[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3949-3952]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00875]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68634; File No. SR-CFE-2013-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Minor Rule Violations

January 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on January 7, 2013, CBOE
Futures Exchange, LLC (``CFE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items II and III below, which Items
have been prepared by CFE. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
CFE also has filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (``CFTC''). CFE filed a written certification with
the CFTC under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'')
\2\ on January 7, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    CFE Rule 714 currently provides that there are no types of Exchange
rule violations that are considered minor rule violations for purposes
of CFE Rule 714. The rule change would (i) Identify ten categories of
rules which primarily involve reporting and recordkeeping for which the
Exchange may impose summary fines for violations of the applicable
rule(s), (ii) enumerate the specific rule(s) within each category,
(iii) set forth a summary fine schedule for violations of the rule(s)
within each category; and (iv) provides examples of when the Exchange
may aggregate violations as a single offense for purposes of CFE Rule
714. The rule change would apply to conduct in relation to all
contracts listed and traded on the Exchange, including both security
futures and non-security futures. The scope of this filing is limited
solely to the application of the rule changes to security futures
traded on CFE. The only security futures currently traded on CFE are
traded under Chapter 16 of CFE's Rulebook which is applicable to
Individual Stock Based and Exchange-Traded Fund Based Volatility Index
(``Volatility Index'') security futures. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.cfe.cboe.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov,
at the principal office of the Exchange, 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, CFE 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. CFE 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
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend CFE Rule 714 (Imposition
of Fines for Minor Rule Violations), referred to herein sometimes as
``Minor Rule Violation Rule.'' CFE Rule 714 currently provides that
there are no types of Exchange rule violations that are considered
minor rule violations for purposes of CFE Rule 714. This Amendment
would (i) Identify ten categories of rules which primarily involve
reporting and recordkeeping for which the Exchange may impose summary
fines for violations of the applicable rule(s), (ii) enumerate the
specific rule(s) within each category, (iii) set forth a summary fine
schedule for violations of the rule(s) within each category \3\, and
(iv) provide examples of when the Exchange may aggregate violations as
a single offense for purposes of CFE Rule 714. Below are general
descriptions of areas covered by the ten categories:

    \3\ The proposed number of offenses leading up to a CFE Business
Conduct Committee referral and the proposed fine amounts vary
depending on the nature of the underlying violative conduct. This is
because CFE regards violations of certain rule provisions under the
Minor Rule Violation Rule to be more serious relative to violations
of other rule provisions under the Minor Rule Violation Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Order Entry Operator ID Designation and Recordkeeping
 Account Type Identification
 Front-End Audit Trail Information
 Exchange of Contract for Related Position Transaction
Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter Designation
 Block Trade Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter Designation
 Responsible Trader Designation

