[Federal Register: January 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3068-3069]
[DOCID:fr19ja06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-632-019]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 5, 2006, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing a compliance filing to the Commission's
letter order issued December 21, 2005, in Docket Nos. RP00-632-013 and
RP00-623-017.
    DTI states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-555 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52707-52709]
[DOCID:fr10se08-71]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28375; 812-13526]

Phoenix Equity Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

September 3, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a)
of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

Summary of Application: The requested order would permit certain
registered open-end management investment companies to enter into and
materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval.

Applicants:  Phoenix Equity Trust, Phoenix Insight Funds Trust, Phoenix
Institutional Mutual Funds, Phoenix Opportunities Trust (the
``Companies'') and Phoenix Investment Counsel, Inc. (the ``Advisor'')
(collectively, with the Companies, ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on April 23, 2008, and amended
on September 2, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on September 26, 2008 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reasons for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090. Applicants, One American Row, P.O. Box 5056, Hartford, CT
06102-5056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel at
(202) 551-6990, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Companies are open-end management investment companies
registered under the Act. The Companies, except Phoenix Insight Funds
Trust, are organized as statutory trusts under Delaware law. Phoenix
Insight Funds Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust
under Massachusetts law. The Companies presently are comprised of
fifty-three separate series (each, a ``Fund'' and collectively, the
``Funds'') each of which has its own investment objectives, policies,
and restrictions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to current or
future series of the Companies and any other registered open-end
management investment companies and their series that: (a) Are
advised by the Advisor or any entity controlling, controlled by or
under common control with the Advisor; (b) use the management
structure described in the application; and (c) comply with the
terms and conditions of the application (``Future Funds,'' included
in the term ``Funds''). Any existing entity that currently intends
to rely on the requested relief is named as an Applicant. If a Fund
has the name of any Subadvisor (as defined below) in the Fund's
name, the Fund's name will be preceded by the name of the Advisor
(such as ``Phoenix,'' which is the present identifying name the
Advisor uses in conducting its business) or the name of the entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Advisor
that serves as the primary adviser to the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Advisor, a Massachusetts corporation, is registered under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') and serves as
investment adviser to the Funds that use

