[Federal Register: January 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2585]
[DOCID:fr15ja09-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at Southwest Power Pool Board of
Directors/Members Committee Meeting and Southwest Power Pool Regional
State Committee Meeting

January 9, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power
Pool (SPP) Regional State Committee, and of the SPP Members Committee
and SPP Board of Directors, as noted below. Their attendance is part of
the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

SPP Regional State Committee Meeting

    January 26, 2009 (1 p.m.--5 p.m., CST), Marriott Las Colinas, 223
West Las Colinas Blvd., Irving, TX 75039,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SPP Board of Directors--Members Committee Meeting

    January 27, 2009 (8:30 a.m.--3 p.m., CST), Marriott Las Colinas,
223 West Las Colinas Blvd., Irving, TX 75039,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. ER06-451, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER07-319 and EL07-73, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-371, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-1255, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-923, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1307, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1308, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1357, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1419, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1516, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-80, Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Docket No. ER09-35, Tallgrass Transmission LLC.
Docket No. ER09-36, Prairie Wind Transmission LLC.
Docket No. ER09-79, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-262, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-336, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-342, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-443, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-5, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-60, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-61, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-104, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-439, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-441, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-442, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-463, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-493, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-495, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-747 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller and the FDA,

I write today to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself and others affected, I humbly request that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks numerous question that which I believe myself capable and willing to respond to. While I would like to provide my insight and experience, I am a High School Teacher, and my time is limited. I have already devoted a considerable amount of time to the research and study of these topics. The FDA was granted and spent a more-than-adequate amount of time to write and propose these regulations; I ask only for a small extension.

Electronic cigarettes, or personal vaporizers (a more fitting name), are the only viable solution to a countless people like me. While outsiders may simply say "it's as easy as just quitting," former smokers like myself know that is not the case. I switched to a vaporizer 6 months ago, after smoking for 7 years, and have never looked back. I feel better, I breathe better, and I smell better. I have reduced my nicotine concentration to a quarter of what it once was. While one person's anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing, it is at least worth allowing myself and fellow vapers more time to compose informed responses to the Proposed Rule.

The FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your contact if you wish to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely, Marc


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:As requested by the FDA, the petitioner is submitting a response to information requests for Citizen Petition FDA-2019-P-2289.


[Federal Register: September 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51906-51908]
[DOCID:fr08se08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0672; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-032-AD;
Amendment 39-15660; AD 2008-18-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and
A340-300 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This 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:

    During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks
have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It
has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is
the root cause of the cracks.
    If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the
structural integrity of the aircraft.
* * * * * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2008 (73 FR
35595). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks
have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It
has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is
the root cause of the cracks.
    If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the
structural integrity of the aircraft.
    In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on
FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a
one time High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection of FR12.

Corrective actions include, for certain findings, contacting Airbus for
repair instructions and doing the repair; repairing cracking (i.e.,
installing a new splice); and applying new protective coatings and
corrosion inhibitors. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This 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 required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 20 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $4,800, or $240 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 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-18-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-15660. Docket No. FAA-2008-0672;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-032-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, and
A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; all
certified models, all manufacturing serial numbers (MSN) from MSN
0489 through 0722 inclusive, and MSN 0725, 0726, 0728, 0730, 0732,
and 0734.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

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

    During manufacturing of A330/A340 aircraft framework, cracks
have been found on Frame (FR) 12, left (LH) and right (RH) sides. It
has been confirmed that a defect of the FR12 forming tool press is
the root cause of the cracks.
    If undetected such damage could affect, after propagation, the
structural integrity of the aircraft.
    In order to permit an early detection and repair of cracks on
FR12, LH and RH sides, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates a
one time High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) inspection of FR12.

Corrective actions include, for certain findings, contacting Airbus
for repair instructions and doing the repair; repairing cracking
(i.e., installing a new splice); and applying new protective
coatings and corrosion inhibitors.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 19,500 total flight cycles or
within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform a HFEC inspection at the LH and RH sides of
frame 12, in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177, both dated
October 10, 2007, as applicable. If no cracking is found, no further
action is required by this AD. Except as required by paragraph
(f)(2) of this AD, if any cracking is found, before further flight,
do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or
A340-53-4177, as applicable.
    (2) If any cracking is found that exceeds the limits specified
in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3174 or A340-53-4177,
both dated October 10, 2007, as applicable; or if any cracking is
found during any HFEC inspection of the cut-out area; before further
flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and do the repair.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International

Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
1138; 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, 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0302, dated December 14, 2007; and
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-53-3174 and A340-53-4177,
both dated October 10, 2007; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3174,
including Appendix 01, dated October 10, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A340-53-4177, including Appendix 01, dated October
10, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-19720 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57551]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14630-000]

Chugach Electric Association, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 2, 2014, Chugach Electric Association, Inc. filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Fourth of July Project (Fourth of July Creek Project or project) to be
located on Godwin and Fourth of July Creeks, near Seward in Kenai
Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of two new developments using
the same: (1) 70-foot long, 30-foot-wide, 30-foot-high powerhouse; (2)
tailrace consisting of a concrete drop box continuing to a rip rap
channel; (3) 10,900-foot-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line extending
from the powerhouse to an existing substation; (4) 4,300-foot-long, 16-
foot-wide gravel access road; (5) 200-foot-long bridge; and (6)
appurtenant facilities.

