[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31848-31850]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0427]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; M/V Del Monte Live-Fire Gun Exercise, James River,
Isle of Wight, Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the James River in Isle of Wight, VA. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters
during the live-fire gun exercises on the M/V Del Monte. This action is
intended to restrict vessel traffic movement to protect mariners from
the hazards associated with the live-fire gun exercise.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 11 a.m. June 6, 2011 until 4
p.m. on June 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0427 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0427 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail CWO Carlos A. Hernandez, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone
757-668-5583, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate
action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels transiting in the
vicinity of where the exercise will be conducted by Navy personnel.
This exercise is necessary to train and qualify Navy personnel in the
use of weapons. This training is necessary to ensure that Navy
personnel located within the Fifth Coast Guard District are properly
trained and qualified before conducting military and national security
operations for use in securing ports and waterways. Navy policy
requires that Navy personnel meet and maintain certain qualification
standards before being allowed to carry weapons on board vessels.
Failure to conduct this required training at this time will result in a
lapse in personnel qualification standards and, consequently, the
inability of Navy personnel to carry out important national security
functions at any time. Publishing a NPRM and waiting 30 days for
comment would be contrary to the public interest because any delay in
the effective date of this rule would expose mariners, the boating
public, and divers to the potential hazards associated with the Navy's
live fire and explosive training exercises.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to
ensure the safety of vessels transiting the area.

Background and Purpose

    Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads was notified that the U.S. Navy
will conduct a live fire and explosive training event onboard the M/V
Del Monte in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet. The event
is scheduled to take place from June 6, 2011 until June 10, 2011. Due
to the need to protect mariners transiting on the James River in the
vicinity of the exercise from the hazards associated with live fire and
explosive events, the Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone bound
by a 1500 foot radius around approximate position 37[deg]06'11'' N/
076[deg]38'40'' W (NAD 1983). Access to this area will be temporarily
restricted for public safety purposes.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a 1500 foot radius safety zone on
specified waters of James River around approximate position
37[deg]06'11'' N/076[deg]38'40'' W (NAD 1983) in the vicinity of the
James River Reserve Fleet. This safety zone is being established in the
interest of public safety during the live fire and explosive training
exercise and will be enforced from 11 a.m. on June 6, 2011 until 4 p.m.
on June 10, 2011. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during
the specified dates and times. Except for vessels authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the safety zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts access
to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a limited duration;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) mariners may transit the waters
in and around this safety zone at the discretion of the Captain of the
Port or designated representative; and (iv), the Coast Guard will make
notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    The rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the James River from 11 a.m. on June
6, 2011 until 4 p.m. on June 10, 2011.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The
safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration and is of a
limited size. (ii) Before the enforcement period, maritime advisories
will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

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).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have

determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
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 is categorically excluded, Under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves a temporary safety zone
that will be in effect for only five days and is intended to keep
mariners safe from the hazards associated with live fire and explosive
exercises. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 subpart C as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0427 to read as follows:

Safety Zone; M/V Del Monte Live-Fire Gun Exercise, James River, Isle of
Wight, Virginia

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet on the James River
within a 1500 foot radius of position 37[deg]06[min]11[sec] N/
076[deg]38[min]40[sec] W (NAD 1983).
    (b) Definition. For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. on
June 6, 2011 until 4 p.m. on June 10, 2011.

    Dated: May 18, 2011.
Mark S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2011-13644 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6594-6595]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0121; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-277-AD;
Amendment 39-15363; AD 2008-03-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42-500 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain ATR Model ATR42-500 series airplanes. This AD requires removing
metallized polyethylene terephtalate (MPET) insulation blankets
installed on the left and the right sides of the airplane over frame 24
between stringers 5 and 14. This AD results from reports indicating
that burnt spots were found on the MPET insulation blankets installed
over frame 24. The actions specified by this AD are intended to ensure
that MPET insulation blankets are removed over frame 24. Such MPET
insulation blankets, if not removed, could propagate a small fire that
is the result of an electrical arc and could lead to a much larger
fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 20,
2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 6, 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 ATR, 316
Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France.