    The Exchange will have the ability to impose fines for violations
of the rules covered in the Minor Rule Violation Rule both for matters
that are currently pending for which a statement of charges has not yet
been issued under CFE Rule 704(b) (Charges) and for future matters. The
Exchange believes that these violations are suitable for incorporation
into the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Rule because they are
generally technical in nature. Further, CFE will be able to carry out
its regulatory responsibility more quickly and efficiently by
incorporating these violations into its Minor Rule Violation Rule. CFE
may, whenever it determines that any violation of a rule covered in the
Minor Rule Violation Rule is intentional, egregious or otherwise not
minor in nature, proceed under the Exchange's formal disciplinary
rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CFE Rule 714(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CFE is proposing to make the following modifications to CFE Rule
714 with the number of offenses being calculated on a rolling twelve
(12) month period:
Order Entry Operator ID Designation and Recordkeeping
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of Order Entry Operator ID Designation and Recordkeeping
requirements.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 303A(a) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires that each
Trading Privilege Holder (``TPH'') include an Order Entry Operator ID
with every order and quote from that TPH this is submitted to the CBOE
System (i.e., CFE's trading system). A first offense will result in the
issuance of a letter of caution. The second offense will be subject to
a $2,500 fine. The third offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine.
Subsequent offenses will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct
Committee.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A referral to CFE's Business Conduct Committee would result
in the initiation of a regular disciplinary proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rules 303A(b) and 303A(c) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which
require that every order and quote from a TPH that is submitted to the
CBOE system include an Order Entry Operator ID that represents:
     The natural person physically responsible for entering an
order or quote into the CBOE System (if a natural person entered the
order or quote into the CBOE System); or
     The natural person physically responsible for entering the
order or quote directly or indirectly into a system of or used by a TPH
that interfaces with the CBOE System (if no natural person entered the
order or quote into the CBOE System and instead a natural person
entered the order or quote directly or indirectly into a system of or
used by a THP that interfaces with the CBOE System); or
     The Automated Trading System (which is a system that
automates the generation and routing of orders or quotes) that
generated the order and quote.
    CFE Rules 303(A)(b) and 303A(c) also require that: (i) An Order
Entry Operator ID issued for a natural person may only be used by that
natural person; (ii) an Order Entry Operator ID issued for a natural
person may not be used by any other natural person or entity and may
not be used as the Order Entry Operator ID for an Automated Trading
System; (iii) an Order Entry Operator ID issued for an Automated
Trading System may only be used for that Automated Trading System; and
(iv) an Order Entry Operator ID issued for an Automated Trading System
may not be used for any other Automated Trading System and may not be
used as the Order Entry Operator ID for any natural person or entity.
    A first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of caution.
The second offense will be subject to a $2,500 fine. The third offense
will be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent offenses will be referred
to the Business Conduct Committee.
    Third, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 303A(d) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which sets forth
issuance, recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to Order
Entry Operator IDs. A first offense will result in the issuance of a
letter of caution. The second offense will be subject to a $2,500 fine.
The third offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent
offenses will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct Committee.
Account Type Identification
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of Account Type Identification requirements. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE Rule
403(a)(vii) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires that each
Order must contain information about account type. A first offense will
result in the issuance of a letter of caution. The second offense will
be subject to a $2,500 fine. The third offense will be subject to a
$5,000 fine. The fourth offense will be subject to a $7,500 fine. The
fifth offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent offenses
will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct Committee.
Front-End Audit Trail Information
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of Front-End Audit Trail Information requirements.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add
CFE Rule 403(c) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires that
each TPH maintain front-end audit trail information for all electronic
orders entered into the CBOE System, including order modifications

and cancellations. The audit trail must contain all order entry,
modification, cancellation and response receipt time(s) as well as
Financial Information Exchange interface (FIX) tag information and
fields or CBOE Market Interface (CMi) order structure, as applicable. A
first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of caution. The
second offense will be subject to a $2,500 fine. The third offense will
be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent offenses will be referred to
the Business Conduct Committee.
Exchange of Contract for Related Position (``ECRP'') Transaction
Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter Designation
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of ECRP Transactions Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter
Designation requirements.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 414(g) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which sets forth record
keeping requirements relating to a TPH's compliance with CFE Rule 414
(which governs ECRP transactions) or ability to obtain such records
from its customer involved in the ECRP. A first offense will result in
the issuance of a letter of caution. The second offense will be subject
to a $2,500 fine. The third offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine.
Subsequent offenses will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct
Committee.
    Second, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 414(h) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires each TPH
executing an ECRP transaction to have at least one designated Person
that is either a TPH or a Related Party of a TPH and is pre-authorized
by a Clearing Member to report ECRP transactions on behalf of the TPH.
A first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of caution. The
second offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent offenses
will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct Committee.
Block Trade Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter Designation
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of Block Trade Recordkeeping and Authorized Reporter
Designation requirements.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 415(e) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which sets forth order
ticket requirements for Block Trades and recordkeeping requirements
evidencing a TPH's compliance with CFE Rule 415 (which governs Block
Trades). A first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of
caution. The second offense will be subject to a $2,500 fine. The third
offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine. Subsequent offenses will be
referred to CFE's Business Conduct Committee.
    Second, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add CFE
Rule 415(f) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires each TPH
executing a side of a Block Trade to have at least one designated
Person that is either a TPH or a Related Party of a TPH and is pre-
authorized by a Clearing Member to report Block Trades on behalf of the
TPH. A first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of
caution. The second offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine.
Subsequent offenses will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct
Committee.
Responsible Trader Designation
    CFE is proposing to modify its Minor Rule Violation Rule to cover
violations of Account Responsible Trader Designation requirements.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to modify CFE Rule 714 to add
CFE Rule 513(a) to the Minor Rule Violation Rule, which requires that
each TPH have at all times at least one employee or agent
(``Responsible Trader'') designated by its administrator with respect
to the use of the CBOE System by such TPH (including its Authorized
Traders).\6\ A first offense will result in the issuance of a letter of
caution. The second offense will be subject to a $10,000 fine.
Subsequent offenses will be referred to CFE's Business Conduct
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CFE Rule 105 defines ``Authorized Trader'' to mean any
natural person who is a TPH or who is authorized by a TPH to access
the CBOE System on behalf of the TPH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reorganization of Aggregation Provisions and Examples
    Current CFE Rule 714(a), among other things, currently permits the
Exchange to aggregate individual violations of particular CFE rules
that are covered by the Minor Rule Violation Rule to and treat those
violations as a single offense. In other instances, the Exchange may,
if no exceptional circumstances are present, impose a fine based upon a
determination that there exists a pattern or practice of violative
conduct. The Exchange also may aggregate similar violations generally
if the conduct was unintentional, there was no injury to public
investors or the violations resulted from a single problem or cause
that has been corrected.
    CFE is proposing to bolster the aggregation provisions of CFE Rule
714 by setting forth two additional examples of when aggregation may be
appropriate. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend CFE Rule 714
to state that the Exchange may aggregate all similar violations found
in an audit trail exam and may separately aggregate all similar
violations found in a single review of exception report output. The
Exchange proposes to reorganize the existing aggregation provisions in
CFE Rule 714(a) and restate them, along with the above aggregation
examples, in new subparagraph (e) to CFE Rule 714.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) \8\ and 6(b)(6) \9\ in particular in
that it is designed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 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, and
     To provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of
members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will strengthen
its ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization by adding violations to its Minor Rule Violation Rule. CFE
also believes that these changes will serve as an effective deterrent
to future violative conduct and as an effective and efficient means of
disciplining for infractions that do not warrant a regular disciplinary
proceeding. CFE additionally believes that the proposed changes will
promote consistent application of sanctions by the Exchange for minor
rule violations, establish a fair procedure for the disciplining of
TPHs for minor rule violations and reinforce its surveillance and
enforcement functions. Finally, the Exchange believes that the
reorganization of the aggregation provisions of CFE Rule 714 and the
addition of examples in which minor rule violations may be aggregated
will benefit market participants because those provisions will now be
contained in a single subparagraph for easier reference and those
provisions will also substantively improve market