Fourth of July Creek Development

    (1) a 110-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 18-foot-high concrete intake
structure located at an elevation of 790 feet mean sea level (msl) on
Fourth of July Creek; (2) a 5,200-foot-long, 54-inch-diameter steel
penstock from the Fourth of July Creek intake housed in a 3,460-foot-
long, 16-foot-diameter tunnel and a 1,670-foot-long, 54-inch-diameter
steel penstock buried where feasible; and (3) a horizontal Francis
turbine/generator unite rated for 6.6 megawatts (MW) at 637 feet of net
head.

Godwin Creek Development

    (1) a 110-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 18-foot-high concrete intake
structure located at an elevation of 415 feet msl on Godwin Creek; (2)
a 3,500-foot-long, 78-inch-diameter steel penstock buried where
feasible from Godwin Creek; and (3) a horizontal Francis turbine/
generator unit rated for 6.1 MW at 280 feet of net head.
    The estimated annual generation of the Fourth of July Creek Project
would be 55,012 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul R. Risse, Senior Vice President,
Chugach Electric Association, Inc., 5601 Electron Drive, Anchorage,
Alaska 99518; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Julia Kolberg; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14630-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14630) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 18, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22798 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41355-41357]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0165; Notice 2]

General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) \1\ has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Buick Regal and MY 2013 Chevrolet Malibu
passenger cars may not fully comply with the turn signal lamp failure
indicator requirement found in paragraph S5.5.6 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. GM has filed an appropriate report dated October
3, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ General Motors, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and
is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mr. Mike
Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. GM's petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR Part 556), GM
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 19, 2013, in the Federal Register
(78 FR 43965). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0165.''
    I. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 109,563 MY 2011
through 2013 Buick Regal and MY 2013 Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars
manufactured from January 20, 2010 through September 18, 2012.
    II. Noncompliance: GM explains that the subject vehicles are
equipped with front turn signals, each of which incorporates two light
sources. When both light sources of either front turn signal fail, turn
signal lamp failure indication is provided as required by paragraph
S5.5.6 of FMVSS No. 108. However, turn signal lamp failure indication
is not provided if only one of the light sources fails in either front
turn signal assembly. If a single bulb fails to illuminate, the turn
signal is still illuminated by the other bulb.
    III. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.6 of FMVSS No. 108 specifically
states:

    S5.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit
shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or
more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance
with SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970 . . .