the management structure described in the application.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under a prior order, the Commission granted relief to
certain applicants, including Phoenix Variable Advisors, Inc.
(``PVA''), from the provisions of section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act. The Phoenix Edge Series Fund and Phoenix
Variable Advisors, Inc., Investment Company Act Release Nos. 25655
(July 10, 2002) (notice) and 25693 (August 6, 2002) (order) (``Prior
Order''). While Applicants are not named as applicants to the Prior
Order, Applicants rely on the Prior Order due to a currently
existing affiliation with the applicants to the Prior Order.
However, a reorganization transaction expected to close in
September, 2008 will result in the Advisor no longer being
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with PVA, thus
making the Prior Order inapplicable to Applicants and necessitating
the current request for relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Companies, on behalf of the Funds, have entered into
investment advisory agreements with the Advisor (the ``Advisory
Agreements''). Each Advisory Agreement requires approval by
shareholders of the applicable Fund and by the Fund's board of trustees
(the ``Board''), including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the Company or the Advisor (the ``Independent Trustees''). Under the
Advisory Agreements, the Advisor has primary responsibility for
management of the Funds, subject to general oversight by the Board. The
Advisor also evaluates, selects, and recommends to the Boards
investment management organizations (``Subadvisors'') who have
discretionary authority to invest all or a portion of the assets of a
particular Fund pursuant to a separate subadvisory agreement with the
Advisor (``Subadvisory Agreement''). Each Subadvisor is, and any future
Subadvisor will be, registered under the Advisers Act. The Advisor
receives management fees at annual rates based on a percentage of the
applicable Fund's average daily net assets. Each Subadvisor will be
paid subadvisory fees by the Advisor out of its fees from the Funds at
rates negotiated with the Subadvisor by the Advisor and approved by the
Boards.
    4. The Advisor monitors and evaluates the Subadvisors and
recommends to the Boards whether Subadvisory Agreements should be
renewed, modified, or terminated. Advisor assesses the continued
ability of the Subadvisor to meet the Fund's investment objective. The
Advisor monitors possible replacement Subadvisors for a Fund so that
any transition can be recommended to the Board and, if approved, can be
effected on a timely basis should a Subadvisor change be warranted.
    5. Applicants request an order to permit the Advisor, subject to
Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory
Agreements without shareholder approval. The applicants will not enter
into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Subadvisor that is an affiliated
person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Companies or
the Advisor, other than by reason of serving as Subadvisor to one or
more Funds (``Affiliated Subadvisor''), unless that agreement,
including the compensation to be paid thereunder, has been separately
approved by the shareholders of each Fund for which the Affiliated
Subadvisor will act as an investment adviser.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that their
requested relief meets this standard.
    3. Applicants state that the Funds' shareholders rely on the
Advisor to select the Subadvisors best suited to achieve a Fund's
investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of
the investor, the role of the Subadvisors is comparable to that of
individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment
advisory firms. Applicants contend that requiring shareholder approval
of Subadvisory Agreements would impose costs and unnecessary delays on
the Funds and may preclude the Advisor from acting promptly in a manner
considered advisable by the Board. Applicants also note that the
Advisory Agreement will remain subject to the shareholder approval
requirements in section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. The Advisor will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any
Affiliated Subadvisor without that agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    2. At all times, at least a majority of the Boards will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be at the discretion of the then-existing
Independent Trustees.
    3. When a Subadvisor change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadvisor, the Fund's Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Fund and
its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which
the Advisor or the Affiliated Subadvisor derives an inappropriate
advantage.
    4. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in
the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 6 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before
offering shares of that Fund to the public.
    5. The Advisor will provide general management services to the
Companies and their Funds, including overall supervisory responsibility
for the general management and investment of each Fund's assets, and,
subject to review and approval by the Boards, will (i) set the Fund's
overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend
Subadvisors to manage all or part of a Fund's assets; (iii) allocate
and, when appropriate, reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple
Subadvisors; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisors;
and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the
Subadvisors comply with the relevant Fund's investment objective,
policies and restrictions.
    6. Each Fund relying on the requested order will disclose in its
prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted
pursuant to the application. In addition, each Fund will hold itself
out to the public as employing the management structure

described in the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose
that the Advisor has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by
the Boards) to oversee the Subadvisors and recommend their hiring,
termination and replacement.
    7. No trustee or officer of a Company or officer or director of the
Advisor will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled
investment vehicle that is not controlled by that trustee, director or
officer) any interest in a Subadvisor except for (i) ownership of
interests in the Advisor or any entity that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with the Advisor; or (ii) ownership of less
than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of
a publicly-traded company that is either a Subadvisor or an entity that
controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a
Subadvisor.
    8. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Subadvisor, shareholders
of the Fund will be furnished all information about the new Subadvisor
that would be included in a proxy statement, including any change in
shareholder disclosure caused by the addition of the new Subadvisor. To
meet this condition, the Funds will provide shareholders with an
information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C,
Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
    9. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
 Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20960 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10405-10407]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1009; Product Identifier 2018-NM-147-AD; Amendment
39-19595; AD 2019-05-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; removal of Airworthiness Directives (ADs).

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

SUMMARY: We are removing AD 2007-22-05 and AD 2013-13-13 (referred to
after this as ``the affected ADs''), which applied to Airbus SAS Model
A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. The affected

ADs required certain actions to address various unsafe conditions. The
affected ADs are no longer necessary because we have since issued other
ADs to address these unsafe conditions. Accordingly, we are removing
the affected ADs.

DATES: This AD is effective March 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1009; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus SAS Model A300-600
and A310 series airplanes, identified in the following affected ADs.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2018 (83 FR
67156). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the affected ADs
are no longer necessary because we have since issued other ADs to
address the various unsafe conditions. The NPRM proposed to remove the
affected ADs. We are issuing this AD to remove the affected ADs, which
have been terminated by other ADs.