participants' understanding of how the aggregation provisions of the
Minor Rule Violation Rule will operate and be applied.

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

    CFE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change will become effective on January 23, 2013.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CFE-2013-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CFE-2013-001. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-CFE-2013-001, and should be submitted on or before
February 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00875 Filed 1-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 74104]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30183]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9024-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 11/16/2015 Through 11/20/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at:https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-publication/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150332, Final, FDA, PRO, PROGRAMMATIC--Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption, Review Period Ends: 12/28/2015, Contact: Annette McCarthy
240-402-1057.
EIS No. 20150333, Draft, USFWS, CA, Butte Regional Conservation Plan,
Comment Period Ends: 02/16/2016, Contact: Dan Cox<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150334, Draft, USFS, CA, Rim Fire Reforestation, Comment
Period Ends: 01/11/2016, Contact: Maria Benech<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150335, Final, NRC, IL, Generic--License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants Regarding Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2, Review Period Ends:
12/28/2015, Contact: Richard G. Baum<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150336, Draft, USACE, AK, Donlin Gold Project, Comment Period
Ends: 04/30/2016, Contact: Keith Gordon<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150302, Draft, NPS, WY, Moose-Wilson Corridor Draft
Comprehensive Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 01/15/2016,
Contact: Chris Church<PHONE_NUMBER>; Revision to FR Notice Published 10/
30/2015; Extending Comment Period from 12/29/2015 to 01/15/2016.

    Dated: November 23, 2015.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-30183 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6566-6567]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0827]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Revisions to Labeling Requirements for Blood and Blood
Components, Including Source Plasma; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction and extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of December 30, 2011. In the
Federal Register of December 30, 2011, FDA published a notice entitled
``Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Revisions to Labeling Requirements for Blood and Blood
Components, Including Source Plasma,'' which provided incorrect
publication information regarding the availability of the final rule.
This document corrects this error and extends the comment period.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a
companion final rule correction notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Joyce Strong, Office of Policy, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3208,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2011-33555, appearing on page
82300 in the Federal Register of Friday, December 30, 2011 (76 FR
82300), the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 82300, in the third column, in the DATES section, the
submission date for comments should be corrected to ``April 9, 2012''.
We are extending the comment period from February 28, 2012, to 60 days
after this correction notice publishes to allow the public sufficient
time to comment.
    2. On page 82301, in the first column, in the second full paragraph
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the last sentence is
corrected to read: ``This document solicits comments on certain
labeling requirements for blood and blood components, including Source
Plasma, finalized as part of a rule FDA published on January 3, 2012,
entitled `Revisions to Labeling Requirements for Blood and Blood
Components, Including Source Plasma.''' We are making this change
because the final rule inadvertently did not publish on December 30,
2011.

