[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30272]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER06-771-003; ER06-772-003
    Applicants: Cross & Company PLLC
    Description: Supplemental Information to Triennial Market-Power
Filing of ExxonMobil Entities.
    Filed Date: 5/7/12
    Accession Number: 20120507-5061
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/12

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2172-008; ER10-2179-011; ER11-2016-003; ER10-
2184-008; ER10-2183-005; ER10-1048-005; ER10-2176-009; ER10-2192-008;
ER11-2056-002; ER10-2178-008; ER10-2174-008; ER11-2014-005; ER11-2013-
005; ER10-3308-007; ER10-1017-004; ER10-1020-004; ER10-1145-004; ER10-
1144-003; ER10-1078-004; ER10-1079-004; ER10-1080-004; ER11-2010-005;
ER10-1081-004; ER10-2180-008; ER11-2011-004; ER11-2009-004; ER11-3989-
003; ER10-1734-005; ER10-2181-011; ER10-1143-004; ER10-2182-011; ER11-
2007-003; ER12-1223-003; ER11-2005-005
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Wind Capital
Holdings, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, CER Generation II, LLC, Handsome
Lake Energy, LLC, Exelon New England Power Marketing, LP, Exelon
Framingham, LLC, Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway, LLC,
Exelon Wyman, LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Exelon Energy
Company, CER Generation, LLC, PECO Energy Company, Commonwealth Edison
Company, Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Constellation
NewEnergy, Inc., Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine,
LLC, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power,
LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Tuana Springs Energy, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC,
Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Criterion Power Partners,
LLC, Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc., MXenergy Electric
Inc., Wildcat Wind, LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC, Cow Branch Wind
Energy, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC
    Description: Supplement to Notification of Change in Status of
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12
    Accession Number: 20120514-5183
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1780-000; ER10-3121-004; ER11-2234-001; ER11-
2235-001; ER11-2236-001; ER11-2237-001; ER11-2238-001; ER12-178-001;
ER11-2239-001; ER11-2240-001; ER11-2241-001; ER11-2242-001; ER11-2243-
001; ER11-2244-001; ER11-2245-001; ER11-2246-001; ER11-2247-001; ER11-
2248-001; ER11-2249-001; ER10-3247-005; ER10-2231-002; ER10-1714-003;
ER10-1511-003
    Applicants: PPL Ironwood, LLC, PPL Ironwood, LLC, Lower Mount
Bethel Energy, LLC, PPL Brunner Island, LLC, PPL Colstrip I, LLC, PPL
Colstrip II, LLC, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PPL Energy
Supply, LLC, PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, PPL Great Works, LLC, PPL Holtwood,
LLC, PPL Maine, LLC, PPL Martins Creek, LLC, PPL Montana, LLC, PPL
Montour, LLC, PPL New Jersey Biogas, LLC, PPL New Jersey Solar, LLC,
PPL Renewable Energy, LLC, PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Electric Energy, Inc.,
Kentucky Utilities Company, LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc., Louisville Gas
and Electric Company
    Description: Market-Based Rate Notice of Change in Status of the
PPL Companies.
    Filed Date: 5/14/12
    Accession Number: 20120514-5194
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/12

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2877-001
    Applicants: Cobb Electric Membership Corp.
    Description: COBB Electric Membership Corp., Amendment to Updated
Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 4/27/12
    Accession Number: 20120427-5423
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/18/12

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 15, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12309 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12028-12029]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Safety
Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee (SOCAC)

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

ACTION: Solicitation of nominations for appointment to the SOCAC.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Transportation is publishing this notice
to solicit nominations for membership on the Safety Oversight and
Certification Advisory Committee (SOCAC).

DATES: Nominations must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on April 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Nominations must be submitted electronically (by Email) to
Karen Lucke at [email protected]. The subject line should state
``SOCAC Nomination.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lucke, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

Background

    This Committee's charter is established in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and Section 202,
``Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee,'' of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254). The Committee provides
information and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation
through the FAA Administrator and fosters industry collaboration in an
open and transparent manner.
    The advisory committee shall consult with, and ensure participation
by the private sector, including representatives of: (1) General
aviation; (2) commercial aviation; (3) aviation labor; (4) aviation
maintenance, repair, and overhaul; (5) aviation, aerospace, and
avionics manufacturing; (6) unmanned aircraft systems operators and
manufacturers; (7) commercial space transportation industry; and (8)
members of the public; and other interested parties.