    IV. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM stated its belief that the lack of
turn signal lamp failure indication is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
    1. As delivered to the customer the turn signal lamps function
properly and meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This is not a
situation where the photometric output of the turn signals fails to
meet the requirements as delivered to the customer. In fact, the light
output of the normally operating turn signals greatly exceeds the
photometric requirements as produced.
    2. Most drivers will never be affected by the reduction of
photometric output, without outage indication as a result of a single
front bulb failure, because the failure rate of the turn signal bulb is
extremely low. The bulb life of these turn signals is three to four
times the life of the bulbs used in turn signals when the turn signal
lamps failure indication requirement was incorporated into the
standard. The bulbs used in the subject front turn signals have a
tested life of 1,100 hours at 12.8 volts. Using this information in a
Monte Carlo simulation analysis provides the following results:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years...........................................             2.5             5.0             7.5            10.0
Miles...........................................          31,250          62,500          93,750         125,000
No. of Burnouts.................................               0               0               1               4
SIM Vehicles....................................          10,000          10,000          10,000          10,000
Failure IPTV....................................           0.000           0.000           0.400           4.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consequently, it is extremely unlikely a driver will experience a
single turn signal bulb failure over the life of the vehicle, and thus
the lack of outage indication, with a single bulb failure, is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    3. With a single bulb, the turn signal still functions and provides
perceptible indication that the vehicle may be turning. In the
extremely remote case that both light sources were to fail, in either
front turn signal, bulb outage is indicated as required by the
standard.
    4. In the Malibu vehicle, if an outboard front turn bulb is not
working, the inboard bulb continues to meet the photometric
requirements. In this case, the centroid of the light shifts and is
greater than 100 mm from the lit edge of the low beam head lamp. The
light output of the inboard bulb easily meets the minimum photometric
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108.
    5. If the inboard bulb burns out on the Malibu, or either bulb on
the Regal, the remaining lamp continues to provide light which meets
the photometric requirements in some zones, and comes close to the
requirements in most of the remaining zones. This light exceeds the
standard turn signal photometric requirements, but due to the location
of the turn signal (i.e., the turn signal centroid within 100 mm of the
lit edge of the low beam lamp) the 2.5 multiplier must be applied to
photometric requirements.
    a. For the Malibu turn signal lamps, the photometric requirements
with the 2.5 multiplier, are met in three of the five zones; and are
within 25% of the requirements in a 4th zone.
    b. For the Regal turn signal lamps, the photometric requirements
with the 2.5 multiplier, are met in two of the five zones; and are
within 25% of the requirements in two other zones. The Malibu and Regal
turn signal lamps provide the required light under normal driving
conditions. In the unlikely circumstance that a single bulb stops
functioning, the remaining bulb continues to provide the minimum turn
signal light specified in the standard and is generally within 25% of
the minimum required light after the 2.5 multiplier is applied. In the
case of these vehicles, GM's analysis indicates the light provided by
the single bulb is perceptible to the motoring public.
    GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 108.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of its
vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    V. NHTSA's Analysis OF GM's Petition: General Principles: Federal
motor vehicle safety standards are adopted only after the agency has
determined, following notice and comment, that the performance
requirements are objective and practicable and ``meet the need for
motor vehicle safety.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a
remedy without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has
recognized that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance
could be ``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety.
``Inconsequential'' is not defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's
regulations. Rather, the agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts before it. The key issue in determining
inconsequentiality is whether the noncompliance in question is likely
to increase the safety risk to individuals of accidents or to
individual occupants who experience the type of injurious event against
which the standard was designed to protect. See General Motors Corp.;
Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
69 FR 19897 (Apr. 14, 2004).
    There have been instances in the past in which NHTSA has determined
that a manufacturer has met its burden of persuasion by demonstrating
that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For example, there
have been instances where NHTSA granted inconsequentiality petitions
regarding noncompliance with labeling requirements. See, e.g., General
Motors Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 61 FR 60746 (Nov. 29, 1996) (noncompliance with FMVSS
No. 115).
    More rarely, NHTSA has granted inconsequentiality petitions in
cases of noncompliance with performance requirements where the
noncompliance was determined to be so minor as to be inconsequential--
for example, where the noncompliance is expected to be imperceptible,
or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or approaching drivers. See, e.g.,
General Motors Corp., Grant of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 70179 (Dec. 18, 1998)
(noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108); Subaru of America, Inc., Grant of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 18354
(Apr. 6, 2001) (noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108).
    On the other hand, NHTSA has denied petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance where required equipment is completely missing from the
vehicle. For example, NHTSA denied a petition for travel trailers not
equipped with rear identification lamps. Weekend Warrior Trailers,
Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance,
71 FR 5409 (Feb. 1, 2006).
    In addition, NHTSA has denied inconsequentiality petitions for
trailers that were equipped with clearance and identification lamps
that did not meet the minimum photometry requirements. Utilimaster
Corporation; Denial of Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 66 FR 33603 (June 22, 2001).
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis of GM's Arguments: NHTSA has reviewed GM's
petition and has determined that the noncompliance is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    First, GM asserts that the turn signals as delivered, comply with
the photometric requirements. However, the agency finds that this
should be true of all newly manufactured motor vehicles and finds that
fact to be unrelated to the requirements that apply in the event of a
turn signal failure.
    Second, GM states that the tested life of these turn signal bulbs
is 1100 hours; three to four times the life of the bulbs used in turn
signals when the bulb outage indication requirement was incorporated
into the standard. As such, GM believes that it is extremely unlikely a
driver will experience a single turn signal bulb failure over the life
of the vehicle.
    NHTSA notes that the requirements for driver indication of a turn
signal failure became effective over 40 years ago and since that time
improvements have been made to the life of turn signal bulbs and motor
vehicles. For light sources, this includes the development of long life
bulbs and the introduction of light emitting diodes (LEDs) into motor
vehicle applications. For vehicles, the Federal Highway