    Dated: February 2, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-2827 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44777-44779]
[DOCID:fr31au09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0800; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH Models
Bergfalke-III, Bergfalke-II/55, SF 25C, and SF-26A Standard Gliders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    The manufacturer has advised of receiving a report of looseness
of the drive arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab, found during
an annual inspection. This kind of damage is likely caused by
penetrated humidity over the years.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to the separation
of the drive arm which could result in flutter of the elevator and
possible loss of control of the aircraft.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 15,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed
AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0800;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-041-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2009-0132, dated June 23, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    The manufacturer has advised of receiving a report of looseness
of the drive arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab, found during
an annual inspection. This kind of damage is likely caused by
penetrated humidity over the years.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to the separation
of the drive arm which could result in flutter of the elevator and
possible loss of control of the aircraft.
    For the reasons stated above, this new Airworthiness Directive
mandates repetitive inspections for solid fixation of the drive arms
of the mechanical elevator trim tabs.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH has issued Service Bulletin No. 104-24/1;
No. 232-6/1; and No. 653-91/1 (same document), dated June 25, 2009; and
Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH Work Instruction No. 104-24; No. 232-6; and
No. 653-91 (same document), dated March 23, 2009. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 5 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $14 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $3,270, or $654 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2009-0800; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-041-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 15, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models Bergfalke-III, Bergfalke-II/55, SF
25C, and SF-26A Standard gliders, all serial numbers, certificated
in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The manufacturer has advised of receiving a report of looseness
of the drive arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab, found during
an annual inspection. This kind of damage is likely caused by
penetrated humidity over the years.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to the separation
of the drive arm which could result in flutter of the elevator and
possible loss of control of the aircraft.
    For the reasons stated above, this new Airworthiness Directive
mandates repetitive inspections for solid fixation of the drive arms
of the mechanical elevator trim tabs.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) At the next scheduled maintenance inspection after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the drive
arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab for separation of the drive
arm following Scheibe Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin No. 104-24/
1; No. 232-6/1; and No. 653-91/1 (same document), dated June 25,
2009. If any looseness is found, before further flight, repair the
drive arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab following Scheibe-
Flugzeugbau GmbH Work Instruction No. 104-24; No. 232-6; and No.
653-91 (same document), dated March 23, 2009.
    (2) Repetitively thereafter, at intervals not to exceed every 12
months, inspect the drive arm of the mechanical elevator trim tab
and do all corrective actions following Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH
Service Bulletin No. 104-24/1; No. 232-6/1; and No. 653-91/1 (same
document), dated June 25, 2009; and Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH Work
Instruction No. 104-24; No. 232-6; and No. 653-91 (same document),
dated March 23, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2009-0132, dated June 23, 2009; Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH Service
Bulletin No. 104-24/1; No. 232-6/1; and No. 653-91/1 (same
document), dated June 25, 2009; and Scheibe-Flugzeugbau GmbH Work
Instruction No. 104-24; No. 232-6; and No. 653-91 (same document),
dated March 23, 2009, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 25, 2009.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20968 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 11105-11106]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2085-000]

Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Authorization for
Continued Project Operation

February 25, 2008.
    On November 29, 2005, Southern California Edison Company, licensee
for the Mammoth Pool Hydroelectric Project, filed an application for a
new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and
the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Mammoth Pool Project is
located on the San Joaquin River in Fresno California.
    The license for Project No. 2085 was issued for a period ending
November 30, 2007. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2085 is issued to
Southern California Edison Company, for a period effective December 1,
2007 through November

30, 2008, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
November 30, 2008, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18
CFR16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Southern California Edison Company, is authorized to
continue operation of the Mammoth Pool Project until such time as the
Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3885 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2078-2079]
[DOCID:fr17ja07-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55071; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Adopt an Appeal Fee

