[Federal Register: August 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 46527-46528]
[DOCID:fr20au07-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56240; File No. SR-ISE-2007-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes on a
Retroactive Basis

August 13, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On June 15, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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 to amend its Schedule of Fees on
a retroactive basis. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on July 10, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no
comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56005 (July 3,
2007), 72 FR 37555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to: (1) Increase the per
contract surcharge from $0.10 per contract to $0.15 per contract for
options on the Russell 1000[reg] Index (``RUI''), the Russell 2000[reg]
Index (``RUT''), and the Mini Russell 2000[reg] Index (``RMN''); and
(2) refund surcharge fees collected for transactions in options on the
iShares Russell 2000[reg] Index Fund (``IWM''), the iShares Russell
2000[reg] Value Index Fund (``IWN''), the iShares Russell 2000[reg]
Growth Index Fund (``IWO''), the iShares Russell 1000[reg] Value Index
Fund (``IWD'') and the iShares Russell 1000[reg] Index Fund (``IWB''),
in both cases for the period commencing January 1, 2007 and ending June
15, 2007 (the ``Retroactive Period''). The Exchange proposes the
surcharge increase to become effective retroactively, as of January 1,
2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 15, 2007, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change
as immediately effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange
Act that: (1) Removes the surcharge fee for IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD and
IWB from its Schedule of Fees and (2) raises the surcharge fee from
$.10 per contract to $.15 per contract for options on RUI, RUT and
RMN. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55975 (June 28, 2007),
72 FR 37064 (July 6, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange revised its license agreement with the Frank Russell
Company (``Russell''), effective January 1, 2007. Pursuant to the
revised agreement, the Exchange pays Russell $0.15 per contract to
trade options on RUI, RUT and RMN. The Exchange thus proposes to
increase the surcharge fee for options on RUI, RUT and RMN from $0.10
per contract to $0.15 per contract retroactive to January 1, 2007 and
collect from members the applicable fees due to the Exchange for the
Retroactive Period. This surcharge fee will only be charged to Exchange
members with respect to non-Public Customer Orders (e.g., ISE Market
Maker, non-ISE Market Maker, and Firm Proprietary orders) and shall
apply to certain Linkage Orders under a pilot program that is set to
expire on July 31, 2008.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Linkage Orders are defined in ISE Rule 1900(10). Under a
pilot program that was recently extended and is now set to expire on
July 31, 2008, these fees will also be charged to Principal Acting
as Agent Orders and Principal Orders (as defined in ISE Rule
1900(10)(i)-(ii)). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128
(July 24, 2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange had previously adopted a $0.10 per
contract surcharge in connection with the listing and trading of
options on IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD,\6\ and IWB.\7\ However, pursuant to the
revised license agreement with Russell, the Exchange, as of January 1,
2007, no longer pays a license fee to Russell in connection with the
listing and trading of options on IWM, IWN, IWO, IWD and IWB. As a
result, the Exchange proposes to refund to members the surcharge fee it
has collected during the Retroactive Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47075 (December 20,
2002), 67 FR 79673 (December 30, 2002) (SR-ISE-2002-29).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47564 (March 24,
2003), 68 FR 15256 (March 28, 2003) (SR-ISE-2003-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities. Specifically, the Commission
believes that application of the amendments to ISE's Schedule of Fees
on a retroactive basis is appropriate

and aligns revenue collected from members with license costs charged to
ISE under its agreement with Russell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-49) is approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16258 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42261-42263]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19018]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0792; Product Identifier 2017-NE-28-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-
80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-
80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-
80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B3F, CF6-80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F,
CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-
80C2D1F, CF6-80C2L1F, and CF6-80C2K1F turbofan engines. This proposed
AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of a high-pressure turbine
(HPT) stage 2 disk. This proposed AD would require ultrasonic
inspection (UI) of HPT stage 1 and 2 disks. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 23,
2017.

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 General
Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH
45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You
may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller
Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. 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-2017-
0792; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herman Mak, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Ave.,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0792;
Product Identifier 2017-NE-28-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We became aware of an unsafe condition from an uncontained failure
of an HPT stage 2 disk that resulted in a fire. This unsafe condition
was also determined to exist on some HPT stage 1 disks. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in uncontained HPT disk release, damage
to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1562, Revision
01, dated July 28, 2017. The SB describes procedures for UI of HPT
stage 1 and 2 disks. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require UI of HPT stage 1 and 2 disks.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 640 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UI of HPT disk........................  10 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $850        $544,000
                                         hour = $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0792; Product
Identifier 2017-NE-28-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 23, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80A, CF6-
80A1, CF6-80A2, CF6-80A3, CF6-80C2A1, CF6-80C2A2, CF6-80C2A3, CF6-
80C2A5, CF6-80C2A5F, CF6-80C2A8, CF6-80C2B1, CF6-80C2B1F, CF6-
80C2B1F1, CF6-80C2B1F2, CF6-80C2B2, CF6-80C2B2F, CF6-80C2B3F, CF6-
80C2B4, CF6-80C2B4F, CF6-80C2B5F, CF6-80C2B6, CF6-80C2B6F, CF6-
80C2B6FA, CF6-80C2B7F, CF6-80C2B8F, CF6-80C2D1F, CF6-80C2L1F, and
CF6-80C2K1F turbofan engines with high-pressure turbine (HPT) disks
with part numbers and serial numbers listed in Table 1 and 2 of
Appendix A in GE Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1562,
Revision 01, dated July 28, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine/
Turboprop Engine--Turbine Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained failure of a HPT stage 2
disk. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT disks.
The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in an
uncontained HPT disk 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 Actions