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 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that
an unsafe condition may exist on certain ATR Model ATR42-500 series
airplanes. The EASA advises that there have been reports of two in-
service aircraft where burnt spots were found on the insulation
blankets installed over frame 24. Investigations concluded that due to
the presence of the bleed air duct, installation of the thermal-
acoustical insulation blankets having a metallized polyethylene
terephtalate (MPET) made the covering (also known as Mylar \TM\) at
this location unsafe. Such MPET insulation blankets, if not removed,
could propagate a small fire that is the result of an electrical arc
and could lead to a much larger fire. This action is intended to
address the identified unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    ATR has issued Service Bulletin ATR42-25-0155, dated April 10,
2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for removing the MPET
insulation blankets installed on the left and the right sides of the
airplane over frame 24 between stringers 5 and 14. Accomplishing the
actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately
address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information
and issued emergency airworthiness directive 2007-0106-E, dated April
18, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
the European Union.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in France and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. As described in FAA
Order 8100.14A, ``Interim Procedures for Working with the European
Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,''
dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the
situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to
issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
    Therefore, we are issuing this AD to ensure that MPET insulation
blankets are removed over frame 24. Such MPET insulation blankets, if
not removed, could propagate a small fire that is the result of an
electrical arc and could lead to a much larger fire. This AD requires
accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S.
Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by
non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not
directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD
necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future.
    If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register
in the future, the required action would take about 6 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the AD would be $480 per airplane.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register.

Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is
unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective
in less than 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0121; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-277-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this 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 AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that 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 the 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-03-13 ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional (Formerly
Aerospatiale): Amendment 39-15363. Docket No. FAA-2008-0121;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-277-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 20, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to ATR Model ATR42-500 series airplanes,
certificated in any category; except for airplanes modified in
accordance with ATR modification numbers 05117, 05322, and 05791, or
ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-25-1034, dated January 24, 2002.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports indicating that burnt spots
were found on the metallized polyethylene terephtalate (MPET)
insulation blankets installed over frame 24. We are issuing this AD
to ensure that MPET insulation blankets are removed over frame 24.
Such MPET insulation blankets, if not removed, could propagate a
small fire that is the result of an electrical arc and could lead to
a much larger fire.

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.

Removal of Installation Blankets

    (f) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, remove
the MPET insulation blankets installed on the left and the right
sides of the airplane over frame 24 between stringers 5 and 14, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ATR Service
Bulletin ATR42-25-0155, dated April 10, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 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.

Related Information

    (h) EASA emergency airworthiness directive 2007-0106-E, dated
April 18, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-25-0155, dated April
10, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact ATR, 316
Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France, for a copy of
this service information. You may review copies at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-2004 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 23462-23464]
[DOCID:fr19my09-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59906; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Tolling Provisions in Rules 12206 and 13206 of the Codes of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer and Industry Disputes