January 9, 2007.
    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 December 8, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. On December 20, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ The Exchange has designated this proposal
as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by
a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange modified the scope of its
proposal to exempt appeals of decisions of the Nominating, Elections
and Governance Committee from the proposed fee. Amendment No. 1
replaced the original filing in its entirety.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a $250.00 appeal fee for Appeals to
the Board of Governors from decisions of Standing Committees \6\
(``Appeal Fee''). An appeal from a decision of the Business Conduct
Committee, the Hearing Officer, or a Hearing Panel, pursuant to
Exchange Rule 960.9 and By-Law Article XI, Section 11-3, as well as an
appeal from a decision of the Nominating, Elections and Governance
Committee, pursuant to By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1, will not be
subject to the Appeal Fee.\7\ The Appeal Fee, which will be paid by
appellant at the time of filing an appeal, will be refunded to the
appellant in the event the Board of Governors overturns the decision of
the Standing Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange By-Law Article X, Section 10-1 for the list of
Standing Committees of the Exchange.
    \7\ Telephone conversation between Leah Mesfin, Special Counsel,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and Angela Dunn, Director
and Counsel, Phlx, on December 21, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fee became effective January 1, 2007. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.phlx.com/exchange/rulefilings/2006/SR-2006-84.pdf
, and at the Exchange.

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
    The Exchange represents that the purpose of the proposed rule
change is to reduce the number of frivolous appeals by assessing a fee
for all appeals that are upheld. Currently, three Governors hear
appeals from decisions of Standing Committees, with the exception of an
appeal from the Nominating, Elections and Governance Committee, which
is heard by a majority of Governors who are not then candidates for
office. The appeal may require several hours of time from each
Governor. The Exchange believes that the appeal process is subject to
abuse by members, participants, member organizations and participant
organizations who incur no downside to filing repeated appeals, whether
valid or otherwise. The Exchange believes that, currently, the ease
with which an appeal can be filed and receive a ``second look'' at no
cost creates a potential for abuse. This fee will become effective
January 1, 2007.
    An appeal from a decision of the Business Conduct Committee, the
Hearing Officer or a Hearing Panel,

pursuant to Exchange Rule 960.9 and By-Law Article XI, Section 11-3,
and an appeal from a decision of the Nominating, Elections and
Governance Committee, pursuant to By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1, will
not be subject to the Appeal Fee. The Appeal Fee, which will be paid by
appellant at the time of filing an appeal, will be refunded to the
appellant in the event the Board of Governors overturns the decision of
the Standing Committee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \9\ in particular in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principals of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove the impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system. Finally, the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \12\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \13\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change the
Commission considers the period to commence on December 20, 2006,
the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2006-84 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-84. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
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-Phlx-2006-84 and should be submitted on or before
February 7, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-479 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 46625-46626]
[DOCID:fr21au07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12769-000]

 Ice House Partners, Inc.; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions,
Recommendations, and Prescriptions

August 14, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 12769-000.
    c. Date Filed: January 22, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Ice House Partners, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Ice House Power Project.
    f. Location: On the Nashua River in the Town of Ayer, Middlesex
County, Massachusetts. The project would occupy United States land
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. Sections 2705 and 2708.
    h. Applicant Contact: Liisa Dowd, Ice House Partners, Inc., 323
West Main Street, Ayer, MA 01432,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments, Recommendations, Terms and
Conditions, and Prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person whose name appears on the official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``eFiling'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. Description of Project: The Ice House Power Project would
consist of: (1) The existing 190-foot-long, 12-foot-high Ice House dam
and spillway topped with 24-inch-high flashboards impounding; (2) the
existing 965-acre-foot reservoir with a normal full pond elevation of
216.45 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) the existing headgate
structure equipped with four 8-foot-high, 10-foot-wide gates of which
two are operational and two are stationary leading to; (4) the existing
50-foot-wide, 109-foot-long power canal connected to; (5) a restored
powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed
capacity of 280 kilowatts discharging flow to; (6) the existing 50-
foot-wide, 365-foot-long tailrace; (7) the existing 480-volt, 100-foot-
long underground transmission cable; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h. above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS'', ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS'', or ``PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via

e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The Commission staff proposes to issue a
single Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than issuing a draft and
final EA. Staff intends to allow 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the exemption application. The
application will be processed according to the schedule, but revisions
to the schedule may be made as appropriate:
    Action: Notice of the availability of the EA.
    Date: January 2008
    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary. 3
[FR Doc. E7-16387 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3738-3739]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 225

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0002]

Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicated Feeds

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule, correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the
regulations for good manufacturing practice of animal feeds containing
a new animal drug to correctly cite the applicable section of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This action is being
taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective January 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for
Veterinary

Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has noticed the regulations for good
manufacturing practice of animal feeds containing a new animal drug do
not correctly cite the applicable section of the FD&C Act. At this
time, FDA is making a correcting amendment in 21 CFR 225.1. This action
is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 225

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds, Labeling, Packaging and containers,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
225 is amended as follows:

PART 225--CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR MEDICATED FEEDS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 225 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360b, 371, 374.