Description of Duties

    The SOCAC's duties shall include recommending consensus national
goals, strategic objectives, and priorities for the most efficient,
streamlined, and cost-effective certification and safety oversight
processes in order to maintain the safety of the aviation system and,
at the same time, allow the FAA to meet future needs and ensure that
aviation stakeholders remain competitive in the global marketplace.
Other duties shall include providing policy guidance recommendations
for the FAA's certification and safety oversight efforts; providing
appropriate legislative, regulatory, and guidance recommendations for
the air transportation system and the aviation safety regulatory
environment; and recommending performance metrics and goals to track
and review the FAA and the regulated aviation industry on their
progress towards streamlining certification reform, conducting flight
standards reform, and carrying out regulation consistency efforts.
    As directed in Public Law 115-254, the SOCAC will terminate on the
last day of the 6-year period beginning on the date of the initial
appointment of members of the advisory committee.
    Additional duties are described in the SOCAC Charter.

Membership

    The SOCAC shall comprise members appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation upon recommendation by the FAA Administrator. All SOCAC
members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Transportation. The
SOCAC will have no more than 20 members. The SOCAC shall comprise the
Administrator (or the Administrator's designee) and at least 11
individuals, each of whom represents at least one of the following
interests: Transport aircraft and engine manufacturers; general
aviation aircraft and engine manufacturers; avionics and equipment
manufacturers; aviation labor organizations, including collective
bargaining representatives of FAA aviation safety inspectors and
aviation safety engineers; general aviation operators; air carriers;
business aviation operators; unmanned aircraft systems manufacturers
and operators; aviation safety management experts; aviation
maintenance, repair, and overhaul; and airport owners and operators.
Members are appointed for a 2-year term.
    Each voting member will be an executive officer of the organization
who has decision-making authority within the member's organization and
can represent the interest of the organization, and enter into
commitments on behalf of such organization. The SOCAC will have the
ability to obtain necessary information from experts in the aviation
and aerospace communities. The SOCAC shall have a membership size that
enables the advisory committee to have substantive discussions and
reach consensus on issues in a timely manner. Also, the SOCAC will have
the appropriate expertise, including expertise in certification and
risked-based safety oversight processes, operations, policy,
technology, labor relations, training, and finance. Members serve
without compensation. The employing organization bears all costs
related to its members' participation.
    The Secretary shall appoint non-voting members representing FAA
safety oversight program offices. Nonvoting members may take part in
deliberations of the advisory committee and provide input with respect
to any final reports or recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
Nonvoting members may not represent any stakeholder interest other than
that of an FAA safety oversight program office. Non-voting members are
appointed for a 2-year term.

Nomination Process

    The Secretary is seeking individual nominations for membership to
the SOCAC. Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the SOCAC. Self-nominations are also
accepted. Nominations must include, in full, the following materials to
be considered for SOCAC membership. Failure to submit the required
information may disqualify a candidate from the review process.
    a. A biography
    b. A r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae
    c. A one-page statement describing how the candidate will benefit
the SOCAC, taking into account current membership and the candidate's
unique perspective that will advance the conversation. This statement
must also identify a primary and secondary interest to which the
candidate's expertise best aligns.
    Finally, candidates should state their previous experience on a
Federal advisory committee and/or Aviation Rulemaking Committee (if
any), their level of knowledge in their above stakeholder groups, and
the size of their constituency they represent or are able to reach.
    Evaluations will be based on the materials submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2019.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06114 Filed 3-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38113-38116]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15535]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67226; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGA Rules To Add the Mid-Point Discretionary Order

June 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 8, 2012, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA'' or the ``Exchange'') proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 11.5(c) to add a new order type, the Mid-Point
Discretionary Order, to the rule. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
amend Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C) to reflect the priority that a Mid-
Point Discretionary Order would have under certain circumstances. The
text of the proposed rule changes are attached as Exhibit 5 and are
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.directedge.com, at the
Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the
Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