       Affected ADs and the AD(s) That Terminates the Affected ADs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         AD(s) that
         Affected AD             Affected models       terminates the
                                                         affected AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-  A300-600 series       AD 2018-01-07,
 15241 (72 FR 60236, October   airplanes.            Amendment 39-19148
 24, 2007).                                          (83 FR 2042,
                                                     January 16, 2018)
                                                     (``AD 2018-01-
                                                     07'').
AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-  A300-600 and A310     AD 2017-21-08,
 17501 (79 FR 48957, August    series airplanes.     Amendment 39-19079
 19, 2014).                                          (82 FR 48904,
                                                     October 23, 2017);
                                                     and AD 2018-01-07.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    This AD adds no cost. This AD removes the affected ADs from 14 CFR
part 39; therefore, operators are no longer required to show compliance
with the affected ADs.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-
15241 (72 FR 60236, October 24,

2007) and AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR 48957, August 19,
2014); and adding the following new AD:

2019-05-13 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19595; Docket No. FAA-2018-1009;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-147-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 21, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD removes AD 2007-22-05, Amendment 39-15241 (72 FR 60236,
October 24, 2007) and AD 2013-13-13, Amendment 39-17501 (79 FR
48957, August 19, 2014).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes.

(d) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 13, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05278 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53672-53673]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21995]

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

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: ER11-3980-001.
    Applicants: ORNI 14 LLC.
    Description: ORNI 14 submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): ORNI 14
LLC Amendment to Petition to be effective 7/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 06, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4342-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Certificate of Concurrence in ER10-1657-000 regarding
the NYISO-PJM JOA to be effective, 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4343-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Certificate of Concurrence in ER11-3663-000 regarding
the NYISO-PJM JOA to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4344-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Certificate of Concurrence in ER11-3814 regarding the
NYISO-PJM JOA to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4345-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA WDT SERV SCE-GPS 13230 San Bernardino
Ave., Fontana Roof Top Solar Project to be effective 8/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4346-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: ITC Midwest LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filing of an Interconnection Agreement to be effective
10/22/2011.
    Filed Date: 08/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110822-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 12, 2011.

    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: August 22, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21995 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 54646-54648]
[DOCID:fr26se07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EF07-2021-000]

United States Department of Energy-Bonneville Power
Administration; Order Approving Rates on an Interim Basis and Providing
Opportunity for Additional Comments

Issued September 20, 2007.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff

    1. In this order, we approve the Bonneville Power Administration's
(Bonneville) proposed 2008 Transmission and Ancillary Services (2008
Transmission) rates on an interim basis, pending our full review. We
also provide an additional period of time for the parties to file
comments.

Background

    2. On May 22, 2007, Bonneville, in accordance with the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power
Act),\1\ and Subpart B of Part 300 of the

Commission's regulations,\2\ filed with the Commission its proposed
2008 Transmission rates.\3\ Bonneville also seeks a finding by the
Commission that the proposed 2008 Transmission rates associated with
service provided under its open access transmission tariff (OATT) \4\
satisfy the Commission's comparability standards applicable to non-
public utilities pursuant to the reciprocity conditions of Order No.
888.\5\ Bonneville states that the governing statute and case law do
not provide the Commission latitude to review these rates in the same
manner as the Federal Power Act (FPA) \6\ provides for public
utilities. Rather, according to Bonneville, if it has satisfied the
standards of the Northwest Power Act,\7\ the Commission is required to
confirm and approve these rates.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2), 839e(i)(6) (2000).
    \2\ 18 CFR part 300 (2007).
    \3\ The proposed transmission rate schedules for which
Bonneville seeks approval for the two year period ending September
30, 2009 include: FPT-08.1 (Formula Power Transmission); FPT-08.3
(Formula Power Transmission); IR-08 (Integration of Resources); NT-
08 (Network Integration); PTP-08 (Point-to-Point Firm Transmission);
IS-08 (Southern Intertie Transmission); IM-08 (Montana Intertie
Transmission); UFT-08 (Use-of-Facilities Transmission); AF-08
(Advance Funding); TGT-08 (Townsend-Garrison Transmission); IE-08
(Eastern Intertie); ACS-08 (Ancillary Services and Control Areas
Services); and GRSPs (General Rate Schedule Provisions for
Transmission and Ancillary Services).
    \4\ The proposed rate schedules associated with Bonneville's
OATT are: Network Integration (NT-08), Point-to-Point (PTP-08),
Southern Intertie (IS-08), Montana Intertie (IM-08), Use-Of-
Facilities (UFT-08), Advance Funding (AF-08), Ancillary Services
(ACS-08), and GRSPs.
    \5\ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 (1996), order
on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 (1997),
order on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on
reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant
part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225
F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S.
1 (2002).
    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 824 et seq. (2000). Bonneville also must comply
with the financial, accounting, and ratemaking requirements in
Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2.
    \7\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2), 839e(i)(6) (2000).
    \8\ Central Lincoln Peoples' Utility District v. Johnson, 735
F.2d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the Northwest Power
Act ``remove[s] FERC from actual ratemaking * * * and limit[s]
FERC's role to financial oversight of the regional rates'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Notice of Bonneville's filing was published in the Federal
Register, with protests and interventions due on or before June 21,
2007.\9\ Timely motions to intervene were filed by Avista Corporation,
PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric Company, Idaho Power Company,
Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, Powerex Corp., Public
Power Council, and Puget Sound Energy, Inc., raising no substantive
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 72 FR 32,633 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In addition, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) and
the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPPC) filed
a joint motion to intervene and protest. LS Power Associates, L.P. (LS
Power) filed a timely motion to intervene and protest. EPSA, NIPPC and
LS Power challenge Bonneville's plan to no longer compensate
unaffiliated generators within its control area for generation-supplied
reactive power service, as unduly discriminatory and in violation of
Commission policy. Bonneville filed an answer in response to the
protests.