Sec.  225.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  225.1, in the last sentence in paragraph (b)(1), remove
``section 402(a)(2)(D) of the act'' and in its place add ``section
402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the act''.

    Dated: January 16, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-01299 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66870-66871]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0433; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-12]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rugby, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Rugby, ND.
Decommissioning of the Rugby non-directional beacon (NDB) at Rugby
Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND, has made this action necessary for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
Rugby Municipal Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 12,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0433/Airspace Docket No. 11-
AGL-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1<PHONE_NUMBER>), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

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:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0433/
Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures
at Rugby Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND. Airspace reconfiguration is
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Rugby NDB and the
cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and

management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (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 would modify controlled airspace at Rugby Municipal Airport,
Rugby, ND.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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

    1. The authority citation for 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Rugby, ND [Amended]

Rugby Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]23'25'' N., long. 100[deg]01'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Rugby Municipal Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 13-mile
radius of the Rugby Municipal Airport and within 8.1 miles north and
4.2 miles south of the 115[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 13-mile radius to 16.1 miles east of the airport, and
within 8.5 miles south and 3.8 miles north of the 314[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 13-mile radius to 16.1 miles
northwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Minot,
ND, and Rolla, ND, Class E airspace areas, and excluding all Federal
Airways.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 11, 2011.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-27970 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


UNIXRSTANDINC THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRECURSOR REDUCTIOHSIN LOWERING 8 HOUR OZONE CCNCENTRATlONS IN THE EASTERY UNITED STATES Steve Reynolds Charles Blanchard EnYair I2Palm Avenue SanRafael, CA 94901 Telephondfax: ( 415) 457 6955 E mail: steve@ srejnulds. com Jm9.7mI I Findings for Central California Various VOC and NOx emissions reductions effectlive in reducing peak 1 hour ozone levels ViOC reductions have modest impact on peak 8hour ozone concentrations Anthrapogenic NOx emissions must be reduced by 90 percent to reach the 8 hour ozone standard Jurr9.2033 3 Purpose of the Study Develop a better. understandingof the physical and chemical mechanisms underlying observed ozone trends Assess the technical feasibility of attaining the 8hour ozone standard Jun: 9. ZM3 Findings for Central California Anthropogenic VOC reductions ineffective because biogenic VOC, less reactive VOC, and CO continue to produce ozone Ozone produced per NO increases as NOx emissions decrease NOx emissions reductions may increase ozone levels in some areas These results call into question the technical of attaining the 8 hour ozone standard Jun 9.2M3 4  Objective of Current Study Extenld basic methodology employed for centralI California to eastern U. S. and assess consistencv I of findings Photochemical Modeling Choice of study area based on recent regulatory modelling for the eastern U. S. and availabilityof code with process analysis facilities EPA encouraged usage of and assisted in providing Clear Skies Initiative modeling files CAMx ( version 3.10) with process analysis I Junr9.2033 7 Overview of Study Approach Combined application of  analyses of ambient measured ozone and precursor data  photochemical modeling with process analysis Employ modelingto provide insights into physical and chemical processes associated with ozone formation Photochemical Modeling Some field measurementsduring summer of 1995 to support model application and evaluation e 5 15 July 1995 ozone episode RAMS used to develop meteorological inputs Emissions estimates from Clear Skies Initiative Jurr 9. m3 8 2 CAMx Emissions Sensitivity Results Subregions Array of CAMx VOC and NOx sensitivity runs using 1996 base case emissions AnthropogenicVOC and NOx emissions reduced from 1996 base case levels in 20 percent increments Results used to produce peak 1 and 8 hour EKh4. A typeisopleth diagrams Jlvr9.2CM Subregions 9 CAMx Runs with Process Analysis 1996 and 2010 base case emissions  VOC reductions ranged from 24 to 44 percent  NOx reductions ranged from 12 to 40 percent  CO reductions ranged from 9 to 29 percent Additional runs with 1996 anthropogenicVOC and NOx reduced by 60 and 80 percent 3 . Model Predicted Peak Ozone Levels Peak 1 and 8 hour ozone isopleth diagrams based on 19196 base case emissions Various combinations of VOC and NOx emissions reductions initially effective in reducing peak 1hour idzone Jmr9,2m3 11 A 201OBorc A 2010conrm~

