[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45875-45876]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: CP20-497-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Abbreviated Application for Partial Abandonment of
Firm Transportation Service of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
LLC under CP20-497.
    Filed Date: 07/21/2020.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5160.
    Comments Due: 08/11/2020.

    Docket Number: CP20-499-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Application to Abandon a Certificated National Fuel
Gas Supply Corporation Service of National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
under CP20-499.
    Filed Date: 07/21/2020.
    Accession Number: 20200722-5059.
    Comments Due: 08/11/2020.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-998-001.

    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing TRA 2020 to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200723-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/20.

    Docket Number: RP20-1019-001.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.205(b): Amendment Operational Flow Orders to be
effective 8/8/2020 under RP20-1019 Availability.
    Filed Date: 7/23/2020.
    Accession Number: 20200723-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/20.

    Docket Number: PR20-71-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e): Revised
Transportation and Storage Rates (Amended Tax Tracker) to be effective
7/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/23/2020.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>31.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1034-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates 7-23-2020 to
be effective 7/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200723-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1035-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-07-23 Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 7/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/23/20.
    Accession Number: 20200723-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/20.

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

    Dated: July 24, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16519 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53163-53164]
[DOCID:fr16oc09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0513; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-13]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Midlothian-Waxahachie,
TX. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area
Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at
Mid-Way Regional Airport, Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX. This action also
reflects the name change to Mid-Way Regional Airport and updates the
geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's National Aeronautical
Charting Office. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Mid-Way
Regional Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC, December 17, 2009. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 12, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Midlothian-
Waxahachie, TX, adding additional controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface, at Mid-Way Regional Airport,
Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX. (74 FR 40534, Docket No. FAA-2009-0513).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Mid-Way Regional Airport, Midlothian-
Waxahachie, TX, for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport. This action also reflects the name change of the airport to
Mid-Way Regional Airport and updates the geographic coordinates to
coincide with the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting Office.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when

promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it adds additional controlled airspace at Mid-Way Regional Airport,
Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX [Amended]

Mid-Way Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]27'22'' N., long. 96[deg]54'46'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Mid-Way Regional Airport and within 1.8
miles each side of the 184[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.8 miles south of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 1, 2009.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-24647 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38220-38223]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0175; Project Identifier 2001-SW-33-AD; Amendment
39-21643; AD 2021-14-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by Eurocopter
France) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1
helicopters. This AD was prompted by a quality control check that
revealed some stretcher attachment holes were improperly located on the
frame where there was insufficient edge distance. This AD requires
measuring the 9-degree frame flange (frame) for the correct edge
distance of the four attachment holes for the stretcher support and
inspecting for cracks, and repairing the frame, if necessary, and
installation of a reinforcement plate (reinforcing angle), as specified
in two Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC)
ADs, which are incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 24, 2021.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 24,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For DGAC material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
DGAC material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For
American Eurocopter material, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum
Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view the DGAC and American Eurocopter
material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Service
information that is incorporated by reference is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0175.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0175; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
DGAC ADs, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Williams, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems Section, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA
90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The DGAC, which was the Technical Agent for France, issued DGAC AD
2001-061-053(A), dated February 21, 2001 (DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A)) for
certain Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters;
and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A), dated July 11, 2001 (DGAC AD 2001-283-
025(A)) for all Model SA-366G1 helicopters (also referred to as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for those helicopters.
    The FAA issued a second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all
Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by Eurocopter
France) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1
helicopters. The second SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May
7, 2021 (86 FR 24556). The second SNPRM proposed to require inspecting
the frame for the correct edge distance of the four attachment holes of
the stretcher support and for a crack, and repairing the frame, if
necessary, and installation of a reinforcement plate (reinforcing
angle) on the frame, as specified in DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC
AD 2001-283-025(A). The second SNPRM also included references to an
engineering report that lists approved U.S. alternative fasteners and
materials that may be used in any required repairs. The second SNPRM
was issued because a significant amount of time elapsed since the first
SNPRM was published.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the 9-degree frame
due to a crack at the stretcher support attachment holes, which could
result in loss of a passenger door, damage to the rotor system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

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

Conclusion

    The FAA 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. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
second SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the second SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A) describe
procedures for measuring the edge distance of the webs at the four
attachment holes of the stretcher support on the left and right sides
of the 9-degree frame, and additional actions depending on the
findings. The additional actions include repetitively inspecting the
frame for cracking, repair if necessary, and installation of a
reinforcement plate (reinforcing angle) on the frame. These documents
are distinct since they refer to different helicopter models.
    American Eurocopter Engineering Report No. AEC/03R-E-005,
``Addendum ASB 53.00.42 and 53.00.43 AS365,'' dated January 29, 2003,
specifies U.S. and European rivet equivalent part numbers, U.S. rivet
part numbers with acceptable substitute materials with greater strength
properties, and 5 rivet, 6 rivet, and pin Hi-lok alternatives.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The FAA has determined that acceptable U.S. alternatives to the
fasteners and materials needed to perform repairs or modifications are
listed in American Eurocopter Engineering Report No. AEC/03R-E-005
``Addendum ASB 53.00.42 and 53.00.043 AS365'', dated January 29, 2003.
    Where DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) exempts helicopters that were
delivered after January 31, 2001, from the applicability, this AD does
not exempt those helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 31 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs For Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................            $100             $355          $11,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 8 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $250       Up to $930
 $680.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-14-16 Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-21643; Docket No. FAA-2021-0175;
Project Identifier 2001-SW-33-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 24, 2021.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters (type certificate
previously held by Eurocopter France) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-
365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, certificated in any
category.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 5311, Fuselage
Main, Frame.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control check that revealed
some stretcher attachment holes were improperly located on the frame
where there was insufficient edge distance. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address failure of the 9-degree frame flange (frame) due to a
crack at the stretcher support attachment holes, which could result
in loss of a passenger door, damage to the rotor system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with the applicable Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) ADs specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2)
of this AD.
    (1) For Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters: DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A), dated February 21, 2001, (DGAC
AD 2001-061-053(A)).
    (2) For Model SA-366G1 helicopters: DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A),
dated July 11, 2001 (DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A)).