Administration posted a chart of the ``Average Age of Automobiles and
Trucks in Use, 1970-1999'' that indicates the average vehicle age in
1970 was 5.6 years. (this information was compiled from Polk Company
data by Ward's Communications, Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures
from 2001) By 2013, Polk posted that the average vehicle age that year
was 11.4 years. (see https://www.polk.com/company/news/polk_finds_average_age_of_light_vehicles_continues_to_rise) At the time
that the bulb outage indication requirement became part of the FMVSS
108, SAE J573d DEC68 listed the average turn signal bulb laboratory
life as approximately 500 hours. Comparing that to the GM specified
bulb life of 1100 hours yields a similar doubling of bulb life compared
to the increase in the average vehicle age. Therefore, while the bulb
life has indeed increased, it has increased at a rate similar to the
average vehicle age which mathematically makes a bulb failure, when
compared to vehicle life, the same likelihood now as it was in 1970.
    Additionally, GM did not make any mention of the actual voltage
that the electrical systems of the vehicles in question would be
providing to the front turn signal bulbs. Factors such as voltage,
heat, vibration and corrosion are all important things to consider that
can have a significant effect on the life of a bulb and no
consideration was given to these factors in GM's petition. For
instance, GM technical bulletin 04-08-42-002 indicated that for certain
vehicles, (2003-2004 Saturn ION) the ``amount of voltage supplied to
the front headlamp assembly for the turn signal circuit may cause the
bulb to prematurely wear out.''
    Other turn signal lamp failure modes exist as well. For example, GM
recall 06V-263 (2004-2005 Cadillac XLR) described premature bulb
failure due to ``vibration within a loose fitting socket or air
entering the bulb due to an inadequate seal.'' Also, GM recalls 04V-547
(2003-2004 Saturn ION) and 04V-524 (2003 Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac
Sunfire), described turn signal lamp failure due to ``loss of'' and
``inadequate'' ``contact between the bulb and socket.''
    As such, NHTSA believes that there are many light source related
failure modes that can cause a turn signal lamp to fail, and GM's
argument that a light source failure is extremely unlikely based on
laboratory bulb life does not adequately consider these other failure
modes.
    Third, Fourth, and Fifth, GM offers several scenarios regarding the
photometric performance of the turn signal lamp in the event that a
single light source were to fail. Each one of GM's scenarios relies on
downgrading the performance of the original equipment turn signal lamp
from a large, two lighted section lamp, down to a smaller, one lighted
section lamp. This results in a photometric performance requirement
reduction of ~15% in the zones, as well as similar reductions at the
individual test points. Even under the requirements assumed by GM for
its scenarios, 75% of GM's scenarios still fail to meet even the
reduced requirements.
    GM argues that despite the failure of the lamps in these scenarios
to meet the photometric requirements at some of the zones, it was
within 25% of the minimum zonal requirements. When referring to these
zonal failures, and within ``25%'' of the zonal requirements, it
appears that GM is making a just noticeable difference (JND) argument
relative to the zones. A NHTSA study titled ``Driver Perception of Just
Noticeable Differences of Automotive Signal Lamp Intensities'' [DOT HS
808 209, September 1994] demonstrated that a change in luminous
intensity of 25 percent or less is not noticeable by most drivers.
However, NHTSA has stated that it is not valid to use the JND
justification for judging the effect of zonal intensity failures.
Drivers do not look at zones when they observe lamps; they look at the
lamp from very narrow angles based on the distance between their eyes
and the distance to the lamp. Using the JND justification on zones
would imply that drivers would be looking at lamps from all the test
points in the zone simultaneously and somehow integrating the numerous
intensities into some false representation of how intense the lamp
should be. This is simply not the case. For this reason, the JND
argument is not applicable to zone failures. (see 62FR63417)
    VII. Prior Inconsequentiality Petitions: NHTSA found one prior
inconsequentiality determination regarding the turn signal bulb outage
requirements of FMVSS No. 108. In 1999, General Motors determined that
it had manufactured 209 Chevrolet S10 Electric Trucks that were non-
compliant with the requirement. The agency granted GM's petition on the
basis that these low volume trucks were mainly used in fleets and that
they would receive regular periodic maintenance where detection of the
failure of a turn signal lamp and replacement thereof would be more
likely than in privately owned vehicles. As such, NHTSA felt that the
likelihood of these low volume trucks having any sustained period of
outage would be a relatively infrequent event. (see 64 FR 44575) In
contrast, the current situation involves 109,563 Chevrolet Malibu and
Buick Regal passenger cars which are likely to be privately owned
vehicles. Considering that a partial failure may go unnoticed by the
vehicle owner, NHTSA believes that the likelihood of a sustained period
of reduced turn signal performance due to an outage would be high.
    VIII. Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that GM has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No.
108 noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby denied, and GM is obligated to
provide notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued on: July 9, 2014.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-16552 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68877-68879]
[DOCID:fr06de07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL08-1-000; 121 FERC ] 61,221]

Policy Statement on Conditioned Licenses for Hydrokinetic
Projects

 November 30, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Policy Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is giving notice of a
new policy with respect to the issuance of licenses for hydrokinetic
projects. In the Policy Statement, the Commission concludes that, in
appropriate cases, where the Commission has completed its processing of
license applications for hydrokinetic projects, but where other
authorizations required under federal law have not yet been received,
it will issue conditioned licenses for hydrokinetic projects,
predicated on the licensee being precluded from commencing construction
until the necessary authorizations are received.