May 12, 2009.
    On March 11, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on April 7, 2009.\3\ The Commission received five
comments on the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59672 (April 1,
2009), 74 FR 15806 (April 7, 2009).
    \4\ See letters from: (1) Seth E. Lipner, Professor of Law,
Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, dated April 3, 2009
(``Lipner letter''); (2) Joseph M. Licare, St. John's University
School of Law, Securities Arbitration Clinic, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 28, 2009 (``Securities
Arbitration Clinic letter''); (3) Brian N. Smiley, Esquire,
President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 28, 2009
(``PIABA letter''); (4) Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso,
P.C., dated April 29, 2009 (``Caruso letter''); and 5) Scot
Bernstein, dated May 1, 2009 (``Bernstein letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA proposed to amend the tolling provisions in Rules 12206 and
13206 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
(``Customer Code'') and for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code''),
respectively, to clarify that the rules toll the applicable statutes of
limitation when a person files an arbitration claim with FINRA.
    Currently, Rule 12206, the ``eligibility rule,'' provides that,
``no claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under the
Code where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving
rise to the claim.'' \5\ The eligibility rule does not extend
applicable statutes of limitation, but Rule 12206(c) does provide that,
``where permitted by applicable law, when a claimant files a statement
of claim in arbitration, any time limits for the filing of the claim in
court will be tolled while FINRA retains jurisdiction of the claim.''
\6\ This means that, where permitted by applicable law, state statutes
of limitation will be tolled (i.e., temporarily suspended) when a
person files an arbitration claim with FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA describes the eligibility rule using the rule number
from the Customer Code for simplicity. However, the proposal also
applies to the identical eligibility rule of the Industry Code. See
Rule 13206.
    \6\ See also Rule 13206(c) of the Industry Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For many years, FINRA has interpreted the rule to mean that any
applicable statutes of limitation would be tolled in all cases when a
person files an arbitration claim with FINRA. In Friedman v. Wheat
First Securities, Inc., however, the court found that the phrase
``where permitted by applicable law,'' means that state or federal law,
as applicable, must permit tolling expressly, or the period will not be
tolled.\7\ In light of the court's interpretation of the phrase and the
negative effect it could have on investors' arbitration claims, FINRA
proposed to remove the phrase, ``where permitted by applicable law,''
from Rules 12206(c) and 13206(c) to make tolling automatic as part of
the arbitration agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 64 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). The case involved claims
under Section 10(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Friedman court granted the defendant's request to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint on statute of limitations grounds. In arguing
against dismissal, the plaintiff sought to rely on old Rule 10307(a)
\8\ of the Code of Arbitration Procedure, which was updated and is
currently designated as Rules 12206(c) and 13206(c) of the Customer
Code and Industry Code, respectively, to support his position that