 (h) Exceptions to DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A)

    (1) Where paragraph 3.1 of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC AD
2001-283-025(A) specifies an initial compliance time to do the
measurement, for this AD, do the measurement within 50 hours time-
in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph 3.1. of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC AD
2001-283-025(A) specifies to do a measurement, for this AD, do an
inspection of the area around the attachment holes for cracks
concurrently with the measurement.
    (3) Where paragraph 3.2.1.a) of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC
AD 2001-283-025(A) specifies ``every 550 flight hours, check that
there is no crack in the flange,'' for this AD, inspect (check) the
area around the attachment holes for cracks at intervals not to
exceed 550 hours TIS.
    (4) Where paragraph 3.2.1.b) of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC
AD 2001-283-025(A) requires installation of a reinforcement plate
(reinforcing angle) on the flange for certain helicopters, do the

installation within 550 hours TIS after accomplishment of the
measurement specified in paragraph 3.1. of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A)
and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A).
    (5) Where the service information referred to in DGAC AD 2001-
061-053(A) and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A) specifies to perform a dye
penetrant crack inspection ``if in doubt,'' this AD requires
performing a dye penetrant inspection.
    (6) Where paragraph 3.2.2. of DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC
AD 2001-283-025(A) specifies to do various actions specified in
paragraphs 3.2.2.a), b), and c) of those ADs, for this AD, if any
frame is cracked, before further flight, repair the frame.
Acceptable U.S. alternatives to the fasteners and materials needed
to perform repairs or modifications are listed in American
Eurocopter Engineering Report No. AEC/03R-E-005, ``Addendum ASB
53.00.42 and 53.00.43 AS365'', dated January 29, 2003.
    (7) Where the Note in paragraph 3.2.2. of DGAC AD 2001-061-
053(A) and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A) specifies the instructions are no
longer applicable after a customized repair has been carried out,
for this AD, modifying or repairing the frame constitutes
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are prohibited.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Blaine Williams,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems Section,
Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC)
AD 2001-061-053(A), dated February 21, 2001.
    (ii) DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A), dated July 11, 2001.
    (iii) American Eurocopter Engineering Report No. AEC/03R-E-005,
``Addendum ASB 53.00.42 and 53.00.43 AS365'', dated January 29,
2003.
    (3) For DGAC AD 2001-061-053(A) and DGAC AD 2001-283-025(A),
contact the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find
these DGAC ADs on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) For American Eurocopter material identified in this AD,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 2, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15302 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

(7/1/2007)>

<EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [Denise
Greenway<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<SUBMISSION: E-mail the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<TEMPLATE:>

<[ Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University,
500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 on behalf of the
USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV, 2217
Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430]>

<[7E7231]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([7E7231]) from [[ Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)], [500 College Road East, Suite 201W,
Princeton, NJ 08540] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of NA-Remove>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
Plum Pox Viral coat protein>

<	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance
exemption for the NA-Remove>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. microbial pesticide  [insert name of active ingredient] NA-Remove>

<	2. biochemical pesticide [insert name of active ingredient] NA-Remove>

<	3. plant-pesticide [Plum Pox Viral coat protein] in or on [Fruit,
Stone, Group 12 and almond].>

<	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [[
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University on
behalf of the USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station,
Kearneysville, WV] has submitted the following summary of information,
data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary
was prepared by [[ Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4),
Rutgers University] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the
pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the
terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material,
or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the
findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the
petitioner.>

<I. [[[ Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)on behalf of the
USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV]
Petition Summary>

<	[7E7231]>

<A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices>

<	[ The Plum Pox Resistance Gene has been incorporated into the plum
variety C5 HoneySweet Plum to protect it from the disease known as plum
pox virus.  ]>

<B. Product Identity/Chemistry>

<	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [ The
pesticide and corresponding residues are identified as Plum pox Viral
coat protein]>

<	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. [ There is no need for residue analysis because
there is a long history of mammalian consumption of the entire plant
virus particles in food, without causing any known deleterious human
health effects or any evidence of toxicity.  Virus infected plants are
part of the human diet and there have been no findings which indicate
that plant viruses are able to replicate in mammals or other
vertebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of human infection.
The portion of the genome coding for resistance to plum pox (viral coat
protein)  and subcomponents of the resistance gene expressed in the
plant are incapable of forming infectious particles. Non-occupational
exposure such as drinking water exposure is minimal to non-existent
since the gene is only expressed within plant tissues. The C5 plum pox
resistant plum does not represent a source of novel potential allergenic
or antinutrient proteins. Finally, it is highly unlikely that any
protein will be expressed. There are molecular methods of genetic
anaylsis using DNA blot techniques