Discussion

Procedural Matters

    5. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2007), the timely, unopposed motions to
intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this
proceeding. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2007), prohibits an answer to a
protest unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We will
accept Bonneville's answer because it has provided information that
assisted us in our decision-making process.

Standard of Review

    6. Under the Northwest Power Act, the Commission's review of
Bonneville's transmission rates is limited to determining whether
Bonneville's proposed rates meet the three specific requirements of
section 7(a)(2):
    (A) They must be sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal
investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System over a reasonable
number of years after first meeting the Administrator's other costs;
    (B) They must be based upon the Administrator's total system costs;
and
    (C) Insofar as transmission rates are concerned, they must
equitably allocate the costs of the Federal transmission system between
Federal and non-Federal power.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Unlike the Commission's statutory authority under the FPA, the
Commission's authority under section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act
does not include the power to modify the rates. The responsibility for
developing rates in the first instance is vested with Bonneville's
Administrator. The rates are then submitted to the Commission for
approval or disapproval. In this regard, the Commission's role can be
viewed as an appellate one: To affirm or remand the rates submitted to
it for review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See United States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power
Administration, 67 FERC ] 61,351 at 62,216-17 (1994); see also,
e.g., Aluminum Company of America v. Bonneville Power
Administration, 903 F.2d 585, 592-93 (9th Cir. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Moreover, review at this interim stage is further limited. In
view of the volume and complexity of a Bonneville rate application,
such as the one now before the Commission in this filing, and the
limited period in advance of the requested effective date in which to
review the application,\12\ the Commission generally defers resolution
of issues on the merits until an order on final confirmation and
approval. Thus, proposed rates, if not patently deficient, generally
are approved on an interim basis and the parties are afforded an
additional opportunity in which to raise issues with regard to
Bonneville's filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 18 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2007).
    \13\ See, e.g., United States Department of Energy--Bonneville
Power Administration, 64 FERC ] 61,375 at 63,606 (1993); United
States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power Administration, 40
FERC ] 61,351 at 62,059-60 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interim Approval

    9. The Commission declines at this time to grant final confirmation
and approval of Bonneville's proposed 2008 Transmission rates. The
Commission's preliminary review nevertheless indicates that
Bonneville's 2008 Transmission rates appear to meet the statutory
standards and the minimum threshold filing requirements of Part 300 of
the Commission's regulations.\14\ Moreover, the Commission's
preliminary review of Bonneville's submittal indicates that it does not
contain any patent deficiencies. The proposed rates, therefore, will be
approved on an interim basis pending our full review for final
approval. We note, as well, that no one will be harmed by this decision
because interim approval allows Bonneville's rates to go into effect
subject to refund with interest; the Commission may order refunds with
interest if the Commission later determines in its final decision not
to approve the rates.\15\ The Commission will address concerns raised
by protesters in the final decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., United States Department of Energy--Bonneville
Power Administration, 105 FERC ] 61,006 at P 13-14 (2003); United
States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power Administration, 96
FERC ] 61,360 at 62,358 (2001).
    \15\ 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2007).