DATES: Effective Dates: This Policy Statement is effective November 30,
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann Miles, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
John Katz, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    1. The Commission is issuing this Policy Statement as part of its
ongoing effort to establish a regulatory climate that supports the
development of

innovative hydropower projects that use the forces of currents, waves,
and tides (generally referred to herein as ``hydrokinetic projects') to
generate clean, renewable electric energy. In the Policy Statement, the
Commission sets forth a new policy, applicable only to hydrokinetic
projects, pursuant to which the Commission will, in appropriate cases,
issue licenses pending actions by other entities under federal law. The
goal of this action is to shorten the regulatory process and speed the
development of meritorious hydrokinetic projects.

I. Background

    2. In recent years, the Commission has become aware of efforts by
the hydrokinetic industry to test and develop projects that harness the
nation's water resources to produce new supplies of much-needed
electric power. Estimates suggest that new hydrokinetic technologies,
if fully developed, could double the amount of hydropower production in
the United States, bringing it from just under 10 percent to close to
20 percent of the national electric energy supply. Given the potential
benefits of this new, clean power source, the Commission has taken
steps to lower regulatory barriers to its development.
    3. On December 6, 2006, the Commission held a technical conference
on Hydroelectric Generation from Ocean Waves, Tides, and Currents and
from Free-Flowing Rivers.\1\ At the conference, the Commission heard
from state and federal regulators, developers, and other stakeholders
interested in hydrokinetic projects. Following the conference, the
Commission received public comments. A number of the comments focused
on issues relating to the issuance of preliminary permits for
hydrokinetic projects,\2\ while other comments discussed the licensing
process for such projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket AD06-13-000.
    \2\ Preliminary permits, issued for a term of up to three years
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 18 U.S.C. 797(f)
(2000), allow a potential applicant to develop sufficient
information to prepare a license application and give the permit
holder a priority with respect to filing a license application, but
confer no property rights in the project site and no authority to
conduct construction or other land-disturbing activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On February 15, 2007, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry
and interim statement of policy with respect to preliminary permits for
hydrokinetic projects.\3\ The Commission explained that there had been
a surge in applications for preliminary permits to study potential
hydrokinetic projects, and noted the potential for new energy
production from those projects. In consequence, the Commission proposed
to implement a ``strict scrutiny'' approach to reviewing preliminary
permit applications, in order to respond to issues that had been raised
at the technical conference, and to encourage thoughtful permit
applications and promote competition.\4\ The Commission also sought
comment on this proposal, and the great majority of the commenters
supported the Commission's approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The notice of inquiry and interim statement of policy is
published at FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 35,555.
    \4\ Id. at ] 14, 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On October 2, 2007, the Commission held a Commissioner-led
technical conference, in Portland, Oregon, to discuss a Commission
staff proposal for a pilot licensing process regarding hydrokinetic
projects. The staff proposal called for an expedited licensing process,
to be completed in as few as six months. Staff suggested that pilot
project licenses would be available only for proposed projects that are
small (five megawatts or less), are removable or able to be shut down
quickly, are not located in sensitive areas, and are for the purpose of
testing new technologies or locating appropriate sites.\5\ Staff
proposed that pilot project licenses (1) have a short term (five
years), (2) include a standard condition requiring project alteration
or shutdown in the event that there was an unacceptable level of
environmental effect, (3) provide the option of applying for a standard
30-50 year license, and (4) require decommissioning and site
restoration at license expiration, if a standard license is not sought.
The comments filed regarding the pilot project license proposal were
largely supportive of a more expedited, less burdensome process, and
included a number of specific suggestions as to how the process could
be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice of Technical Conference and Soliciting Comments,
Docket No. AD07-14-000 (issued July 19 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    6. Based on the Commission's experience, it has often been the case
that Commission staff has completed its processing of a hydropower
license application, including preparation of an environmental
document, but that authorizations required from other entities under
federal laws including the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, and the Endangered Species Act, have not yet been received.
Typically, the Commission has not acted in such instances, sometimes
resulting in substantial delays in developers' abilities to undertake
non-construction activities. This has a concomitant adverse impact on
developers' abilities to move quickly with project construction once
the pending authorizations are filed with the Commission.
    7. The Commission has taken a different approach with respect to
authorizations issued under the Natural Gas Act. In those cases, the
Commission has issued pipeline certificates and authorizations to
construct liquefied natural gas facilities while action by other
entities is still pending, and included in the Commission order
provisos that construction may not commence until the necessary
authorizations have been received.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Crown Landing LLC, 117 FERC ] 61,209 at P 21 and
n. 19 and n. 36 (2006); Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline LP, 108
FERC ] 61,053 at P 13-16 (2004); Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P.,
100 FERC ] 61,277 at P 225-231 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In light of the nation's interest in the development of its
water power resources to meet the growing need for clean, renewable
energy, the Commission has decided to adopt the natural gas procedural
model with respect to new, hydrokinetic projects. Thus, for new
hydrokinetic projects only, we will, in appropriate cases, issue
project licenses where the Commission has completed processing an
application but other authorizations remain outstanding. In such cases,
the license will include conditions precluding the licensee from
commencing construction until it has obtained all necessary
authorizations.
    9. There are a number of policy reasons to consider adopting the
gas pipeline practice rather than the conventional hydropower practice
with respect to conditioned licensing of hydrokinetic technologies.
First, issuing licenses as described will have no environmental
impacts. By the terms of the licenses, licensees will not be permitted
to commence construction until they have obtained all authorizations
required by federal law. When the authorizations are obtained,
licensees will be required to file them with the Commission, and the
Commission then will review them and incorporate their terms in the
licenses, as appropriate.
    10. Second, issuing an appropriately conditioned license would in
no way diminish the authority of the states or other federal agencies.
Construction of a hydrokinetic project could not start without any
necessary state and federal authorizations under a conditioned license.
For that reason, states and federal agencies will fully retain their
authority to take action under relevant federal law.