]>

<	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [ There is no need
for residue analysis because there is a long history of mammalian
consumption of the entire plant virus particles in food, without causing
any known deleterious human health effects or any evidence of toxicity.
Virus infected plants are part of the human diet and there have been no
findings which indicate that plant viruses are able to replicate in
mammals or other vertebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of
human infection.  The portion of the genome coding for resistance to
plum pox (viral coat protein)  and subcomponents of the resistance gene
expressed in the plant are incapable of forming infectious particles.
Non-occupational exposure such as drinking water exposure is minimal to
non-existent since the gene is only expressed within plant tissues. The
plum pox viral coat protein does not represent a source of novel
potential allergenic or antinutrient proteins. Finally, it is highly
unlikely that any protein will be expressed.]>

<C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile>

<	[ There is no need for mammalian toxicological testing  because there
is a long history of mammalian consumption of the entire plant virus
particles in food, without causing any known deleterious human health
effects or any evidence of toxicity.  Virus infected plants are part of
the human diet and there have been no findings which indicate that plant
viruses are able to replicate in mammals or other vertebrates, thereby
eliminating the possibility of human infection.  The portion of the
genome coding for resistance to plum pox (viral coat protein)  and
subcomponents of the resistance gene expressed in the plant are
incapable of forming infectious particles. Non-occupational exposure
such as drinking water exposure is minimal to non-existent since the
gene is only expressed within plant tissues. The C5 plum pox resistant
plum does not represent a source of novel potential allergenic or
antinutrient proteins. Finally, it is highly unlikely that any protein
will be so it does not present either a toxicological or an infectious
risk to mammals.>

Researchers and other workers have worked with  C5 HoneySweet Plum at
the USDA-ARS  since 1992.

]

<D. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. []>

<	i. Food. [ There is  a long history of mammalian consumption of the
entire plant virus particles in food, without causing any known
deleterious human health effects or any evidence of toxicity.  Virus
infected plants are part of the human diet and there have been no
findings which indicate that plant viruses are able to replicate in
mammals or other vertebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of
human infection.  The portion of the genome coding for resistance to
plum pox (viral coat protein)  and subcomponents of the resistance gene
expressed in the plant are incapable of forming infectious particles.
Non-occupational exposure such as drinking water exposure is minimal to
non-existent since the gene is only expressed within plant tissues. The
C5 plum pox resistant plum does not represent a source of novel
potential allergenic or antinutrient proteins. Finally, it is highly
unlikely that any protein will be expressed

]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [ Non-occupational exposure such as drinking water
exposure is minimal to non-existent since the gene is only expressed
within plant tissues.

]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [ Non-occupational exposure such as drinking
water exposure is minimal to non-existent since the gene is only
expressed within plant tissues.

]>

<E. Cumulative Effects>

<	[ There are no other registered products containing the Plum Pox Viral
Coat Protein.]>

<F. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [ There is  a long history of mammalian
consumption of the entire plant virus particles in food, without causing
any known deleterious human health effects or any evidence of toxicity.
Virus infected plants are part of the human diet and there have been no
findings which indicate that plant viruses are able to replicate in
mammals or other vertebrates, thereby eliminating the possibility of
human infection.  The portion of the genome coding for resistance to
plum pox (viral coat protein)  and subcomponents of the resistance gene
expressed in the plant are incapable of forming infectious particles.
Non-occupational exposure such as drinking water exposure is minimal to
non-existent since the gene is only expressed within plant tissues. The
C5 plum pox resistant plum does not represent a source of novel
potential allergenic or antinutrient proteins. Finally, it is highly
unlikely that any protein will be expressed

]>

<	2. Infants and children. [ Based on the lack of toxicity and natural
occurrence, there is reasonable certainty that no harm to infants,
children, or adults will result from aggregate exposure to Plum pox
Viral coat protein.  Exempting Plum Pox Viral coat protein from the
requirement of a tolerance should pose no significant risk to humans or
the environment.]>

<G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems>

<	[ The Plum pox Viral coat protein  was derived from a naturally
occurring organism, To date there is no evidence to suggest that the
Plum Pox Viral coat protein  functions in a manner similar to any known
hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.]>

<H. Existing Tolerances>

<	[ The registrant is not aware of any existing tolerances or tolerance
exemptions for Plum pox Viral coat protein.]>

<I. International Tolerances>

<	[ There are no Codex maximum residue levels established for residues
of Plum pox Viral coat protein  containing products are presently not
registered for pest control outside of the United States.

