[Federal Register: May 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 21794]
[DOCID:fr11my09-489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13402-000]

Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 4, 2009.
    On March 20, 2009, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Lake Milton Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on Mahoning River, in Mahoning County, Ohio.
    The proposed Lake Milton Hydroelectric Project would be located at
the existing Lake Milton Dam owned by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources. The dam operations are supervised by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Lake Milton Dam is 760-feet-long and 54-feet-high, which
includes a 650-long spillway and four 60-inch-diameter gate valves.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse at the
base of the existing outlet works; (2) one or more turbine/generators
with total installed capacity of 1.2 megawatts; (3) two 60-inch-
diameter, 7-foot-long penstocks; (4) a new 320-foot-long transmission
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The Lake Milton Dam Project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 6,929 megawatts-hours,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., President, Hydro
Energy Technologies, LLC, 31300 Solon Rd. Suite 12, Solon, OH 44139,
(440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<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.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project 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-
13402) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10851 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65315-65317]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0881; Airspace Docket No. 22-AEA-34]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-469 and V-501, and Revocation
of VOR Federal Airway V-474 in the Vicinity of St. Thomas, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airways V-469 and V-501, and revokes V-474. The FAA is
taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the St. Thomas, PA (THS), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation
(VORTAC) navigational aid (NAVAID). The St. Thomas VOR is being
decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 30, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual

revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming
amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. 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
the 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 modifies the ATS route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2023-0881 in the Federal Register (88 FR 21142; April 10, 2023),
proposing to amend VOR Federal airways V-469 and V-501, and revoke VOR
Federal airway V-474 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the St. Thomas, PA, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA determined that the proposed VOR
Federal airway V-501 amendment to replace the St. Thomas, PA, VORTAC
airway point with the VINSE Fix did not accurately overlay the existing
airway between the Hagerstown, MD, VOR and the Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC
airway points. To overcome the unintended difference to the V-501
routing, the FAA is establishing the GGRIF Fix located approximately 80
feet south of the St. Thomas VORTAC at the intersection of the
Harrisburg, PA, VORTAC 241[deg] True (T)/251[deg] Magnetic (M) and
Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC 178[deg](T)/188[deg](M) radials. Replacing the
St. Thomas VORTAC airway point in the V-501 description with the GGRIF
Fix instead of the proposed VINSE Fix will retain the existing airway
as it is currently charted.
    This action amends the V-501 description by changing the VINSE Fix
proposed to replace the St. Thomas, PA, VORTAC airway point in the NPRM
to the GGRIF Fix.

Incorporation by Reference

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA
Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. These amendments will be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways
V-469 and V-501, and revoking V-474 due to the planned decommissioning
of the VOR portion of the St. Thomas, PA, VORTAC. The airway actions
are described below.
    V-469: Prior to this final rule, V-469 extended between the
Danville, VA, VORTAC and the Woodstown, NJ, VORTAC. The airway segment
between the Johnstown, PA, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
and the Harrisburg, PA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now
extends between the Danville VORTAC and the Johnstown VOR/DME and
between the Harrisburg VORTAC and the Woodstown VORTAC.
    V-474: Prior to this final rule, V-474 extended between the St.
Thomas, PA, VORTAC and the Modena, PA, VORTAC. The airway is removed in
its entirety.
    V-501: Prior to this final rule, V-501 extended between the
Martinsburg, WV, VORTAC and the Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC. The St.
Thomas, PA, VORTAC airway point is replaced by the GGRIF Fix being
established at the intersection of the Harrisburg, PA, VORTAC
241[deg](T)/251[deg](M) and Philipsburg, PA, VORTAC 178[deg](T)/
188[deg](M) radials. As amended, the airway is retained as charted and
continues to extend between the Martinsburg VORTAC and the Philipsburg
VORTAC.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the airway descriptions in the
amendments to part 71 are stated in degrees True north.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airways V-469 and V-501, and revoking VOR Federal airway V-474, due to
the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the St. Thomas, PA,
VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-
6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace
areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71,
Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;

Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-
6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact
review publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do
not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change
altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such,
this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically
excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-469 [Amended]

    From Danville, VA; Lynchburg, VA; INT Lynchburg 347[deg] and
Elkins, WV, 142[deg] radials; Elkins; Morgantown, WV; INT Morgantown
010[deg] and Johnstown, PA, 260[deg] radials; to Johnstown. From
Harrisburg, PA; Dupont, DE; to Woodstown, NJ.
* * * * *

V-474 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-501 [Amended]

    From Martinsburg, WV; Hagerstown, MD; INT Harrisburg, PA,
241[deg] and Philipsburg, PA, 178[deg] radials; to Philipsburg.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2023.
Karen L. Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-20446 Filed 9-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51058-51061]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1038; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-166-AD;
Amendment 39-17537; AD 2013-15-21]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2004-13-06 for
certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes. AD 2004-13-06
required repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks in the keel
beam side panels, and repair if necessary. This new AD requires
repetitive eddy current inspections for cracking in the keel beam side
panels, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by
reports of cracks on the side panels of the keel beams. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks on the side panels of the
keel beams, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 24, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
24, 2013.