    11. Third, the new procedure is suitable for demonstration
projects. The Commission can issue licenses quickly, leaving state and
federal agencies that have not yet completed their actions the
opportunity to do so, ideally quickly, on their own timetable. While it
is not clear whether state and federal resource agencies will complete
their actions on hydrokinetic projects in a shortened timeframe, as
suggested in the pilot project license proposal drafted by Commission
staff, issuance of conditioned licenses would likely give the
Commission a greater ability to respond quickly to innovative project
proposals. Also, early issuance of a Commission license will improve
the ability of project developers to secure financing of demonstration
projects.
    12. Issuance of a conditioned license will be a final Commission
action, as is the case with other licenses that contain reservations of
authority. Thus, these licenses will be subject to rehearing, and, once
accepted, their terms will be binding on licensees. Licensees will be
able, and required, to comply with all license terms that do not
involve construction, such as those which may require the development
of plans and consultation with stakeholders.

III. Comments

    13. Interested persons may submit comments on this Policy
Statement. Comments are due on or before December 14, 2007. Comments
must refer to Docket No. PL08-1-000, and must include the commenter's
name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their
address.
    14. Commenters are requested to use appropriate headings and to
double space their comments.
    15. Comments may be filed on paper or electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The

Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters
may attach additional files with supporting information in certain
other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to
make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments
electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    16. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    17. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and

in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    18. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number (excluding the last three digits of the docket number), in the
docket number field. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the
Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676) or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public
Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23615 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 37700]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. TS09-9-000;EL99-4-001]

City of Santa Clara, CA; Notice of Filing

July 21, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 13, 2009, The City of Santa Clara,
California, doing business as Silicon Valley Power (SVP) filed a
request for continued waiver of the Commission's standards of conduct
requirements, pursuant to the Commission's May 21, 2009 Order, Material
Changes in Facts Underlying Waiver of Order No. 889 and Part 358 of the
Commission's Regulations, 127 FERC 61,141 (2009) and consistent with
the waiver granted previously to SVP by the Commission on January 19,
1999 in Docket No. EL99-4-000, M-S-R Public Power Agency, et al., 86
FERC 61,031 (1999).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 19, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17983 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66315-66317]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23222]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78892; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-128]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