Purpose
1. Proposed Amendment to Rule 11.5(c)
    Exchange Rule 11.5(c) describes the Exchange's current order types.
In order to provide additional flexibility and increased functionality
to its System \3\ and its Users,\4\ the Exchange proposes to add a new
order type, the Mid-Point Discretionary Order (the ``MDO''), to Rule
11.5(c)(17). MDOs to buy would be displayed at and pegged to the
national best bid (the ``NBB \5\''), with discretion to execute at
prices up to and including the mid-point of the National Best Bid

and Offer (the ``NBBO \6\''). MDOs to sell would be displayed at and
pegged to the national best offer (the ``NBO \7\''), with discretion to
execute at prices down to and including the mid-point of the NBBO. The
displayed prices of MDOs would move in tandem with changes in the NBB
(for buy orders) or the NBO (for sell orders). Moreover, MDOs would not
independently establish or maintain an NBB or NBO; rather, the
displayed prices of MDOs would be derived from the then current NBB or
NBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(cc)
    \4\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
    \5\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(o) and Rule 600(b)(42) of
Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users entering MDOs would have the option to enter limit prices to
specify the highest or lowest prices at which MDOs to buy or sell,
respectively, would be eligible to be executed under any circumstances.
For example, if an MDO to buy was entered with a limit price that was
less than the prevailing NBBO mid-point, it would not have discretion
to buy up to the NBBO mid-point, but rather only up to its limit price.
If a User did not place a limit price on an MDO, then the MDO would
have discretion to execute to the mid-point of the NBBO, regardless of
the price of then [sic] current NBBO, unless and until the MDO was
cancelled or fully executed. Thus, depending on certain factors,
including the types and characteristics of contra side orders and any
limit prices placed on the MDO, the MDO could be executed at its
displayed price, at a price between its displayed price and the mid-
point of the NBBO, at the mid-point of the NBBO, or not be executed at
all.
    A new time stamp would be created for an MDO each time its
displayed price was automatically adjusted. There would be no separate
time stamp for the displayed and non-displayed portions of an MDO if
the displayed price remained the same but the discretionary range
changed. Like all discretionary order types, the only time stamp would
be the one assigned to the displayed portion of the MDO.
    In addition, pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(2), as with all
discretionary order types, as described below, the discretionary
portion of the order would be given lower time priority than the
displayed portion and non-displayed size/reserve quantity of reserve
orders. In addition, MDOs would not be eligible for routing pursuant to
Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2).
MDOs Entered Without Limit Prices
    The following examples demonstrate how an MDO that is entered
without a limit price would operate:

    Example 1
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.03 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.015) and an MDO is entered without a limit price to buy 100
shares.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.015.
     A contra side market order or marketable limit order to
sell 100 shares at 10.00 would execute against the MDO to buy at
10.00 for 100 shares.
     A contra side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.01
would execute against the MDO to buy at 10.01 for 100 shares. As
discussed below, only certain types of contra side order would be
able to execute against MDOs at sub-penny prices.
    Example 2
    Following on from Example 1, if the NBBO changes to 10.01 x
10.06 (so the NBBO mid-point is now 10.035), the displayed price of
the MDO would be adjusted to 10.01, with discretion to buy up to
10.035. If the NBBO changes once again to 10.03 x 10.05 (so the NBBO
mid-point is now 10.04), the displayed price of the MDO would be
adjusted to 10.03, with discretion to buy up to 10.04.
    This example illustrates that the displayed prices of MDOs
entered without limit prices will continue to move in tandem with,
and be displayed at, changes in the NBB (for buy orders) and the NBO
(for sell orders).
    Example 3
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.03 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.015), and an MDO is entered without a limit price to buy 100
shares. Assume further that on the EDGA Book there are two other
displayed orders to buy 100 shares each at 10.00, both with time
priority over the MDO. Assume further that there is a displayed
resting order to buy at 9.99 on the EDGA Book, and no other market
is publishing a bid at 10.00.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.015.
     A contra side market order to sell 200 shares would
execute against the two buy orders with time priority over the MDO
at 10.00, thereby leaving the MDO order to buy on the EDGA Book.
     The MDO would then re-price to 9.99 because MDOs could
not independently establish or maintain an NBB or NBO--rather, their
displayed prices would be derived from the NBB and NBO. Therefore,
the MDO would be displayed at 9.99 with discretion to trade up to
10.01 (assuming the NBO remained at 10.03), although the resting buy
order at 9.99 would have time priority over the MDO.
MDOs Entered With Limit Prices
    The following examples demonstrate how an MDO that is entered with
a limit price would operate:
    Example 1
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.03 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.015) and an MDO is entered to buy 100 shares with a limit price
of 10.03.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.015.
     A contra side market order or marketable limit order to
sell 100 shares at 10.00 would execute against the MDO to buy at
10.00 for 100 shares.
     A contra side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.01
would execute against the MDO to buy at 10.01 for 100 shares.
     A contra side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.02
would not execute against the MDO to buy, because the MDO had
discretion to buy only up to the mid-point of the NBBO. The limit
order to sell would thus be displayed at 10.02 and reduce the mid-
point of the NBBO to 10.01.
    Example 2
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.04 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.02) and an MDO is entered to buy 100 shares with a limit price of
10.03.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.02.
     A contra side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.02
would execute against the MDO to buy at 10.02 for 100 shares.
    Example 3
    Following on from Example 2, assume the NBBO changes to 10.01 x
10.06 (so the NBBO mid-point is now 10.035). The displayed price of
the MDO to buy would be adjusted to 10.01 with discretion to buy up
to 10.03, and not the NBBO mid-point of 10.035, because the NBBO
mid-point would be higher than the 10.03 limit price placed on the
MDO.
     A contra-side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.03
would execute against the MDO to buy at 10.03. If the sell order
were for 10.02, then it would execute against the MDO to buy at
10.02.
    Example 4
    Following on from Example 3, assume the NBBO changes once again
to 10.03 x 10.05 (so the NBBO mid-point is now 10.04). The displayed
price of the MDO to buy would be adjusted to 10.03, but there would
be no discretion to trade at a price exceeding 10.03 because of the
limit price placed on the MDO. And, if the NBBO changed again to
10.04 x 10.06, the MDO to buy would simply post to the EDGA Book at
its limit price of 10.03 and be displayed as a limit order (in the
depth of book view) with no discretion. However, if the NBBO again
changed to, say, 10.02 x 10.03, then the MDO would again be
displayed at the NBB with discretion to trade up to the NBBO mid-
point of 10.025 (assuming the MDO was not cancelled or fully
executed in the meantime).
    Example 5
    Following on from Example 4, assume the NBBO is still 10.04 x
10.06, and that on the EDGA Book there is one displayed order to buy
100 shares at 10.04 and two separate displayed orders to buy 100
shares each at 10.03 with time priority over the MDO resting at
10.03. Assume further that there is also a displayed buy order at
10.02 for 100 shares on the EDGA Book, and no other market is
publishing a bid at either 10.03 or 10.04.
     A contra side market order to sell 300 shares would
execute first against the buy order on the book at 10.04, and then
against the two buy orders on the book with time priority over the
MDO at 10.03, thereby leaving the MDO to buy on the book.
     The MDO would then re-price to 10.02 because MDOs could
not independently establish or maintain an NBB or NBO--rather, their
displayed price(s) would be