]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26857-26861]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10436]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77742; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to FLEX Options Pilot Program

April 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 15, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Flexible
Exchange Options (``FLEX Options'') pilot program through May 3,
2017.\5\ The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FLEX Options provide investors with the ability to customize
basic option features including size, expiration date, exercise
style, and certain exercise prices. FLEX Options can be FLEX Index
Options or FLEX Equity Options. In addition, other products are
permitted to be traded pursuant to the FLEX trading procedures. For
example, credit options are eligible for trading as FLEX Options
pursuant to the FLEX rules in Chapters XXIVA and XXIVB. See CBOE
Rules 24A.1(e) and (f), 24A.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), 24B.1(f) and (g),
24B.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), and 29.18. The rules governing the trading
of FLEX Options on the FLEX Request for Quote (``RFQ'') System
platform are contained in Chapter XXIVA. The rules governing the
trading of FLEX Options on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform
are contained in Chapter XXIVB.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules
* * * * *
Rule 24A.4. Terms of FLEX Options
No change.

. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01 FLEX Index Option PM Settlements Pilot Program: Notwithstanding
subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) above, for a pilot period ending the earlier of
May 3, 201[6]7 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a
permanent basis, a FLEX Index Option that expires on an Expiration
Friday may have any exercise settlement value that is permissible
pursuant to subparagraph (b)(3) above.
.02 No change.
* * * * *
Rule 24B.4. Terms of FLEX Options
No change.
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
.01 FLEX Index Option PM Settlements Pilot Program: Notwithstanding
subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) above, for a pilot period ending the earlier of
May 3, 201[6]7 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a
permanent basis, a FLEX Index Option that expires on an Expiration
Friday may have any exercise settlement value that is permissible
pursuant to subparagraph (b)(3) above.
.02 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 28, 2010, the Exchange received approval of a rule
change that, among other things, established a pilot program regarding
permissible exercise settlement values for FLEX Index Options.\6\ The
Exchange has extended the pilot period five times, which is currently
set to expire on the earlier of May 3, 2016 or the date on which the
pilot program is approved on a permanent basis.\7\ The purpose of this
rule change filing is to extend the pilot program through the earlier
of May 3, 2017 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a
permanent basis. This filing simply seeks to extend the operation of
the pilot program and does not propose any substantive changes to the
pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61439 (January 28,
2010), 75 FR 5831 (February 4, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2009-087) (``Approval
Order''). The initial pilot period was set to expire on March 28,
2011, which date was added to the rules in 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61676 (March 9, 2010), 75 FR 13191 (March
18, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-026).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 64110 (March 23
[sic], 2011), 76 FR 17463 (March 29, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-024)
(extending the pilot program through the earlier of March 30, 2012
or the date on which the pilot program is approved on the permanent
basis); 66701 (March 30, 2012), 77 FR 20673 (April 5, 2012) (SR-
CBOE-2012-027) (extending the pilot through the earlier of November
2, 2012 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a
permanent basis); 68145 (November 2, 2012), 77 FR 67044 (November 8,
2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-102) (extending the pilot program through the
earlier of November 2, 2013 or the date on which the pilot program
is approved on a permanent basis); 70752 (October 24, 2013), 78 FR
65023 (October 30, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-099) (extending the pilot
program through the earlier of November 3, 2014 or the date on which
the pilot program is approved on a permanent basis); and 73460
(October 29, 2014), 79 FR 65464 (November 4, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-
080) (extending the pilot program through the earlier of May 3, 2016
or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a permanent
basis). At the same time the permissible exercise settlement values
pilot was established for FLEX Index Options, the Exchange also
established a pilot program eliminating the minimum value size
requirements for all FLEX Options. See Approval Order, supra note 2
[sic]. The pilot program eliminating the minimum value size
requirements was extended twice pursuant to the same rule filings
that extended the permissible exercise settlement values (for the
same extended periods) and was approved on a permanent basis in a
separate rule change filing. See id. and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67624 (August 8, 2012), 77 FR 48580 (August 14, 2012)
(SR-CBOE-2012-040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rules 24A.4, Terms of FLEX Options, and 24B.4, Terms of FLEX
Options, a FLEX Option may expire on any business day specified as to
day, month and year, not to exceed a maximum term of fifteen years. In
addition, the exercise settlement value for a FLEX Index Option can be
specified as the index value determined by reference to the reported
level of the index as derived from the opening or closing prices of the
component securities (``a.m. settlement'' or ``p.m. settlement,''
respectively) or as a specified average, provided that the average
index value must conform to the averaging parameters established by the
Exchange.\8\ However, prior to the initiation of the exercise
settlement values pilot, only a.m. settlements were permitted if a FLEX
Index Option expired on, or within two business days of, a third
Friday-of-the-month expiration (``Expiration Friday'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rules 24A.4(b)(3) and 24B.4(b)(3); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 31920 (February 24, 1993), 58 FR 12280
(March 3, 1993) (SR-CBOE-92-017). The Exchange has determined to
limit the averaging parameters to three alternatives: The average of
the opening and closing index values on the expiration date; the
average of intra-day high and low index values on the expiration
date; and the average of the opening, closing, and intra-day high
and low index values on the expiration date. Any changes to the
averaging parameters established by the Exchange would be announced
to Trading Permit Holders via circular.
    \9\ For example, prior to the pilot, the exercise settlement
value of a FLEX Index Option that expires on the Tuesday before
Expiration Friday could have an a.m., p.m. or specified average
settlement. However, the exercise settlement value of a FLEX Index
Option that expires on the Wednesday before Expiration Friday could
only have an a.m. settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the exercise settlement values pilot, this restriction on
p.m. and specified average price settlements in FLEX Index Options was
eliminated.\10\ The exercise settlement values pilot is currently set
to expire on the earlier of May 3, 2016 or the date on which the pilot
program is approved on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ No change was necessary or requested with respect to FLEX
Equity Options. Regardless of the expiration date, FLEX Equity
Options are settled by physical delivery of the underlying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is proposing to extend the pilot program through the earlier
of May 3, 2017 or the date on which the pilot program is approved on a
permanent basis. CBOE believes the pilot program has been successful
and well received by its Trading Permit Holders and the investing
public for the period that it has been in operation as a pilot. In
support of the proposed extension of the pilot program, and as required
by the pilot program's Approval Order, the Exchange has submitted to
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') pilot
program reports regarding the pilot, which detail the Exchange's
experience with the program. Specifically, the Exchange provided the
Commission with annual reports analyzing volume and open interest for
each broad-based FLEX Index Options class overlying an Expiration
Friday, p.m.-settled FLEX Index Options series.\11\ The annual reports
also contained information and analysis of FLEX Index Options trading