    After the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic
inspection for cracks in stage 1 and stage 2 HPT disk at each piece-
part level exposure in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2) of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1562,
Revision 01, dated July 28, 2017.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, ``piece-part exposure'' of the stage
1 or 2 disk is removal of that disk from the engine and removal of
all blades from that disk.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, 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 ECO Branch, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Herman Mak,
Aerospace Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance
and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, 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 September 1, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. 2017-19018 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                   EPA/HQ Summary  -  Meeting with HDA et al

Attendees

HDA:		 	Anita Ducca

Inmar/Med-Turn:	Erica Burwell

Inmar's outside counsel: Noelle Wooten

RegNet:		Bob Fensterheim

EPA/HQ: 	Betsy Devlin, Kristin Fitzgerald, Richard Huggins, Barnes Johnson, Christina Langlois-Miller, Laura Stanley, Jessica Young

Date:			February 13, 2018

Location:  		EPA/HQ

Summary

EPA HQ met with representatives and members of the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA) to discuss the Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals Proposed Rule.  HDA discussed how wholesale distributors expect to be regulated under the Drug Supply Chain and Security Act. Inmar mentioned that if they can't read the National Drug Code (NDC) on the container, or if the container is broken, leaking or damaged, then no credit is given. They reiterated that they believe that the 1981 Merck letter (RCRA Online #11012) is the "correct interpretation" about when pharmaceuticals going through reverse distribution should be considered waste.

Also see PP slides that HDA presented.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4480-4481]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No 270-488, OMB Control No. 3235-0542]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0123.

Extension:
    Rule 605 of Regulation NMS.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 605 of Regulation NMS
(``Rule 605'') (17 CFR 242.605),\1\ under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval. Rule
605, formerly known as, Rule 11Ac1-5, requires market centers to make
available to the public monthly order execution reports in electronic
form. The Commission believes that many market centers retain most, if
not all, of the underlying raw data necessary to generate these reports
in electronic format. Once the necessary data is

collected, market centers could either program their systems to
generate the statistics and reports, or transfer the data to a service
provider (such as an independent company in the business of preparing
such reports or a self-regulatory organization) that would generate the
statistics and reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulation NMS, adopted by the Commission in June 2005,
redesignated the national market system rules previously adopted
under Section 11A of the Exchange Act. Rule 11Ac1-5 under the
Exchange Act was redesignated Rule 605 of Regulation NMS. No
substantive amendments were made to Rule 605 of Regulation NMS. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR
37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information obligations of Rule 605 apply to all
market centers that receive covered orders in national market system
securities. The Commission estimates that approximately 366 market
centers are subject to the collection of information obligations of
Rule 605. Each of these respondents is required to respond to the
collection of information on a monthly basis.
    The Commission staff estimates that, on average, Rule 605 causes
respondents to spend 6 hours per month to collect the data necessary to
generate the reports, or 72 hours per year. With an estimated 366
market centers subject to Rule 605, the total data collection time
burden to comply with the monthly reporting requirement is estimated to
be 26,352 hours per year.
    Based on discussions with industry sources, the Commission staff
estimates that an individual market center could retain a service
provider to prepare a monthly report using the data collected for
approximately $2978 per month. This per-respondent estimate is based on
the rate that a market center could expect to obtain if it negotiated
on an individual basis. Based on the $2978 estimate, the monthly cost
to the 366 market centers to retain service providers to prepare
reports would be $1,089,948, or an annual cost of approximately
$13,079,376 million.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 15, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01113 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77476]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-28-000]

Cadeville Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on December 12, 2014, Cadeville Gas Storage LLC
(Cadeville), Three Riverway, Suite 1350, Houston, Texas 77056, filed in
Docket No. CP15-28-000, a prior notice request pursuant to section
157.214 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
as amended, requesting authorization to increase the maximum average
bottomhole pressure to 3,124 psia, thereby increasing maximum storage
capacity by 1.9 Bcf to a total of 23.7 Bcf, and working gas capacity by
1.7 Bcf to 18.7 Bcf at Cadeville's natural gas storage facility in
Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Robert
B. Raines, Jr., Senior Vice President, Engineering and Operations,
Cadeville Gas Storage LLC, Three Riverway, Suite 1350, Houston, Texas
77056, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and protest to the request,
pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR
157.205). If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30055 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P