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

    10. In addition, we will provide an additional period of time for
parties to file comments and reply comments on issues related to final
confirmation and approval of Bonneville's 2008 Transmission rates. This
will ensure that the record in this proceeding is complete and fully
developed.
    The Commission Orders:
    (A) Interim approval of Bonneville's proposed 2008 Transmission
rates is hereby granted, to become effective on October 1, 2007,
subject to refund with interest as set forth in section 300.20(c) of
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2007), pending final
action and either approval or disapproval.
    (B) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, parties who
wish to do so may file additional comments regarding final confirmation
and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. Parties who wish to do so
may file reply comments within twenty (20) days thereafter.
    (C) The Secretary shall promptly publish this order in the Federal
Register.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18929 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47221-47222]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19761]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1984-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

South Dakota; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1984-DR), dated May 13, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 22, 2011.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-19761 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Protocol EMD 004 Protocol EMD 004 Mosquito Repellency Mosquito Repellency Kevin Sweeney Clara Fuentes John Carley Roger Gardner 2 Field Evaluation Field Evaluation

Field test with human subjects designed to evaluate the efficacy against mosquitoes of three skin applied formulations of the insect repellent IR 3535

The protocol is similar in many aspects to the draft 2000 version of the EPA Guideline for mosquito testing. 3 IR IR 3535 3535

Registered in the USA for six years

Used in Europe for over 20 years

Skin applied repellent

Amino acid derivative

Very low toxicity 4 Overview of Testing Overview of Testing

Three test formulations: 20% lotion, 20%

aerosol and a 10% pump spray liquid.

Formulations delivered by pipette or syringe to the limb of the test subject.

Dose   1 gram of formulation per 600 cm 2 of skin surface.

Mosquitoes   species to be determined. Tests may be conducted in Central California or the Florida Keys. 5 Method Method  1 Five treatments:

 IR3535 Pump Spray formulation ( 6 subjects)

 IR3535 Lotion formulation ( 6 subjects)

 IR3535 Aerosol formulation ( 6 subjects)

 DEET positive control ( 1 subject)

 Untreated negative control ( 1 subject) 6 Method Method  2

Exposure of treated subjects is continuous

Evaluation intervals differ for control and treated subjects

Single untreated control is inconsistent with EPA recommendations; compromises RP calculation

Mosquitoes are aspirated upon landing to minimize bites

No information about specimen handling, identification,

and storage 7 Method Method  3

Formulations should be applied and tested as they are to be registered

" As registered" dose may vary with type of formulation; may not equal 1 gm/ 600 cm 2

No example of data recording sheet in protocol 8 Determination of Repellency ( RP)

Determination of Repellency ( RP)

RP calculated for each subject:

% repellency =

1  # mosquito landings on treated subject x 100 Total landings on neg. control Analysis yields a subject mean, a grand mean, and a SD of the means.

Application of Chi square?   the % repellency calculated is significant or not at   = 0.05 9 Repellency Evaluation Repellency Evaluation

Protection Time  time to first confirmed landing.

Two other analyses:

 1) Efficacy of formulations compared to the negative and positive controls;

 2) Change in repellency over time  evaluated as a change in distribution of repellency values.

A more complete discussion of the application of statistical analyses is needed, especially with reference to length of protection time. 10 Ethics Review: EMD Ethics Review: EMD 004 004

Central California or Florida Keys

18 treated subjects recruited as described in C L 001 and randomly assigned to Field test of mosquito repellency in central one of three treatment groups