patterns. The Exchange also provided the Commission, on a periodic
basis, interim reports of volume and open interest. In providing the
pilot reports to the Commission, the Exchange has requested
confidential treatment of the pilot reports under the Freedom of
Information Act (``FOIA'').\12\ The confidentiality of the pilot
reports is subject to the provisions of FOIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The annual reports also contained certain pilot period and
pre-pilot period analyses of volume and open interest for Expiration
Friday, a.m.-settled FLEX Index series and Expiration Friday Non-
FLEX Index series overlying the same index as an Expiration Friday,
p.m.-settled FLEX Index option.
    \12\ 5 U.S.C. 552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and
demand in the pilot program to warrant its extension. The Exchange
believes that, for the period that the pilot has been in operation, the
program has provided investors with additional means of managing their
risk exposures and carrying out their investment objectives.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it has not experienced any
adverse market effects with respect to the pilot program, including any
adverse market volatility effects that might occur as a result of large
FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that expire near Non-FLEX
expirations and use a p.m. settlement (as discussed below).
    In that regard, based on the Exchange's experience in trading FLEX
Options to date and over the pilot period, CBOE continues to believe
that the restrictions on exercise settlement values are no longer
necessary to insulate Non-FLEX expirations from the potential adverse
market impacts of FLEX expirations.\13\ To the contrary, CBOE believes
that the restriction actually places the Exchange at a competitive
disadvantage to its OTC counterparts in the market for customized
options, and unnecessarily limits market participants' ability to trade
in an exchange environment that offers the added benefits of
transparency, price discovery, liquidity, and financial stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In further support, the Exchange also notes that the p.m.
and specified average price settlements are already permitted for
FLEX Index Options on any other business day except on, or within
two business days of, Expiration Friday. The Exchange is not aware
of any market disruptions or problems caused by the use of these
settlement methodologies on these expiration dates (or on the
expiration dates addressed under the pilot program). The Exchange is
also not aware of any market disruptions or problems caused by the
use of customized options in the over-the-counter (``OTC'') markets
that expire on or near Expiration Friday and have a p.m. or
specified average exercise settlement value. In addition, the
Exchange believes the reasons for limiting expirations to a.m.
settlement, which is something the SEC has imposed since the early
1990s for Non-FLEX Options, revolved around a concern about
expiration pressure on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') at the
close that are no longer relevant in today's market. Today, the
Exchange believes stock exchanges are able to better handle volume.
There are multiple primary listing and unlisted trading privilege
(``UTP'') markets, and trading is dispersed among several exchanges
and alternative trading systems. In addition, the Exchange believes
that surveillance techniques are much more robust and automated. In
the early 1990s, it was also thought by some that opening procedures
allow more time to attract contra-side interest to reduce
imbalances. The Exchange believes, however, that today, order flow
is predominantly electronic and the ability to smooth out openings
and closes is greatly reduced (e.g., market-on-close procedures work
just as well as openings). Also, other markets, such as the NASDAQ
Stock Exchange, do not have the same type of pre-opening imbalance
disseminations as NYSE, so many stocks are not subject to the same
procedures on Expiration Friday. In addition, the Exchange believes
that NYSE has reduced the required time a specialist has to wait
after disseminating a pre-opening indication. So, in this respect,
the Exchange believes there is less time to react in the opening
than in the close. Moreover, to the extent there may be a risk of
adverse market effects attributable to p.m. settled options (or
certain average price settled options related to the closing price)
that would otherwise be traded in a non-transparent fashion in the
OTC market, the Exchange continues to believe that such risk would
be lessened by making these customized options eligible for trading
in an exchange environment because of the added transparency, price
discovery, liquidity, and financial stability available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that certain position limit, aggregation
and exercise limit requirements continue to apply to FLEX Index Options
in accordance with Rules 24A.7, Position Limits and Reporting
Requirements, 24A.8, Exercise Limits, 24B.7, Position Limits and
Reporting Requirements, and 24B.8, Exercise Limits. Additionally, all
FLEX Options remain subject to the position reporting requirements in
paragraph (a) of CBOE Rule 4.13, Reports Related to Position
Limits.\14\ Moreover, the Exchange and its Trading Permit Holder
organizations each have the authority, pursuant to CBOE Rule 12.10,
Margin Required is Minimum, to impose additional margin as deemed
advisable. CBOE continues to believe these existing safeguards serve
sufficiently to help monitor open interest in FLEX Option series and
significantly reduce any risk of adverse market effects that might
occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that
expire near Non-FLEX expirations and use a p.m. settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CBOE Rule 4.13(a) provides that ``[i]n a manner and form
prescribed by the Exchange, each Trading Permit Holder shall report
to the Exchange, the name, address, and social security or tax
identification number of any customer who, acting alone, or in
concert with others, on the previous business day maintained
aggregate long or short positions on the same side of the market of
200 or more contracts of any single class of option contracts dealt
in on the Exchange. The report shall indicate for each such class of
options, the number of option contracts comprising each such
position and, in the case of short positions, whether covered or
uncovered.'' For purposes of Rule 4.13, the term ``customer'' in
respect of any Trading Permit Holder includes ``the Trading Permit
Holder, any general or special partner of the Trading Permit Holder,
any officer or director of the Trading Permit Holder, or any
participant, as such, in any joint, group or syndicate account with
the Trading Permit Holder or with any partner, officer or director
thereof.'' Rule 4.13(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE is also cognizant of the OTC market, in which similar
restrictions on exercise settlement values do not apply. CBOE continues
to believe that the pilot program is appropriate and reasonable and
provides market participants with additional flexibility in determining
whether to execute their customized options in an exchange environment
or in the OTC market. CBOE continues to believe that market
participants benefit from being able to trade these customized options
in an exchange environment in several ways, including, but not limited
to, enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions,
increased market transparency, and heightened contra-party
creditworthiness due to the role of the Options Clearing Corporation as
issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options.
    If, in the future, the Exchange proposes an additional extension of
the pilot program, or should the Exchange propose to make the pilot
program permanent, the Exchange will submit, along with any filing
proposing such amendments to the pilot program, an annual report
(addressing the same areas referenced above and consistent with the
pilot program's Approval Order) to the Commission at least two months
prior to the expiration date of the program. The Exchange will also
continue, on a periodic basis, to submit interim reports of volume and
open interest consistent with the terms of the exercise settlement
values pilot program as described in the pilot program's Approval
Order. All such pilot reports would continue to be provided by the
Exchange along with a request for confidential treatment under
FOIA.\15\ As noted in the pilot program's Approval Order, any positions
established under the pilot program would not be impacted by the
expiration of the pilot program.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 7 [sic] and surrounding discussion. If the
Exchange seeks permanent approval of the pilot program, the Exchange
recognizes that certain information in the pilot reports may need to
be made available on a public basis.
    \16\ For example, a position in a p.m.-settled FLEX Index Option
series that expires on Expiration Friday in January 2018 could be
established during the exercise settlement values pilot. If the
pilot program were not extended (or made permanent), then the
position could continue to exist. However, the Exchange notes that
any further trading in the series would be restricted to
transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing
transaction. See Approval Order at footnotes 9 and 10, supra note 2
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act

