the plan on its Web
site. The Department notes that these information collection
requirements are specifically required by statute and are not being
imposed as an exercise of the Department's discretion. The Department
seeks OMB approval for the submission and posting of these plans under
the PRA emergency clearance process because use of the normal clearance
procedures is reasonably likely to cause the May 14 statutory deadline
for submission of plans to be missed. The Department has established a
Web address for the filing of contingency plans to enable covered U.S.
airlines and airports to easily submit their required plans through the
World Wide Web. Once OMB approves this information collection, the
Department intends to issue a notice that provides information on how
covered U.S. carriers and airports can submit the required plans to the
Department through the World Wide Web.
    A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection
of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to
an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the
PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally
be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information if the collection of information does not display a valid
OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
    This notice addresses two new information collection requirements
concerning tarmac delays as a result of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act. For each of these information collections, the title, a
description of the respondents, and an estimate of the annual
recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden are set forth below:
    1. Requirement to submit tarmac delay plan to DOT for review and
approval.

    Title: Filing of Tarmac Delay Plan to DOT.
    Respondents: Each large, medium, small and non-hub airport in the
U.S.; U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service or public
charter service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more
seats.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 368 U.S. airports and 61 U.S.
airlines.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 736 hours for U.S. airports
(Average of 2 hours per U.S. airport to prepare and submit plan through
electronic submission system since airport associations have prepared
templates for use by U.S. airports); 30.5 hours for U.S. carriers
(Average of 30 minutes per U.S. carrier to prepare and submit plan
through electronic submission system since U.S. carriers already have
such plans in place).
    Frequency: Every 5 years for covered U.S. airports; every 3 years
for covered U.S. carriers.
    2. Requirement to ensure public access to tarmac delay plan after
DOT approval.
    Title: Posting of Tarmac Delay Plan on Web sites.
    Respondents: Each large, medium, small and non-hub airport in the
U.S.; U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service or public
charter service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more
seats.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 368 U.S. airports and 61 U.S.
airlines.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 107 hours and 15 minutes
(Average of 15 minutes per respondent to post plan on Web site).
    Frequency: Every 5 years for covered U.S. airports; every 3 years
for covered U.S. airlines.
    We invite comments on (a) whether the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; we note that these information collection requirements are
specifically required by statute; (b) the accuracy of the Department's
estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways
to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. As noted above,
the Department intends to provide a portal for electronic submission of
the required information. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued this 12th day of April 2012, at Washington, DC.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2012-9176 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42518-42520]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: July 18, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For a recorded message listing items struck
from or added to the meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined

in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

996TH--Meeting

Regular Meeting

July 18, 2013
    10:00 a.m.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Item No                 Docket No.              Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ADMINISTRATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.........................  AD02-1-000..........  Agency Business
                                                     Matters.
A-2.........................  AD02-7-000..........  Customer Matters,
                                                     Reliability,
                                                     Security and Market
                                                     Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ELECTRIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.........................  ER13-897-000........  Louisville Gas and
                                                     Electric Company
                                                     and Kentucky
                                                     Utilities Company.
                              ER13-908-000........  Alabama Power
                                                     Company.
                              ER13-913-000........  Ohio Valley Electric
                                                     Corporation
E-2.........................  ER13-366-000, ER13-   Southwest Power
                               367-000.              Pool, Inc.
                              ER13-75-000.........  Public Service
                                                     Company of
                                                     Colorado.
                              ER13-100-000........  Kansas City Power &
                                                     Light Company.
E-3.........................  EL12-104-000........  Interstate Power and
                                                     Light Company v.
                                                     ITC Midwest, LLC.
E-4.........................  RM05-5-022..........  Standards for
                                                     Business Practices
                                                     and Communication
                                                     Protocols for
                                                     Public Utilities.
E-5.........................  RM13-11-000.........  Frequency Response
                                                     and Frequency Bias
                                                     Setting Reliability
                                                     Standard.
E-6.........................  RM12-19-000.........  Revisions to
                                                     Modeling, Data, and
                                                     Analysis
                                                     Reliability
                                                     Standard.
E-7.........................  RM13-7-000..........  Protection System
                                                     Maintenance
                                                     Reliability
                                                     Standard.
E-8.........................  RM13-13-000.........  Regional Reliability
                                                     Standard BAL-002-
                                                     WECC-2-Contingency
                                                     Reserve.
E-9.........................  RC13-4-000..........  South Louisiana
                                                     Electric
                                                     Cooperative
                                                     Association.
E-10........................  ER11-2715-000, ER11-  Interstate Power and
                               2715-001, ER11-2715-  Light Company and
                               003.                  ITC Midwest LLC.
                              EL10-68-000.........  Resale Power Group
                                                     of Iowa and WPPI
                                                     Energy v. ITC.
                              EL10-68-001.........  Midwest LLC and
                                                     Interstate Power
                                                     and Light Company.
                              EL09-71-001.........  Resale Power Group
                                                     of Iowa and WPPI
                                                     Energy.
E-11........................  ER10-2142-000.......  ITC Midwest LLC and
                                                     Interstate Power
                                                     and Light Company.
E-12........................  EL10-65-002.........  Louisiana Public
                                                     Service Commission
                                                     v. Entergy
                                                     Corporation,
                                                     Entergy Services,
                                                     Inc., Entergy
                                                     Louisiana, LLC,
                                                     Entergy Arkansas,
                                                     Inc., Entergy
                                                     Mississippi, Inc.,
                                                     Entergy New
                                                     Orleans, Inc.,
                                                     Entergy Gulf States
                                                     Louisiana, L.L.C.,
                                                     Entergy Texas, Inc.
E-13........................  ER13-73-000.........  Electric Energy,
                                                     Inc.
E-14........................  OMITTED.............
E-15........................  OMITTED.............
E-16........................  OMITTED.............
E-17........................  OMITTED.............
E-18........................  ER12-1178-002.......  PJM Interconnection,
                                                     L.L.C.
E-19........................  OMITTED.............
E-20........................  EL01-10-122.........  Puget Sound Energy,
                                                     Inc. v. All
                                                     Jurisdictional
                                                     Sellers of Energy
                                                     and/or Capacity at
                                                     Wholesale into
                                                     Electric Energy and/
                                                     or Capacity Markets
                                                     in the Pacific
                                                     Northwest,
                                                     Including Parties
                                                     to the Western
                                                     System Power Pool
                                                     Agreement.
E-21........................  OMITTED.............
E-22........................  RM11-24-000, AD10-13- Third-Party
                               000.                  Provision of
                                                     Ancillary Services;
                                                     Accounting and
                                                     Financial Reporting
                                                     for New Electric
                                                     Storage
                                                     Technologies.
E-23........................  EC13-81-000.........  Bangor Hydro
                                                     Electric Company,
                                                     Maine Public
                                                     Service Company.
E-24........................  ER13-1125-000.......  Bangor Hydro
                                                     Electric Company.
E-25........................  ER12-550-001........  Southwest Power
                                                     Pool, Inc.
E-26........................  EL10-86-002, EL10-86- Jeffers South, LLC
                               003.                  v. Midwest
                                                     Independent
                                                     Transmission System
                                                     Operator, Inc.
E-27........................  ER12-1204-003, ER12-  PJM Interconnection,
                               1204-004, ER12-2391-  L.L.C.
                               002, ER12-2391-003,
                               (not consolidated).
E-28........................  ER11-4100-001.......  California
                                                     Independent System
                                                     Operator
                                                     Corporation.
E-29........................  ER11-4100-002, ER11-  California
                               4100-003, ER11-3616-  Independent System
                               003, ER11-3616-004,   Operator
                               ER11-3616-005.        Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              MISCELLANEOUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-1.........................  RM13-17-000.........  Communication of
                                                     Operational
                                                     Information Between
                                                     Natural Gas
                                                     Pipelines and
                                                     Electric
                                                     Transmission
                                                     Operators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   GAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.........................  RM12-17-000.........  Revisions to
                                                     Procedural
                                                     Regulations
                                                     Governing
                                                     Transportation by
                                                     Intrastate
                                                     Pipelines.
G-2.........................  RM12-18-000.........  Revisions to Page
                                                     700 of FERC Form
                                                     No. 6.
G-3.........................  IS13-17-000.........  Enbridge Energy,
                                                     Limited
                                                     Partnership.
G-4.........................  OR13-15-000.........  ExxonMobil Canada
                                                     Energy, Flint Hills
                                                     Resources, Canada,
                                                     LP, Imperial Oil,
                                                     NOVA Chemicals
                                                     (Canada), Ltd., PBF
                                                     Holding Company LLC
                                                     and Toledo Refining
                                                     Company LLC,
                                                     Pennzoil-Quaker
                                                     State Canada, Inc.,
                                                     (operating as Shell
                                                     Trading Canada),
                                                     Phillips 66 Canada
                                                     ULC, St. Paul Park
                                                     Refining Co., LLC,
                                                     Suncor Energy
                                                     Marketing, Inc.,
                                                     and United Refining
                                                     Company v. Enbridge
                                                     Energy, Limited
                                                     Partnership.
G-5.........................  RP13-990-000........  ProLiance Energy,
                                                     LLC.
G-6.........................  RP13-238-000, RP13-   Algonquin Gas
                               238-001, RP12-39-     Transmission, LLC.
                               000, RP12-39-001,
                               RP12-39-002, RP13-
                               1040-000.
G-7.........................  RP13-237-000........  Texas Eastern
                                                     Transmission, LP.
G-8.........................  IS10-399-003, IS11-   Enbridge Pipelines
                               146-000.              (Southern Lights)
                                                     LLC.
G-9.........................  IS09-348-007, IS09-   BP Pipelines
                               348-000, IS09-395-    (Alaska) Inc.
                               000, IS09-395-007,
                               IS10-204-000, IS10-
                               204-005, IS10-491-
                               000, IS11-335-000,
                               OR11-10-000.
                              IS09-384-000, IS09-   ConocoPhillips
                               384-007, IS10-205-    Transportation
                               000, IS10-205-001,    Alaska, Inc.
                               IS10-205-006, IS10-
                               476-000, IS11-306-
                               000.
                              IS09-391-000, IS09-   ExxonMobil Pipeline
                               391-007, IS09-177-    Company.
                               000, IS09-177-008,
                               IS10-200-000, IS10-
                               200-005, IS10-547-
                               000, IS11-336-000.
                              IS09-176-000, IS09-   Unocal Pipeline
                               176-007, IS10-52-     Company.
                               000, IS10-52-004,
                               IS10-490-000, IS11-
                               3-000, IS11-546-
                               000, OR10-3-000,
                               OR10-3-005.
                              IS10-54-000, IS10-54- Koch Alaska Pipeline
                               004, IS10-496-000,    Company, L.L.C.
                               IS11-328-000
                               (consolidated).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  HYDRO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.........................  UL11-1-001, P-2299-   Turlock Irrigation
                               079.                  District and
                                                     Modesto Irrigation
                                                     District.
H-2.........................  P-14241-004.........  Alaska Energy
                                                     Authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              CERTIFICATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.........................  CP12-497-000........  Transcontinental Gas
                                                     Pipe Line Company,
                                                     LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: July 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.
[FR Doc. 2013-17101 Filed 7-12-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P