V 2ozOBars v 207J3cOnU" l % bowOzonsCompsrablsu) 1999 2001DIsign Vduc 1 9. m1 I5 Model Predicted Peak Ozone Levels VOC emissions reductions have modest impact on peak 8hour ozone concentmions Under conditions that ylelded peak % hour ozone levels comparable to 1999 2001 design values. NOx emissions must be reduced to 33 75 percent of 19% base case values to reach level of the 8 hour standard Under conditions that yielded the highest 8 hour ozone concentrations, anthropogenicNOx emissions must be reduced to 75 85percent of 1996bise case values to reach level of the 8 hour standard Inn; 9. I4 ' 4' ay with Maximum 8 hourOzone for Epbodc e Juri; 9. 21133 17 18 urOzonc Comparabls lo 1999 2001 Dorip Value Jvrr9.21133 I9 5 22 6 A 2010Bass A ZOlOCmvol V 2028 Bmc ZOZO controlv ' Day wilh MaximumShow Ozonc far Epirodc J 9.2033 5 A 2010 Bmc A 2010 Bmc A 2010Convol A 2010Cm~ 1 V 2020 Bmc V 2020 Bmc 2OZOConMl v 2020Ca" rn1 v Day wilh 8 haur Ozone Compnrablc LO 1999 2001 Dsien Vnlw in Mcvo AM 1 9.2003 27 J 9. ZW3  8 7 A 2010 Be A 2010 Bate A 2OIOconrol A 2010 &" lml V 2020 Bar= V 2020 Bass v 2020 & nu01 v 2020 conrol ' DuywilhMoximurnS bourOzonc for Epiradc Jlur 9,2003 29 A 2010 Bare A 2010 Bnrt A 2010 Conmnl A 2010 Conm1 V 2020 Bssc V zou) Bnrc v 2020 Conlrol v 2020conlrol I 8 hourOroncCampornblcu, 1999 2031 Dssign Vduc Jun; 9.2003 31 8 Day wih Maximum % hourOmnc far Episode Jm9.2003 33 A 2010 Bmc A 2010 Bore A ZOIOConml A 2010CO" vol V ZMO Bmc V 2020 Bmo ' I2020 conmi ' I202Oco" VOl 9 A 2010 Base A 2010 Bare A 20LOconvol A 2010 canuol V 2020 Bars V 2020 Base i1 v 2020 OInuOl v 202oconvol 1 i 31 10 I a 2010 Bnrc A 2010 Bnss A 2010 convol A 2010 CaOrrUl V 2020 Bore V 2020 Blvlc v 2020 conVal v 2020 CUnVOl I Jw9.2003 42 Pmccss onalysis mults for July 14  NO cycler Process Analysis Results Useful dements of process analysis results  NO cycles ( ozone produced per NO)  mass of NO reacted  mass of VOC reacted  ozone created Ozone production involves  radical initiation, propagation, and termination eated by photolysis of NO2 Jun; 9.2003 43 Jm9.2003 44 11 I Process Analysis Results VOC emission reductions have little influence on NO cycles NO cycles increase as NOx emissions reduced Increaseid ozone production efficiency at lower NOx emissions levels Jw9. Ua3 Summary of Modeling Results Ozonelproductionin some urban core areas, such as New York City and Chicago, are VOC limited  Moderate NOx emission reductions may cause increases in peak 8 hour ozone levels  VOC or substantial NOx emission reductions needed to reach 8 hour ozone standard Jvlr 9.21303 41 Summary of Modeling Results As NOx emissions decrease, ozone production efficiency increases Substantial NOx emissions reductions required to reach 8 hour standard in several areas VOC reductions have little effect on NO cycles or the mass of VOC reacted 1 P. ZM3 46 Analyses of Ambient Ozone and Precursor Data Characterize trends, explain observed patterns, assess how patterns relate to modeling results Trends determined from annual statisticsusing t tests of log transformed data ( sites with at least 10 years data)  4thhighest & haw maximum  annual I hour maximum Average diurnal concentration profiles for 21 high ozone days each year ( 10% of 7 months)