derived from the then current NBB and NBO. Therefore, the MDO would
be displayed at 10.02 with discretion to trade up to 10.03 (assuming
the NBO remained at 10.06), although the resting buy order at 10.02
would have time priority over the MDO.
Sub-Penny Executions
    MDOs would only be able to execute at sub-penny prices in stocks
priced at $1 or more against contra side orders that were by their
terms eligible for NBBO mid-point executions regardless [sic] whether
such mid-point is in a penny or sub-penny increment, namely, (1) other
MDOs, and (2) Mid-Point Peg Orders (``MPOs'').\8\ Nonetheless, despite
being eligible to execute in sub-pennies to the extent that they
executed at the NBBO mid-point, MDOs would not be displayed or ranked
in sub-penny increments. MDOs would execute against all other order
types solely in penny increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.03 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.015) and an MDO is entered to buy 100 shares with a limit price
of 10.02.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.015.
     A contra side MPO to sell 100 shares would execute
against the MDO to buy at the NBBO mid-point of 10.015.
    Assume the NBBO changes to 10.02 x 10.05 (so the NBBO mid-point
is now 10.035).
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.02, with no discretion
above 10.02 given its limit price.
     A contra side MPO to sell 100 shares would not execute
against the MDO to buy at 10.02, because the NBBO mid-point would
exceed the limit price on the MDO.
    Example 2
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.03 (so the mid-point is 10.015)
and an MDO is entered to buy 100 shares with a limit price of 10.03,
and an MDO is subsequently entered to sell 100 shares with a limit
price of 10.00.
     The MDO to buy would be displayed at 10.00 with
discretion to buy up to 10.015. The MDO to sell would then execute
against the MDO to buy at the NBBO mid-point of 10.015.
    If instead the MDO to sell was entered with a limit price of
10.02, it would not execute against the MDO to buy since the limit
price on the MDO to sell was greater than the NBBO mid-point.
2. Proposed Amendment to Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C)
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C) to reflect the
priority that MDOs would have when they are executed within their
discretionary range. When MDOs execute at their displayed price, they
would have the same priority as that of the displayed size of limit
orders, in accordance with Rule 11.8(a)(2)(A). However, when they
execute within their discretionary range, they would have the same
priority as the discretionary range of Discretionary Orders, as set
forth in Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C). Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to
amend Rule 11.8(a)(2)(C) to account for the priority of MDOs when they
act within their discretionary range.
    Example
    Assume the NBBO is 10.00 x 10.04 (so the NBBO mid-point is
10.02) and an MDO is entered to buy 100 shares with a limit price of
10.02, and a non-displayed order to buy 100 shares at 10.02 is
subsequently entered.
     The MDO would be displayed at 10.00 with discretion to
buy up to 10.02.
     A contra side limit order to sell 100 shares at 10.02
would execute against the non-displayed order, and not the MDO,
since non-displayed orders would have priority over the
discretionary range of MDOs in accordance with Rule 11.8(a)(2).
    The Exchange will notify its Members in an information circular
of the exact implementation date of these rule changes, which will
be no later than July 31, 2012.
Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ and further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ because they are 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, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule changes would
provide Users with a greater selection of order types that may result
in the efficient execution of such orders and provide additional
flexibility and increased functionality to the Exchange's System and
its Users. Specifically, the Exchange believes that Users may receive
more efficient order executions by permitting them to have greater
flexibility to be displayed at the NBBO with discretion to execute to
the mid-point of the NBBO, resulting in the potential benefit of price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MDO would be similar in nature to several existing order types
of the Exchange. First, the MDO would be similar to the Pegged Order
\11\ and the MPO in that like these order types, an MDO's displayed
price would be pegged to and automatically adjusted in tandem with
changes in the then current NBB or NBO, a new timestamp would be
created for the order each time it was automatically adjusted, and it
would not be eligible for routing pursuant to Rule 11.9(b)(2). In
addition, like the MPO, the MDO would be eligible to receive sub-penny
executions at the mid-point of the NBBO. However, unlike the MPO, the
MDO would provide the added benefit of transparency, since there would
always be a displayed component to an MDO. In addition, the MDO would
be similar to a Discretionary Order,\12\ in that it would include a
displayed order at a specified price (in this case, an objectively
determined price based on the prevailing NBB or NBO) and an undisplayed
order at a specified price (in this case, an objectively determined
price based on the mid-point of the NBBO and subject to any limits the
User attaches the MDO). The Exchange believes that this proposed order
type would benefit its Users by offering greater flexibility to display
liquidity at the NBBO with discretion generally to execute to the NBBO
mid-point, resulting in additional opportunities for price improvement
for contra-side orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(6).
    \12\ As defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of 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.

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \15\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing, noting that similar
functionality is already offered by other market centers.\17\ The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. Equities Rule 7.31(cc).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGA-2012-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-22. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-22 and should be
submitted on or before July 17, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15535 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49104-49106]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0048]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Lawrence, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4 at
Lawrence, New York. This action is necessary to allow for an unexpected
delay in the reconstruction and painting of the bascule leaves. A
temporary deviation was previously granted for a length of 180 days. As
the Coast Guard may not approve extensions beyond that allotted
timeframe nor approve back-to-back or sequential deviations, it is
necessary to issue this rule in order to allow the bridge owner to
complete the remaining work items.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 24,
2017 until 11:59 p.m. on November 13, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 on October 14, 2017
until October 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0048 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 6, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled,
``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Beach Bridge, Reynolds
Channel, Lawrence, NY'' in the Federal Register (see 82 FR 06735).
Although we did not request public comments, outreach conducted with
mariners utilizing the waterway indicated no objections to the
temporary deviation. No complaints have been submitted during the
current temporary deviation.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under
section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary

to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is
impracticable. Due to unanticipated difficulties and delays impacting
the schedule and pace of bascule leaf reconstruction and painting,
additional time is required to finalize and complete the work necessary
to restore the bridge to full operational capacity. We must modify the
operation schedule of the bridge by October 15, 2017 to allow the
completion of bascule leaf reconstruction and painting. Due to the
circumstances of this repair project, we lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the modification.
    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the
reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the
Atlantic Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence,
New York. The Atlantic Beach Bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge
offering mariners a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water
and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Work platforms
installed underneath the bascule spans have reduced the available
vertical clearance to 21.5 feet at mean high water in the closed
position and to 26.5 feet at mean low water in the closed position.
    The existing drawbridge regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.799(e). The Nassau County Bridge Authority, the bridge owner, has
requested this modification as additional time is required to complete
the final reconstruction and painting of the bascule leaves.
    The Nassau County Bridge Authority has also requested that the
Atlantic Beach Bridge be allowed to open on signal only one of two
bascule spans for bridge openings with the understanding that dual
lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring such an opening
provided a 48 hour advance notice, and receipt of 24 hour advance
confirmation, from 7 a.m. Monday through 6 p.m. Friday. The bridge will
operate normally and open fully upon signal on weekends from 6 p.m.
Friday through 7 a.m. Monday.
    The bridge generally opens four times per week for routine passage
of towing vessels with tank barges or dry cargo barges. The bulk of
remaining vessel traffic is recreational not requiring an opening in
order to proceed through the draw. Vessels that can pass under the
bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be
able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for
vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule, which permits a temporary
deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Atlantic Beach
Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 0.4, at Lawrence, New York. The
rule is necessary to accommodate the completion of bascule leaf
reconstruction and painting. This rule allows for single-leaf
operations upon signal during the week, Monday through Friday. Dual
lift-span operations will be provided for vessels requiring such an
opening given 48 hours of advance notice and provided a 24 hour advance
confirmation. The bridge will operate normally during weekends.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action
determination is based on the ability of the majority of vessels to
successfully transit through the draw of the bridge without an opening
or with a single-leaf opening. Vessels requiring dual lift-span
operations during the week may continue to transit the draw provided
submission of advance notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A
above, this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator. Commercial mariners requiring dual lift-
span operations during the week have been able to transit the draw
following provision of advance notice. Single-leaf operations will be
furnished on signal for those vessels requiring such an opening.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.799, effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 24, 2017,
through 11:59 p.m. on November 13, 2017, suspend paragraph (e)(1) and
add paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.799  Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Rockaway
Inlet to Shinnecock Canal.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) The Atlantic Beach Bridge will open only one of two bascule
spans on signal for bridge openings from 7 a.m. Monday through 6 p.m.
Friday. Dual lift-span operations will occur for vessels requiring such
an opening provided a 48 hour advance notice and 24 hour advance
confirmation has been furnished from 7 a.m. Monday through 6 p.m.
Friday. The bridge will open fully on signal on weekends from 6 p.m.
Friday through 7 a.m. Monday.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 6, 2017.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-23053 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11108]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4266-003.
    Applicants: Richland-Stryker Generation LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status
of Richland-Stryker Generation LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120214-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-397-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Response to Deficiency Letter of Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20120213-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-919-001.
    Applicants: Rockland Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Rockland Wind Farm LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Supplemental Information Filing to be effective 3/28/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120215-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1098-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Re-file of New Horizon Assignment of NITSA and NOA to
be effective 8/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 2/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120215-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1099-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Wolverine-Consumers-Tremaine IA to be effective 2/16/
2012.
    Filed Date: 2/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120215-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1100-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): PJM SA No. 3198 and First Revised SA No. 2642; Queue
T157/W4-037 to be effective 1/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120215-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4303 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 201)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61378-61381]
[DOCID:fr16oc08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28035; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-293-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM would
have required sealing certain fasteners and stiffeners in the fuel
tank, and changing certain wire bundle clamp configurations on the fuel
tank walls. The original NPRM resulted from fuel system reviews
conducted by the manufacturer. This action revises the original NPRM by
adding inspections, for certain airplanes, of additional fasteners in
the fuel tanks and of the method of attachment of the vortex
generators, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to prevent possible ignition sources in the auxiliary
fuel tank, main fuel tanks, and surge tanks caused by a wiring short or
lightning strike, which could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by November
10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office