filing an arbitration claim tolls the applicable statute of
limitations.\9\ The court determined, however, that the language of old
Rule 10307(a) does not toll the statute of limitations unless such
tolling is ``permitted by applicable law.'' \10\ After further
analysis, the court found that no federal or state statute tolled the
applicable statute of limitations and granted the defendant's dismissal
request.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 10307(a) (Tolling of Time Limitation(s) for the
Institution of Legal Proceedings and Extension of Time Limitation(s)
for Submission to Arbitration) states in relevant part that:
    Where permitted by applicable law, the time limitations which
would otherwise run or accrue for the institution of legal
proceedings shall be tolled where a duly executed Submission
Agreement is filed by the Claimant(s). The tolling shall continue
for such period as the Association shall retain jurisdiction upon
the matter submitted.
    \9\ 64 F. Supp. 2d at 343.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other courts have reached the same conclusion in interpreting old
Rule 10307(a) and the phrase ``where permitted by law.'' In Individual
Securities v. Ross,\12\ the plaintiff, in appealing a judgment of a New
York district court that dismissed the complaint as time-barred,
claimed that the statute of limitations was tolled while his matter was
in arbitration with then-NASD.\13\ The court cited old Rule 10307(a)
and noted that the ``where permitted by law'' language referred to the
applicable law in New York, which prevented tolling of the limitations
period.\14\ In Rampersad v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,\15\ the
court, citing Friedman, determined that, used in a similar context, the
phrase meant that federal law, not state law, governs the availability
of tolling the limitations period in a Section 10(b) cause of
action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 12618.
    \13\ On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule
change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to
reflect its name change to FINRA in connection with the
consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and
NYSE Regulation, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146
(July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-053).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5031. The case also involved claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    \16\ Id. In this case, the plaintiff filed an arbitration claim
against the defendants at the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE''). The plaintiff argued that the limitations period should
have been tolled under New York law for the period during which the
arbitration was pending, and cited NYSE Rule 606(a), which is
similar to old Rule 10307(a), and states in pertinent part:
    Where permitted by law, the time limitation(s) which would
otherwise run or accrue for the institution of legal proceedings,
shall be tolled when a duly executed Submission Agreement is filed
by the claimants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is concerned that courts may begin citing this interpretation
to dismiss claims that would otherwise be permitted under the
eligibility rule.\17\ FINRA does not believe this outcome would be
consistent with the original intent of the tolling provision or of
amendments to the eligibility rule that allow customers to take their
claims to court if their claims are dismissed in arbitration on
eligibility grounds.\18\ Rather, FINRA believes that, in such a
situation, the rule should be read to provide that a firm or associated
person has implicitly agreed to suspend any statute of limitations
defense for the time period that the matter was in FINRA's
jurisdiction. Amending the eligibility rule is intended to make this
clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The rule states that ``dismissal of a claim under this rule
does not prohibit a party from pursuing the claim in court. By
filing a motion to dismiss a claim under this rule, the moving party
agrees that if the panel dismisses a claim under this rule, the non-
moving party may withdraw any remaining related claims without
prejudice and may pursue all of the claims in court.'' See also Rule
13206(b).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50714 (November 22,
2004), 69 FR 69971 (December 1, 2004) (SR-NASD-2001-101).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, FINRA is concerned that the Friedman interpretation could
limit or foreclose customers' access to other judicial forums to
address their disputes, which would be an unfair result. Most brokerage
firms require customers to arbitrate their disputes, a process that can
take more than a year. Customers may be disadvantaged in a subsequent
court proceeding if the panel dismisses the arbitration case on
eligibility grounds and the statute of limitations is not tolled for
the period of time that the customers were in arbitration. In addition
to being an unfair result, FINRA believes this would undermine the
intent of the eligibility rule, which gives customers the option of
taking their claims to court when a case is dismissed on eligibility
grounds.
    Therefore, FINRA proposed to delete the phrase ``where permitted by
applicable law'' from Rules 12206(c) and 13206(c). FINRA noted that the
Friedman interpretation suggests that, but for the phrase, the rule
would be read as an explicit agreement between the parties to toll the
statute of limitations period.\19\ FINRA stated that it believes that
the proposed rule change would leave the parties in the same position
in court as they were at the start of the arbitration with regard to
any statutes of limitation: the time period before the claim was filed
in arbitration would not be extended by the proposed changes, but
applicable statutes of limitation would not run while the matter was in
arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Friedman, 64 F. Supp. 2d 338, 343 n.4 (1999). The court
indicates that it likely would accept the amended language as
representing an agreement of the parties:
    The precise meaning of Rule 10307(a) is not entirely clear. If
the phrase ``where permitted by applicable law'' did not precede the
remainder of the paragraph, the rule would simply be read as an
explicit agreement between the parties to toll the limitations
period, regardless of what the applicable state or federal tolling
principles provide. However, by including the phrase the drafters
seemed to limit tolling to situations in which tolling is expressly
permitted by applicable law, thereby making an explicit agreement
between the parties unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received five comments in response to the proposed
rule change, all of which supported the proposal.\20\ One commenter
stated that FINRA has proposed equitable amendments and should be
commended for its thoughtful treatment of the tolling issues, and that
the Commission should approve the amendments as written and without
delay.\21\ Another commenter noted that an automatic tolling of the
applicable statute of limitations, if any, will protect the public
interest and preserve fairness in the arbitration process.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Supra note 4.
    \21\ See PIABA letter. One commenter, while supporting the
proposed rule change, suggested that the words ``and for thirty days
thereafter'' should be added to the proposed rule amendment so that
the final sentence of Rule 13206(c) would read: ``* * * any time
limits for the filing of the claim in court will be tolled while
FINRA retains jurisdiction of the claim and for thirty days
thereafter.'' See Bernstein letter. FINRA declined to make that
change, stating that it believes the suggested amendment to the
proposed rule change would contradict the rule, as currently
drafted, by extending applicable statutes of limitations by 30 days.
The proposed rule change was intended to clarify FINRA's
interpretation of Rule 12206(c) that any applicable statute of
limitations would be tolled in all cases when a person files an
arbitration claim with FINRA. However, FINRA did not intend to
extend the tolling protection beyond the completion of the
arbitration case. For these reasons, FINRA declines to amend the
proposal as suggested. Email from Mignon McLemore, FINRA (May 12,
2009).
    \22\ See Caruso letter. See also the Securities Arbitration
Clinic letter (the proposed changes will ensure that the intent of
the rule is respected), and the Lipner letter (investors who submit
to arbitration should benefit for the tolling of the statute of
limitations in the event that the claim is non-arbitrable and must
later be heard in court).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association \23\\\ and in particular, with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\24\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, facilitate transactions in securities, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section