Junc9.2W3 48 12 I Observed Ozone Trends Annual~ 4M1ighestmaximum daily 8 hour ozone concentdons declined at most sites in New York, Philadt: lpMa, Chicago, Indianapolis. Atlanta and Baltimore. Washington areas( 1980 2002)

Annual I hour maxima also declined, by greater amounts  Much iiinaller trends from 1992 2002 49 Exampletrends inthe New Yo& BM fw the mud @ highest maximum daily 8 hour ozonecnoecntrntion, 1980 throngb 2W2 J 9.2M3 so Sunumry of trends io mud mdmm I hour ozone and amud 4  highcsl nnxirmin dnily & hour ozone canccntmlion, 1980 hugh ZOM I hour may 8 hour max I Juo~ 9.2023 51 Jwr 9. m3 52 13 I Example diurnal pUem of ozo~ lcnt Now Yorksitu I ~~~

Example diurnnlpaUcm ofozone at Baltimore Waslungton situ Exnmplc diumol pmcm ofozone at Atlanta sit1 9.2033 56 14 Comiparison of Modeling and Ambient Data Analysis Results Limilations of modeling results  uncertainties in biogenic emissions estimates  unclear whether ozone response for modeling period is representative of other days when moderate to relatively high 8 hour ozone concentrations occur Jun9.2003 57 Projectionot historical vends 10 2008 2010 8 hour ozone design value in the New York alnd Philadelphia anas prrdicts that mny riiw will fail io attain I Jw9.2033 59 Comparison of Modeling and Ambient Data Analysis Results Consistency of modeling and ambient data analysis results  both indicate more modest changes in annual 4thhighest maximum 8 hour ozone levels thanin annual maximum I hour ozone levels  both indicate difficultyof attainment of 8 hour ozone standardby 2010  both indicate increases in model NO cycles and ambient 03INOx patios lw9. ZM3 58 Projcclion of historic4trends a to 2008 2010 8 haur ozone $ designvalue in hke Michigan anapredictsthat E most sites arc likely to attain A5a Jurr9.2033 60 15 Projection of lustorid muds to 2008 2010 8 hourozone design value in I' the Baltimore.. Washinglon prrdins that mny sites will fail to annin Jlue9.2033 61 Ambient Ratios of Mean OzonefNOx Increased During the Late 1990s 63 ~

Ambient Ratios of MeanOzone/ NOx Increased Duringthe Late 1990s FREQUENCY OF VOC LIMITED, TRANSITIONAL, AND Nor LIMITED IIOURS AT ALL MONlTORS CCnnlC. li( d 1591 98 lo all arms. frequency of NOx 7 1593 W limited how is greater for houn S& C. lifd IWI with ozonul20 ppbv ( right) All. 1 N** . mi nid Nh& IPPIP) than for hours with ozone 5mIhmI. k ffi&,.. M 19Plw > 80 ODbV flCft). .. .

Jw9.2033  4 16 Conclusions Various ' VOC and NOx emissions reductions may be efkctive in reducing peak I hour ozone levels VOC reductions have modest impact on peak 8hour ozone concentrations 1 9. zw3 Conclusions AnthropogenicVOC reductions ineffective because biogenic VOC, less reactive VOC, and CO continue to produce ozone Ozone production efficiency increases as NOx emissildns decrease 67 Conclusions Under conditions that yielded peak 8 hour ozone levels comparable to 1999 2001 design values, NOx emissions must be reduced to 50 75 percent of 19% base we values to reach level of the 8 hour standard Under conditions that yielded the highest 8 hour ozone concentrations, anthropogenicNOx emissions must be reducedto 75 85 percent of 1996basecase values to reach level of the 8 hour standard 66 Conclusions Increases in ozone production efficiency associatedwith NOx emissions reductions also noted in central California modeling study Ozone production in urban core areas, such as New York City and Chicago, may be VOC liited.  Moderate NOx emissionreductions may cause increases in peak % hour ozone levels  VOC or substantid NOx emission reductions needed to reach 8 hour ozone standard IwmS. ZW3 68 17

Conclusions Thesetresultscall into question the technical feasibilif y of attaining the 8 hour ozone standard JmrY. 2m3 69 I 18 I