and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of
the pilot program, which permits additional exercise settlement values,
would provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk
through the use of FLEX Options. Further, the Exchange believes that it
has not experienced any adverse effects from the operation of the pilot
program, including any adverse market volatility effects that might
occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series that
expire near Non-FLEX expirations and use a p.m. settlement. The
Exchange also believes that the extension of the exercise settlement
values pilot does not raise any unique regulatory concerns. In
particular, although p.m. settlements may raise questions with the
Commission, the Exchange believes that, based on the Exchange's
experience in trading FLEX Options to date and over the pilot period,
market impact and investor protection concerns will not be raised by
this rule change. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change would continue to provide Trading Permit Holders and investors
with additional opportunities to trade customized options in an
exchange environment (which offers the added benefits of transparency,
price discovery, liquidity, and financial stability as compared to the
over-the-counter market) and subject to exchange-based rules, and
investors would benefit as a result.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes there is
sufficient investor interest and demand in the pilot program to warrant
its extension. The Exchange believes that, for the period that the
pilot has been in operation, the program has provided investors with
additional means of managing their risk exposures and carrying out
their investment objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it
has not experienced any adverse market effects with respect to the
pilot program, including any adverse market volatility effects that
might occur as a result of large FLEX exercises in FLEX Option series
that expire near Non-Flex expirations and use a p.m. settlement. CBOE
believes that the restriction actually places the Exchange at a
competitive disadvantage to its OTC counterparts in the market for
customized options, and unnecessarily limits market participants'
ability to trade in an exchange environment that offers the added
benefits of transparency, price discovery, liquidity, and financial
stability. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on competition.