15A(b)(6) of the Act because the proposed rule change will preserve
fairness in the arbitration process by ensuring that investors maintain
their right to have their claims heard in court if their arbitration
cases are dismissed on eligibility grounds by tolling the applicable
statutes of limitation while their disputes are in arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 17c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-013) be, and hereby is,
approved.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11608 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55383-55385]
[DOCID:fr10se10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62847; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To List Series With Up to 12 Expiration Months for Broad-Based
Security Index Options Upon Which the Exchange Calculates a Volatility
Index

September 3, 2010.
    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 August 24, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. On September 2, 2010, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1,
which replaced the original filing in its entirety. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as amended, 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

    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 24.9(a)(2), Terms of Index Option
Contracts, to allow the Exchange to list up to twelve expiration months
for options that overlie broad-based security indexes for which options
are used by the Exchange to calculate a volatility index. The text of
the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Amendment 1 replaces the original filing in its entirety. The
purpose of Amendment 1 is to provide additional reasoning for the
proposed rule text change and to make a technical change to Rule
24.9(a)(2) by deleting an unnecessary word from the text of the rule.
    The purpose of this rule filing is to amend Rule 24.9(a)(2), Terms
of Index Options, to allow the Exchange to list up to twelve expiration
months for broad-based security index options upon which the Exchange
calculates a volatility index. Currently, Rule 24.9(a)(2) permits the
Exchange to list only seven expiration months in any index options upon
which the Exchange calculates a constant three-month volatility index.
    Since 2009, volatility trading has experienced significant growth
in terms of both trading volume and in the variety of products offered.
For example, through the first six months in 2010, CBOE Volatility
Index (``VIX'') options averaged close to 250,000 contracts traded per
day, a 150% increase compared to the same period in 2009. VIX futures
volume increased 440%, averaging 13,500 contracts per day compared to
2,500 contracts per day during the same period in 2009.
    Similarly, since 2009, three exchange-traded notes (``ETNs'')
linked to the performance of VIX futures have been issued, two of which
overlie listed options.\3\ In addition, Jefferies & Co. recently
announced plans to issue an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') \4\ that
holds VIX futures or an economically equivalent position and Bank of
America Merrill Lynch recently announced plans to issue an ETN based on
forward implied volatility of S&P 500 Index options. Additionally, the
Exchange is aware of other issuers that are engaged in similar
volatility product initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ETNs are referred to ``Index-Linked Securities'' in CBOE's
Rules. See Interpretation and Policy .13 to Rule 5.3. The ETNs
linked to the performance of VIX futures are the (1) iPath S&P 500
VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (``VXX''), (2) iPath S&P 500 VIX Mid-Term
Futures ETN (``VXZ''), and (3) Barclays ETN+ Inverse S&P 500 VIX
Short-Term Futures ETN (``XXV'').
    \4\ ETFs are referred to as ``Units'' in CBOE's Rules. See
Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 5.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange was previously granted approval to list a seventh
expiration in broad-based index classes on which the Exchange
calculates a 3-month volatility index.\5\ In order to satisfy growing
demand for a wider variety of volatility investment strategies, the
Exchange is seeking to increase, from seven to twelve, the number of
expiration months for broad-based security index options upon which the
Exchange calculates a volatility index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56821 (November 20,
2007), 72 FR 66210 (November 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-082).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 24.9(a)(2) currently permits the Exchange to list up to seven
expiration months at any one time for any broad-based security index
option contracts, including reduced-value and jumbo option contracts,
(e.g., DJX, NDX, RUT and SPX) upon which the Exchange calculates a
constant three-month volatility index. When the Exchange proposed the
allowance of a seventh expiration month for broad-based security index
option contracts on which CBOE calculates a constant three-month
volatility index, the Commission noted that the change ``will result in
a more consistent and predictable calculation in which the option
series that bracket three months to expiration will always expire one
month apart * * *'' \6\ In this current proposal, the Exchange is
seeking to create flexibility that would enable it to create volatility
indexes of varying lengths in response to demand for a wider variety of
volatility investment strategies. As a result, the Exchange is not
proposing to tie the number of expiration months permitted to a
specific volatility calculation period and is proposing to delete the
phrase ``constant three-month'' from the existing text of Rule
24.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the additional expirations, which will
be listed in monthly intervals over a one-year time frame, will provide
the Exchange with the flexibility to create indexes that represent
unique volatility exposures, and enable the Exchange to respond quickly
to investor demand for new volatility-based products.
Capacity
    CBOE has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the
Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary
systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the
ability to list up to twelve expiration months for broad-based security
index options upon which the Exchange calculates a volatility index.
2. Statutory Basis
    Because the increase in the number of expiration months is limited
to options overlying broad based security indexes upon which the
Exchange calculates a volatility index and because the series could be
added without presenting capacity problems, the Exchange believes the
rule proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act \8\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-077 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-CBOE-2010-077. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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-CBOE-2010-077 and should be
submitted on or before October 1, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22599 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 174 (Wednesday, September 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54280-54281]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2590-000]