(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6497; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
28035; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-293-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2007
(72 FR 21166). That original NPRM proposed to require sealing certain
fasteners and stiffeners in the fuel tank, and changing certain wire
bundle clamp configurations on the fuel tank walls.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-57A0102,
dated October 25, 2006, and 767-57A0100, dated August 21, 2006, as the
appropriate sources of service information for the proposed
requirements. Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing revised the service
bulletins.
    Service Bulletin 767-57A0102, Revision 1, dated November 27, 2007,
provides the following changes:
     Corrects the specified location of fasteners that must be
sealed on the rear spar in the auxiliary fuel tank;
     Corrects the specified location of fasteners that must be
sealed at rib 28 on the front spar;
     Adds work packages, for airplanes on which the original
issue of the service bulletin was accomplished, for general visual
inspections of the sealant of the fasteners in the auxiliary fuel tank
center bay and the fasteners at rib 28 of the left and right main fuel
tanks, and sealing any unsealed fasteners;
     Identifies additional access doors necessary for access to
the fuel tanks; and
     Specifies permitted alternative fuel tank sealants.
    The new work packages are necessary because the original issue of
this service bulletin specified incorrect locations for certain
fasteners on the rear spar of the auxiliary fuel tank and the front
spar of the main wing. If the correct fasteners are not sealed, there
is a risk that arcing from a short can enter the fuel tank and become
an ignition source. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this
supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 1 of the service bulletin.
    Service Bulletin 767-57A0100, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008, adds
procedures for certain airplanes (Group 3 airplanes) for a general
visual inspection to determine the method of attachment of the vortex
generators. For vortex generators attached with adhesive alone, no more
work is necessary. For vortex generators attached with fasteners, the
service bulletin provides procedures for sealing the fasteners.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Support for the NPRM

    Continental Airlines has no objection to the NPRM. The Air
Transport Association (ATA) agrees with the intent of the NPRM.
American Airlines understands and agrees with our efforts to prevent
the identified unsafe condition.

Request for Warranty Coverage

    Hawaiian Airlines questions why Service Bulletin 767-57A0102 is not
covered under warranty. The commenter states that the original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) should cover the costs to do the required
extra protection for fuel ignition shorts. The commenter added that 335
work hours and about $2,000 for parts per airplane is very costly for
airline operators.
    We have no involvement in warranty agreements between the airlines
and the OEM. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    The ATA and American Airlines request that we extend the proposed
compliance time from 60 months to 72 months. The longer interval would
minimize fuel tank entry and corresponds to the existing ``4C''
maintenance interval established by the Boeing 767 Maintenance Review
Board (MRB), when significant maintenance (such as maintenance
requiring fuel tank entry) is scheduled. The ATA states that the use of
that interval would avoid the need to accomplish the proposed actions
in portions of airline inventories during unique, unscheduled visits.
American Airlines states that its cost to comply with the AD would be 7
percent higher with the proposed 60-month compliance time (versus a 72-
month compliance time).
    While we agree that reducing fuel tank entries minimizes both the
potential for damage and the disruption to operators' maintenance
schedules, we find that extending the compliance time is not
appropriate. In developing the compliance time for this AD action, we
considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe
condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the
practical aspects of accomplishing the AD on the fleet during regular
maintenance periods, the availability of required parts, and the time
necessary for the rulemaking process. The proposed compliance time was
determined to be appropriate. However, paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM would provide operators the opportunity to request
adjustments to the compliance time and submit data to substantiate that
such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed this supplemental NPRM regarding this issue.

Clarification of Inspection Type

    In this supplemental NPRM, the ``general visual inspection''
specified in Revision 1 of the referenced service information is
referred to as a ``detailed inspection.'' We have included the
definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the supplemental
NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined that an unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 925 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. There are no U.S.-
registered airplanes in Group 3 of Service Bulletin 767-57A0102. The
average labor rate is $80 per work hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                               Work                         Cost per     U.S.-
        Service Bulletin           Group      hours           Parts         airplane  registered    Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-57A0100....................          1          6  minimal...........       $480         341        $163,680
                                         2        114  minimal...........      9,120          21         191,520
                                         3          1  none..............         80          17           1,360
767-57A0102....................          1        246  1,632.............     21,312         341       7,267,392
                                         2        874  1,304.............     71,224          21       1,495,704
                                         3         24  338...............      2,258           0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-28035; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
293-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 10, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER
series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0100, Revision 1, dated June
19, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0102, Revision 1, dated
November 27, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible ignition
sources in the auxiliary fuel tank, main fuel tanks, and surge tanks
caused by a wiring short or lightning strike, which could result in
fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Fastener Sealant Application

    (f) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-57A0100, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008: Within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (f)(2) of this AD. Do the actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, as applicable.
    (1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Seal the ends of the fasteners
on the brackets that hold the vortex generators, and seal the ends
of the fasteners on certain stiffeners on the rear spar, as
applicable.
    (2) For Group 3 airplanes: Do a detailed inspection to determine
the method of attachment of the vortex generators, and, before
further flight, do all applicable specified corrective actions.