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
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that such waiver will allow the Exchange to extend the pilot
program prior to its expiration on May 3, 2016, and maintain the status
quo, thereby reducing market disruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to extend the
pilot program prior to its expiration on May 3, 2016, which will ensure
that the program continues to operate uninterrupted. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-032. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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-2016-032 and should be
submitted on or before May 25, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10436 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34520-34521]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1037-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Negotiated Rate & Non-conforming (Sithe/Independence)
to be effective 6/5/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1038-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: June 7-30 2014 Auction to be effective 6/7/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1039-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rate Filing--June 2014 LER 1010222 Att A to
be effective 6/5/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1040-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Gulf Shore Energy Partners--Negotiated Rate Filing to
be effective 6/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1041-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated & Non-Conforming Agreements--ELEOP to be
effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-408-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Whiting Redtail Lateral in service on 2-10-2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/18/14.
    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 Sec.  385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 09, 2014,
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14072 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61452-61453]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24733]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67961; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Establish the Market
Quality Program

October 2, 2012.
    On March 23, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish the Market Quality Program. On March
29, 2012, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto, was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 12,
2012.\4\ The Commission initially received fifteen comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\5\ On May 18, 2012, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission extended the time period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change to July 11, 2012.\7\ The
Commission subsequently received three additional comment letters on
the proposed rule change and a response letter from the Exchange.\8\ On
July 11, 2012, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1.\9\ The Commission thereafter received six comment
letters and two response letters from the Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, NASDAQ made a technical amendment to
Item I of Exhibit 1 to delete an erroneous reference to the NASDAQ
Options Market and replace it with a reference to NASDAQ.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66765 (April 6, 2012),
77 FR 22042.
    \5\ See Letter from Frank Choi, dated April 13, 2012; Letter
from Christopher J. Csicsko, dated April 14, 2012; Letter from
Jeremiah O'Connor III, dated April 14, 2012; Letter from Dezso J.
Szalay, dated April 15, 2012; Letter from Kathryn Keita, dated April
18, 2012; Letter; Letter from Anonymous, dated April 18, 2012;
Letter from Mark Connell, dated April 19, 2012; Letter from Timothy
Quast, Managing Director, Modern Networks IR LLC, dated April 26,
2012; Letter from Daniel G. Weaver, Ph.D., Professor of Finance,
Rutgers Business School, dated April 26, 2012; Letter from Amber
Anand, Associate Professor of Finance, Syracuse University, dated
April 29, 2012; Letter from Albert J. Menkveld, Associate Professor
of Finance, VU University Amsterdam, dated May 2, 2012; Letter from
James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, Georgetown
University, dated May 2, 2012; Letter from Ari Burstein, Senior
Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated May 3, 2012; Letter
from Gus Sauter, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer,
Vanguard, dated May 3, 2012; and Letter from Leonard J. Amoruso,
General Counsel, Knight Capital Group, Inc., dated May 4, 2012.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67022 (May 18,
2012), 77 FR 31050 (May 24, 2012).
    \8\ See Letter from Gary L. Gastineau, Managing Member, ETF
Consultants LLC, dated June 11, 2012; Letter from Rey Ramsey,
President & CEO, TechNet, dated June 20, 2012; and Letter from
Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President & Managing Director,
General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, dated July 3, 2012. See
Letter from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President & Corporate
Secretary, NASDAQ, dated July 6, 2012.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67411, 77 FR 42052
(July 17, 2012).
    \10\ See Letter from Joseph Cavatoni, Managing Director, and
Joanne Medero, Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc., dated July 11,
2012; Letter from Stanislav Dolgopolov, Assistant Adjunct Professor,
UCLA School of Law, dated August 15, 2012; Letter from James E.
Ross, Global Head, SPDR Exchange Traded Funds, State Street Global
Advisors, dated August 16, 2012; Letter from Ari Burstein, Senior
Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated August 16, 2012; Letter
from F. William McNabb, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Vanguard, dated August 16, 2012; and Letter from Andrew Stevens,
Legal Counsel, IMC Chicago, LLC d/b/a IMC Financial Markets, dated
August 16, 2012. See Letters from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice
President & Corporate Secretary, NASDAQ OMX LLC, dated August 30,
2012 and Jurij Trypupenko, Esq., NASDAQ, dated September 7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \11\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the
Federal Register on April 12, 2012. October 9, 2012 is 180 days from
that date, and December 8, 2012 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in response to the proposed rule change, including comment
letters submitted in response

to the Order Instituting Proceedings, and the Exchange's responses to
such comments.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ designates December 8, 2012 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24733 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17405-17406]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at
Lancaster Airport in Lititz, Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on Lancaster Airport Authority's (LAA) request to change 5
acres of airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical
use. The parcel was purchased as part of a larger parcel with AIP
grants 3-42-0049-022-2002 and 3-42-0049-023-2002. The property was
purchased as part of a road relocation for the Runway 8-26 extension
project and is located in an area that would be difficult for future
aeronautical development. The LAA is requesting approval to release the
parcel for permanent non-aeronautical use to erect a vehicle
maintenance garage facility. The parcel is identified as 3E on the
Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The proposed facility is not currently noted
on the ALP, however, if approved, the ALP will be updated to reflect
the facility. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available,
by appointment only, for inspection at the Airport Manager's office and
the FAA Airport District Office.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the:
    Airport Manager's Office, Ed Foster, 500 Airport Road, Lititz, PA
17543,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    And/or
    FAA Airport District Office, Paul Higgins, 3905 Hartzdale Drive,
Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to Paul Higgins at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for aeronautical purposes.
    The LAA is requesting approval to release a parcel for permanent
non-aeronautical use to erect a vehicle maintenance garage facility in
Area 3E. Area 3E consists of 5 acres east of the Air Traffic Control
Tower along the northern limit of the airport property. The corners of
Area 3E are: NW: 40[deg]7'33.066'', -76[deg]17'37.28'', NE:
40[deg]7'37.786'', -76[deg]17'27.11'', SE: 40[deg]7'33.515'', -
76[deg]17'35.38'', and SW: 40[deg]7'32.35'', -76[deg]17'26.314''.
    The facility, once completed, will be leased to the local school
district to perform bus vehicle maintenance. The established rental
rate is the cost of the