Controls, one positive and one untreated,

chosen from among investigators 11 EMD EMD 004 Framework 004 Framework  1 1. Value  Purpose is poorly described in protocol  Intention is to gather information to support development of personal repellents for future commercial marketing  There is potential societal benefit in developing additional safe and effective personal repellents 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 12 EMD EMD 004 Framework 004 Framework  2 3. Subject Selection  Recruiting methods are well described in C L 001  No indication that subjects would be subject to any coercion or undue influence, or be recruited or enrolled for reasons inconsistent with the goals of the research  Exclusion factors ensure exclusion of children and pregnant or lactating women, and students of investigators 13 EMD EMD 004 Framework 004 Framework  3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Materials tested for acute toxicity  Candidates sensitive to mosquito bites are excluded  Aspiration of landing mosquitoes will reduce bites and therefore reduce risk  Test conducted where disease carrying mosquitoes are not known to be present  No discussion of risk/ benefit assessment 14 EMD EMD 004 Framework 004 Framework  4 5. Independent Ethics Review  Unanimously approved by Independent Investigational Review Board, Inc., of Plantation FL  IIRB is registered with OHRP, and is independent of the investigators 15 EMD EMD 004 Framework 004 Framework  5 6. Informed Consent  Written consent from all subjects promised  Procedures for consent adequate  Deficiencies in content of consent materials should be corrected 7. Respect for Subjects  Subject privacy would not be compromised  Subjects would be free to withdraw 16 Applicable Standards Applicable Standards

This is a 3rd party intentional exposure study intended for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws. The applicable standards are:

 40 CFR 26, Subparts K and L  FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

 California Code of Regulations Title 3, Section 6710 17 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  1

IC materials tell subjects they will be randomly assigned to treated or control groups. C L 001 states that only investigators will serve as controls.

Conflict should be reconciled; it may require separate consent documents for treated and control subjects. 18 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  2

IC vaguely states " Measures will be implemented to remove mosquitoes before they have an opportunity to bite". This should be clarified to explain better the responsibility of the subjects to aspirate landing mosquitoes, and the risks of getting bitten anyway. 19 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  3   The word " NOT" is missing from the IC discussion of " Pregnancy Risks" which should read ". . . it is important that you do NOT participate in this study if you are, or think you may be pregnant." 20 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  4

IC promises to cover costs of " treatment required for injury resulting from being in the study," but then excludes injuries " resulting from normal work activities", and then further excludes compensation for " such things as lost wages, disability, or discomfort due to injury."

Given the possibility of a subject contracting a serious vector borne disease, this is inadequate and unacceptably exculpatory. 21 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  5

The IC materials inappropriately discuss compensation to the subjects as a benefit, but are silent about expected societal benefits and how they were weighed against risks to subjects

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation should be added to the list of parties to whom personal information may be disclosed 22 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  6

Protocol should acknowledge the applicable standards of ethical conduct,

and the obligation of the investigators to inform both the cognizant IRB and, if the study is conducted in California, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation of any amendments to or deviations from the approved protocol 23 Charge Questions Charge Questions

Is this proposed research likely to generate scientifically reliable data,

useful for assessing the efficacy of the repellent( s)?

Does this proposed research appear to comport with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 14221]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Delayed Applications

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of application delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PIIMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, P1111-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

1. Awaiting additional information from applicant
2. Extensive public comment under review
3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact
or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis
4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of
special permit applications

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

N--New Application
M--Modification Request
R--Renewal Request
P--Party to Exemption Request

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 2016.
Don Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Reason for    Estimated date
            Application No.                             Applicant                      delay       of completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Modification to Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16412-M................................  Nantong CIMC Tank Tank Equipment Co.                  4      03-31-2016
                                          Ltd., Jiangsu, Province.
15628-M................................  Chemours Company FC, LLC., Wilmington,                4      03-31-2016
                                          DE.
15610-M................................  TechKnowServ Corp., State College, PA..               4      03-31-2016
16035-M................................  LCF Systems, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ......               4      04-30-2016
14437-M................................  Columbiana Boiler Company (CBCo) LLC,                 4      02-15-2016
                                          Columbiana, OH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         New Special Permit Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15767-N................................  Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha,                3      02-29-2016
                                          NE.
16001-N................................  VALTEK ASSOCIATES, INC., Malvern, PA...               3      03-31-2016
16477-N................................  Hydroid, Inc., Pocasset, MA............               4      03-15-2016
16495-N................................  TransRail Innovation Inc., Calgary.....               4      03-31-2016
16524-N................................  Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies                     4      03-15-2016
                                          Worldwide, Inc., Lake Forest, CA.
16463-N................................  Salco Products, Lemont, IL.............               3      03-31-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Party to Special Permits Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16279-P................................  AEG Environmental Products & Services,                4      03-31-2016
                                          Inc., Westminster, MD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-05682 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-M