September 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 8, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt
a new pricing tier and a new execution fee. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective September 8, 2016.\4\ The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
August 31, 2016 (SR-NYSEArca-2016-125) and withdrew such filing on
September 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt a new
pricing tier and a new execution fee. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective September 8, 2016.
Step Up Tier
    The Exchange proposes a new pricing tier--Step Up Tier--for
securities with a per share price of $1.00 or above.
    As proposed, a new Step Up Tier credit of $0.0029 per share for
providing liquidity in Tape A and Tape C Securities and $0.0028 per
share for providing liquidity in Tape B Securities would apply to ETP
Holders and Market Makers that, on a daily basis, measured monthly
    (i) directly execute providing average daily volume (``ADV'') on
NYSE Arca in an amount that is an increase of no less than 0.15% of
United States consolidated average daily volume (``US CADV'') \5\ in
Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities for that month over the ETP
Holder's or Market Maker's providing ADV in July 2016 (``Baseline
Month''), and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange proposes to use the same definition of US CADV
for purposes of the proposed Step Up pricing tier. Specifically, US
CADV would mean the United States Consolidated Average Daily Volume
for transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape, excluding odd
lots through January 31, 2014 (except for purposes of Lead Market
Maker pricing), and excludes volume on days when the market closes
early and on the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell
Investments Indexes. Transactions that are not reported to the
Consolidated Tape are not included in US CADV. See Fee Schedule,
footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) set a new Best Bid or Offer (``BBO'') on the Exchange with at
least 40% of the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's providing ADV.
    For example, an ETP Holder who has a providing ADV of 15 million
shares in the Baseline Month would be required to execute, at a
minimum, an additional 9.75 million shares of providing ADV if CADV is
6.5 billion shares in the billing month, or 0.15% over the Baseline
Month, for a total providing ADV of 24.75 million shares for the
billing month. Further, of the 24.75 million shares, at least 9.9
million shares, or 40% of providing ADV of 24.75 million shares, would
need to set a new BBO on the Exchange.
    As an incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to direct their
order flow to the Exchange, for the months of September 2016 and
October 2016 only, the Exchange proposes adopting lower providing ADV
criteria for ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for the proposed
credit. For the billing month of September 2016 only, the proposed Step
Up credit would apply to ETP Holders and Market Makers that, on a daily
basis, measured monthly
    (i) directly execute providing ADV on NYSE Arca in an amount that
is an increase of no less than 0.045% of US CADV in Tape A, Tape B and
Tape C Securities for that month over the ETP Holder's or Market
Maker's providing ADV in the Baseline Month, and
    (ii) set a new BBO on the Exchange with at least 40% of the ETP
Holder's or Market Maker's providing ADV.
    For example, using the previous example, an ETP Holder who has a
providing ADV of 15 million shares in the Baseline Month would be
required to execute, at a minimum, an additional 2.925 million shares
of providing ADV if CADV is 6.5 billion shares in the billing month, or
0.045% over the Baseline Month, for a total providing ADV of 17.925
million shares for the billing month. Further, of the 17.925 million
shares, at least 7.170 million shares, or 40% of providing ADV of
17.925 million shares, would need to set a new BBO on the Exchange.
    For the billing month of October 2016 only, the proposed Step Up
credit would be applicable to ETP Holders and Market Makers that, on a
daily basis, measured monthly
    (i) directly execute providing ADV on NYSE Arca in an amount that
is an increase of no less than 0.09% of US CADV in Tape A, Tape B and
Tape C Securities for that month over the ETP Holder's or Market
Maker's providing ADV in the Baseline Month, and
    (ii) set a new BBO on the Exchange with at least 40% of the ETP
Holder's and Market Maker's providing ADV.
    Using the previous example again, an ETP Holder who has a providing
ADV of 15 million shares in the Baseline Month would be required to
execute, at a minimum, an additional 5.85 million shares of providing
ADV if CADV is 6.5 billion shares in the billing month, or 0.09% over
the Baseline Month, for a total providing ADV of 20.850 million shares
for the billing month. Further, of the 20.850 million shares, at least
8.340 million shares, or 40% of providing ADV of 20.850 million shares,
would need to set a new BBO on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that if an ETP Holder or Market Maker qualifies
for more than one tier in the Fee Schedule, the Exchange would apply
the most favorable rate available under such tiers.
    The goal of the Step-Up Tier is to incentivize ETP Holders and
Market Makers to increase the orders sent