Wire Bundle Sleeve and Clamp Installation and Fastener Sealant
Application

    (g) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0102, Revision 1, dated November 27, 2007: Within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Do
the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the service bulletin.
    (1) Change the wire bundle clamp configurations at specified
locations on the fuel tank walls.
    (2) Seal the fasteners and certain stiffeners at specified
locations on the fuel tank.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection of the sealant of the fasteners in
the auxiliary tank center bay and rib 28 of the left and right main
fuel tanks. Seal any unsealed fasteners before further flight.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-
6497; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 6, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-24579 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 153 (Friday, August 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48063-48065]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0049]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from five individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0049 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0049. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the

``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0049), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0049. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0049 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The five individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode
of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause
that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that
person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss
of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by
the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year
period or more.
    As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation,
numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on
the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,'' (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since that time, the Agency has

published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (78 FR 3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Diego Dasilva
    Mr. Dasilva is a 28-year-old class D license holder in
Massachusetts. He has a history of seizure disorder, and has been
seizure free since 2011. He takes anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 2011. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Dasilva receiving an
exemption.
Brian Duncan
    Mr. Duncan is a 38-year-old class D license holder in Illinois. He
has a history of seizures and has been seizure free since 1997. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1997. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Duncan receiving an exemption.
Clint Honea
    Mr. Honea is a 46-year-old class D license holder in Alabama. He
has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1985. He has
not taken anti-seizure medication since 1987. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Honea receiving an exemption.
Daryl James
    Mr. James is a 45-year-old class D license holder in New York
State. He has a history of seizures and has been seizure free since
2005. He has not taken anti-seizure medication since 2005. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. James receiving an
exemption.
Michael Shorty
    Mr. Shorty is a 33-year-old class D license holder in New Mexico.
He has a history of an unprovoked seizure and has been seizure free
since 2009. He has not taken anti-seizure medication since 2010. His
physician states that she is supportive of Mr. Shorty receiving an
exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17283 Filed 8-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4866-4867]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00942]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0719; FRL-9958-39-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health (collectively
``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California: Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v.
McCarthy, No. 3:16-cv-03796-VC (N.D. Cal.). On July 7, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed a complaint in this lawsuit alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her
official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), failed to perform nondiscretionary duties
under the CAA to complete periodic reviews of the air quality criteria
and the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'') for
sulfur oxides (``SOX'') and the primary NAAQS for oxides of
nitrogen (``NOX''), to make such revisions to those air
quality criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate, and to promulgate
such new NAAQS as may be appropriate. The proposed consent decree would
establish deadlines for EPA to take certain, specified actions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by February 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0719, online at www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). If you would like to submit a comment using a
different submission method, please contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melina Williams, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    Under section 109(d) of the CAA, EPA is required to periodically
review air quality criteria and NAAQS and to make such revisions as may
be appropriate. The proposed consent decree addresses a lawsuit filed
by Plaintiffs alleging that EPA failed to timely complete certain
periodic reviews for NOX and SOX by the deadline
set forth in the CAA. The proposed consent decree would establish
deadlines for EPA to take certain, specified actions in the periodic
reviews, and if appropriate, revisions of the air quality criteria
addressing human health effects of SOX, and the primary
NAAQS for NOX and SOX. Under the terms of the
proposed consent decree, EPA would: (1) Sign a notice setting forth its
proposed decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for
NOX no later than July 14, 2017; (2) sign a notice setting
forth its final decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for
NOX no later than April 6, 2018; (3) issue a final
Integrated Science Assessment (a document containing air quality
criteria) addressing human health effects of SOX no later
than December 14, 2017; (4) sign a notice setting forth its proposed
decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for SOX
no later than May 25, 2018; and (5) sign a notice setting forth its
final decision concerning its review of the primary NAAQS for
SOX no later than January 28, 2019. See the proposed consent
decree for additional details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No.

EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0719) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree.
The official public docket is available for public viewing at the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: January 6, 2017.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-00942 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73339-73340]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-134-000]

Three Rivers District Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Three Rivers District Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 8, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including

landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23578 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/20/2007 01:05 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

page 41 edit

Hi Lydia,

The last line on the first para of page 41, should read to be accurate:

“Notable, these studies report a small percentage of subjects experiencing lung function decrements of greater than 10 percent at the 0.060 ppm exposure level, although these particular individuals do not consistently experience this large of a lung function decrement for both triangular and square waves forms of exposure.”

Can we put this in?

Rob

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>