project spread out over 20 years. The preliminary cost of the project
is approximately $1,135,000 along with cost escalators over the 20 year
lease period. The anticipated income over the 20 year lease period is
$2,369,800.
    The LAA is proposing to build an 85' X 57' single-story; slab-on-
grade Maintenance Building approximately 900' north of Runway 8-26 on
airport property. The Pre-Engineered Metal Building includes office
space, two (2) service bays, and one (1) wash bay and will be
constructed parallel to Millport Road along the northern edge of
airport property. Coordinates of the building's four corners: NW:
40[deg]7'33.48'', -76[deg]17'36.38'', NE: 40[deg]7'33.62'', -
76[deg]17'35.66'', SE: 40[deg]7'32.80'', -76[deg]17'35.38'', SW:
40[deg]7'32.66'', -76[deg]17'36.10''.
    The facility remains the property of the LAA and will bring in
necessary non-aviation income. The facility will be able to be utilized
by other types of users in the event that the current tenant does not
remain on the property. The tenant currently rents adjacent to where
the maintenance facility will be located to store their school buses.

Rick W. Harner,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-06369 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 63147-63148]
[DOCID:fr23oc08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

October 17, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-226.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits an amendment to two (2)
Rate Schedule FTS-1 negotiated rate agreements with Wisconsin Public
Service Corp, to be effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081017-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-392-003.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Substitute
Original Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-0187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-19-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Co submits 24 Revised Sheet 62 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2008.

    Accession Number: 20081015-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-20-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Co submits Substitute 79 Revised
Sheet 53 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP08-89-001.
    Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company.
    Description: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company submits
Fifty-Sixth Revised Sheet 16, et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 1, in compliance with FERC's 7/25/08 Order, to be
effective 11/17/08.
    Filed Date: 10/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081014-0283.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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. E8-25237 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5864]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2687]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Along Mobile Technologies, Inc., and China
Yingxia International, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

February 2, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Along Mobile Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Yingxia International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 2, 2012, through 11:59
p.m. EST on February 15, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2687 Filed 2-2-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20304-20305]
[DOCID:fr24ap07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-FRL-8303-8]
RIN 2050-AG31

Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that
the comment period to the supplemental proposed rule entitled Revisions
to the Definition of Solid Waste published on March 26, 2007 (72 FR
14172) is being extended until June 25, 2007. In the supplemental
proposal, EPA is requesting comment on revisions to the definition of
solid waste which would exclude certain hazardous secondary materials
from regulation under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). We are also soliciting comment on regulatory
factors to be used to determine whether recycling of hazardous
secondary materials is legitimate.

DATES: The comment period for this supplemental proposed rule is
extended from the original closing date of May 25, 2007, to June 25,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2002-0031 by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
    E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031.

    Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA 2002-0031.
    Mail: Send comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center, Mail Code
5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., Washington, DC 20503.
    Hand delivery: Deliver comments to: Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2002-0031. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OSWER
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more detailed information on
specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Marilyn Goode, Office of
Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Identification Division, MC 5304P,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Tracy
Atagi, Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Identification Division,
MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>) (atagi.tracy@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Comment Period. We are extending the
comment period by 30 days in response to requests from several
stakeholders.
    B. Regulated Entities. Entities potentially affected by this action
include about 4,600 facilities in 530 industries in 17 economic sectors
that generate or recycle hazardous secondary materials which are
currently regulated as RCRA Subtitle C hazardous wastes (e.g.,
industrial co-products, by-products, residues, unreacted feedstocks).
About 80 percent of these affected facilities are classified in NAICS
code economic sectors 31, 32, and 33 (manufacturing), and the remainder
are in NAICS code economic sectors 21 (mining), 22 (utilities), 23
(construction), 42 (wholesale trade), 44 and 45 (retail trade), 48 and
49 (transportation), 51 (information), 54 (professional, scientific and
technical services), 56 (administrative support, waste management and
remediation), 61 (educational services), 62 (health care and social
assistance, and 81 (other services). About 0.65 million tons per year
of recyclable industrial materials handled by these entities may be
affected, of which the most common types are metal-bearing hazardous
secondary materials (e.g., sludges and spent catalysts), and organic
chemical liquids. This proposed rule, if promulgated, is expected to
result in regulatory and materials recovery cost savings to these
industries of approximately $107 million per year. Taking into account
impact estimation uncertainty factors, this rule, if promulgated, could
affect between 0.3 to 1.7 million tons per year of industrial hazardous
secondary materials handled by 3,600 to 5,400 entities in 460 to 570
industries, resulting in $93 million to $205 million per year of net
cost savings. More detailed information on the potentially affected
entities, industries, and industrial materials, as well as the economic
impacts of this rule (with impact uncertainty factors), is presented in
the ``Economics Background Document'' available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    C. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark all information that you

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 13, 2007.
Matt Hale,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. E7-7761 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P