Triolith Energy Fund LP; 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
Triolith Energy Fund LP'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 September 22, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 2, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22645 Filed 9-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 24782]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD06-6-000]

Notice of Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint meeting on Thursday, June
7, 2018 at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is
expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 11:15 a.m.
Eastern Time. Members of the public may attend this meeting.
Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.
    The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions
between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their
respective staffs. In addition, representatives of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in
this meeting.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. ((202) 347-3700 or 1<PHONE_NUMBER>). There will be a
free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to
listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with
internet access can listen to the conference by navigating to the
Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating the technical
conference in the Calendar. The technical conference will contain a
link to its webcast. The Capital Connection provides technical support
for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via
phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, please visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's website www.ferc.gov for three months
after the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pre-registration is not required but is highly encouraged for those
attending in person. Attendees may register in advance at the following
web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-07-18-form.asp. Attendees should bring a photo ID and allow time to pass
through building security procedures. There is no fee to attend the
open meeting.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Questions about the meeting should be directed to Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 22, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11528 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50754-50755]
[DOCID:fr17au10-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

August 4, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-466-006.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits Substitute
Original Sheet 216 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1
to comply with the Commission's Order issued June 25, 2010.
    Filed Date: 07/23/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100726-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday August 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-826-001.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Maritimes and Northwest Pipeline, LLC submits Seventh
Revised Sheet 210 to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/27/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100728-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-876-001.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co, LLC re-submits Sheet
No. 250 to correct their filing submitted on 6/22/10.
    Filed Date: 07/28/2010.

    Accession Number: 20100728-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-625-002.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.203: RP10-625 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100730-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 11, 2010.

    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 on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20268 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41790]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-431-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request for Waivers

July 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 11, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) filed to request the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
permit EPNG to waive and/or discount certain penalties and charges
under its Tariff from July 13, 2006 through July 31, 2006, and from
August 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006 to provide shippers additional
time to align their business needs with EPNG's new services.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11669 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2287]
[FR Doc No: C2-2010-29719]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 240 and 249

[Release No. 34-63347; File No. S7-35-10]
RIN 3235-AK79

Security-Based Swap Data Repository Registration, Duties, and
Core Principles; Correction

Correction
    In proposed rule document C1-2010-29719 beginning on page 79320 in
the issue of December 20, 2010, make the following correction:

    On page 79320, in the second column, in instruction 5, footnote 165
is corrected to read as follows:

    \165\ See Public Law 111-203 (adding Exchange Act Section
13(n)(5)(D)(i)).

[FR Doc. C2-2010-29719 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P