directly to NYSE Arca and therefore provide liquidity that supports the
quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency. The
Exchange notes that Step Up pricing tiers are not novel. Bats BZX
Exchange (``BZX'') currently provides Step-Up credits to participants
on that exchange as an incentive to attract order flow to that
exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Step-Up Tiers and Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers on the BZX
Fee Schedule at https://www.batstrading.com/support/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Execution Fee
    The Exchange proposes a new execution fee for participation in an
Early Open Auction, Core Open Auction, Trading Halt Auction and Closing
Auction. The proposed fee would apply to securities with a per share
price of $1.00 or above.
    The Exchange's Fee Schedule currently includes fees applicable to
executions that result from Market Orders, Auction-Only Orders, Market-
On-Close Orders and Limit-On-Close Orders (``Auction Orders''). All
other executions (``Non-Auction Orders'') executed in an Early Open
Auction, Core Open Auction, Trading Halt Auction and Closing Auction
are not currently charged a fee by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes
to add a fee of $0.0006 per share that would apply to Non-Auction
Orders executed in an Early Open Auction, Core Open Auction, Trading
Halt Auction and Closing Auction.
    The Exchange notes the proposed fee is similar to the fee charged
by the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') for Continuous Book \7\
orders executed on NASDAQ for the NASDAQ Opening Cross and the NASDAQ
Closing Cross. NASDAQ currently charges a fee of $0.00085 per share for
Continuous Book orders in both Opening and Closing Crosses.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Continuous Book includes all quotes and extended hours
orders eligible to participate in the NASDAQ Opening Cross and
NASDAQ Closing Cross. See NASDAQ Crossing Network at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other problem, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem
that the affected market participants would have in complying with the
proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated market participants will be subject to
the same fees and credits and access to the Exchange's market is
offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Step-Up Tier is equitable
because it is open to all ETP Holders and Market Makers on an equal
basis and provides credits that are reasonably related to the value to
an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. As stated
above, the Exchange believes that the Step-Up Tier may incentivize
market participants to increase the orders sent directly to NYSE Arca
and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price
discovery and promotes market transparency. Moreover, the addition of
the Step-Up Tier would benefit market participants whose increased
order flow provides meaningful added levels of liquidity thereby
contributing to the depth and market quality on the Exchange. In
addition, by offering a Step-Up Tier the Exchange believes more market
participants may provide increased order flow and more market
participants would be eligible to receive the proposed credits for
their orders.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and
would create an added incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to
execute additional orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to require that at least 40% of the ETP Holders and Market
Makers providing ADV set a new BBO on the Exchange as it would create
an incentive for ETP Holders and Market Makers to improve displayed
quotes on the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because providing incentives for orders that
are executed on a registered national securities exchange would
contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their
transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
    The Exchange believes that adopting lower providing ADV criteria
for September 2016 and October 2016 is reasonable because it may allow
a greater number of ETP Holders and Market Makers to qualify for the
proposed credits while also providing ETP Holders and Market Makers the
opportunity to gradually increase their activity in order to qualify
for the proposed credits. The Exchange believes that adopting lower
providing ADV criteria for September 2016 and October 2016 is also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the lower criteria
would apply uniformly to all ETP Holders and Market Makers during
September 2016 and October 2016.
    Volume-based rebates such as the ones currently in place on the
Exchange, and as proposed herein, have been widely adopted in the cash
equities markets and are equitable because they are open to all ETP
Holders and Market Makers on an equal basis and provide additional
benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an
exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth
patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price
and volume discovery processes.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed execution fee for Non-
Auction Orders participating in an Early Open Auction, Core Open
Auction, Trading Halt Auction and Closing Auction is consistent with an
equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory. As noted above, Non-Auction Orders executed in an Early
Open Auction, Core Open Auction, Trading Halt Auction and Closing
Auction are not currently charged a fee by the Exchange. The Exchange
believes the proposed fee is reasonable because Non-Auction Orders
receive a substantial benefit from executions within the various
auctions on the Exchange. For example, the Exchange's closing auction
is a recognized industry benchmark.\11\ Moreover, the proposed fee is
equitably allocated because the fee would apply to all market
participants that benefit from such orders participating in the
auctions. Similarly, the proposed fee is not unfairly discriminatory
because it would apply to all Non-Auction Orders executed in the
auctions resulting in a benefit to market quality that such orders
would

provide. The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a fee for Non-
Auction Orders executed in an Early Open Auction, Core Open Auction,
Trading Halt Auction and Closing Auction is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee
would apply to all market participants that participate in the auctions
and receive an execution. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that
the proposed fee would negatively impact participation in the auctions.
ETP Holders and Market Makers that do not want to be subject to the
proposed fee would simply cancel their orders and thus can elect to not
participate in the auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, the pricing and valuation of certain indices,
funds, and derivative products require primary market prints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\12\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes that the proposal
to add a new pricing tier would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and
transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP
Holders and Market Makers. The Exchange believes that this could
promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues,
including those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution. Further, the proposed new fee for executions in
an Early Open Auction, Core Open Auction, Trading Halt Auction and
Closing Auction is reflective of the value of executions that take
place within the various auctions on the Exchange on a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and
with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain
their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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 foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \14\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSEArca-2016-128 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-128. 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-NYSEArca-2016-128 and should
be submitted on or before October 18, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23222 Filed 9-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 21061]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2020-0260]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Verification
of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and Medical Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The information is used to identify foreign airmen in order
to allow the agency to verify their foreign license when used to
qualify for a US certificate. Respondents are holders of foreign
licenses wishing to obtain US Certificates.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Robin Thurman, Federal Aviation Administration, AFB-720,
PO Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Hawkins by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0724.
    Title: Verification of Foreign License, Rating and Medical
Certification.
    Form Numbers: Form 8060-71.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collected is used to properly identify
airmen to allow the agency to verify their foreign license being used
to qualify for a U.S. certificate. The respondents are holders of
foreign license wishing to obtain a U.S. certificate. A person who is
applying for a U.S. pilot certificate or rating on the basis of a
foreign pilot license must apply for verification of that license at
least 90 days before arriving at the designated FAA FSDO where the
applicant intends to receive the U.S. pilot certificate.
    Respondents: Approximately 8,700 foreign applicants for U.S.
certificates annually.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 Minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1450 Hours.

Margaret A. Hawkins,
Compliance Specialist, Forms Manager, Airmen Certification Branch, AFB-
720.
[FR Doc. 2020-07931 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P