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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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.
The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2012 (77
FR 60655), and proposed to supersede AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688
(69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-
0134, dated July 15, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    During certification structural fatigue tests, several cases of
structural damage (cracks) have been found on keel beam side panels.
Cracks were observed on both sides of the keel beam around the
rivets below the center wing box between frame (FR) 40 and FR 42,
and in part of the area of the upper elliptical cut out forward of
FR 41.
    This type of damage, if not detected and repaired, would
adversely affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 2003-
146 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69
FR 38818, June 29, 2004)] to require repetitive detailed inspections
of those two areas and corrective actions, depending on findings.
    Prompted by reported access difficulties and to allow extension
of the interval between two consecutive inspections, Airbus
validated an Eddy current Non-Destructive Test (NDT) inspection to
replace the detailed inspection.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes DGAC France AD 2003-146, requires repetitive Eddy-current
NDT inspections for cracks in the affected areas of the keel beam
side panel below the center wing box and corrective actions
[repair], depending on findings.

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

Revised Service Information

    The NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012) referred to Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November
30, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for the
proposed actions. Airbus has revised this service information. We have
reviewed Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 04,
dated September 13, 2012, which includes an updated effectivity, an
added illustration, amended job set-up and close-up procedures, and
minor changes, but adds no accomplishment instruction procedures.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Revise Referenced Service Information

    Jetblue Airways requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 60655,
October 4, 2012) to reference the latest service information.
    We agree. As explained above, we reviewed Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 04, dated September 13, 2012. We have
revised this final rule to refer to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A320-53-1060, Revision 04, dated September 13, 2012; to add new
paragraph (i) to allow credit for actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-
53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010, or Revision 03, dated
January 20, 2012; and to re-identify subsequent paragraphs.

Requests To Correct Subparagraph References

    Delta Airlines (Delta) and Airbus requested that we fix
typographical errors in paragraphs (g) and (j) of the NPRM (77 FR
60655, October 4, 2012), which refer to incorrect paragraphs.
    We agree that those paragraphs were misidentified in the NPRM (77
FR 60655, October 4, 2012). We have changed paragraph (g) in this final
rule to refer to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this final rule,
instead of paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this final rule. We have
also changed paragraph (k) of this final rule (identified as paragraph
(j) in the NPRM), to refer to paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of
this final rule.

Request for Clarification of Inspection Interval

    Delta requested that we clarify whether the eddy current inspection
specified in the NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012) will allow
extension of the inspection intervals that are required by AD 2004-13-
06. Delta stated it agrees that an eddy current inspection will be a
more effective way to detect cracks than a detailed visual inspection,
but disagrees that it will solve the access difficulty problem.
    We agree to clarify these issues. EASA and Airbus later
acknowledged that the general visual inspection was replaced with non-
destructive testing (eddy current inspection) because the eddy current
inspection procedure is a more effective way to detect cracking, not
because the inspection area was difficult to access as stated in the
MCAI. There is no change in the initial inspection compliance time for
the eddy current inspection as compared to the initial inspection
compliance time for the general visual inspection; however, the
repetitive inspection interval for the eddy current inspection (12,000
flight cycles or 26,700 flight hours) is at a greater interval as
compared to the repetitive inspection interval for the general visual
inspection (4,300 flight cycles or 9,600 flight hours). We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Allow Flight With Cracks

    The NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012) requires crack repair
before further flight. Delta requested that operators be allowed to
comply with the crack repair compliance times described in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060 (as referenced in EASA AD 2011-
0134, dated July 15, 2011), or decrease the compliance times for crack
repair in inspection Area A, instead of eliminating the repair deferral
time specified in the NPRM. Delta stated that this would ease
accomplishment of repetitive inspections for operators.
    We are aware that Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060
allows deferral of crack repair in certain areas based on crack length.
We usually do not allow dispatch with known cracks in primary
structure. As specified in the NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012)
under ``Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service
Information,'' we find that, to achieve an adequate level of safety for
the affected fleet, fatigue cracks on the side panels of the keel beams
must be repaired prior to further flight. However, if an operator has
an inspection plan for tracking crack length and mitigating the risks
associated with flight with cracks, then we will consider its request
for approval of an alternative method of compliance in accordance with
the provisions specified in paragraph (j) of this final rule. We have
not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Approve Airbus Repair Approval Sheet (RAS)

    Airbus requested that we consider each Airbus RAS approved under
Airbus Design Organization Approval (DOA) EASA.21J.031, provided after
cracking is reported, as an approved method for repair, as required by
paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012).
    We agree to clarify. Airbus has design organization approval
authority from EASA and, therefore, a RAS approved under DOA
EASA.21J.031 would be a method of compliance for a repair required by
this AD under the provisions specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Update Airbus Contact Information

    Airbus requested that we replace the acronym EAS with the acronym
EIAS in its contact information.
    We agree to change the Airbus contact information in this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 60655, October 4, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 351 products of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate that it will take about 29 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $865,215, or $2,465 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We
have no way of determining the number of products that may need these
actions.

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 that 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 this AD, the MCAI, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR 38818, June 29, 2004), and adding
the following new AD:

2013-15-21 Airbus: Amendment 39-17537. Docket No. FAA-2012-1038;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-166-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September
24, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2004-13-06, Amendment 39-13688 (69 FR
38818, June 29, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -
115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-111, -211, -212,
-214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; certificated in any category;
all manufacturer serial numbers, except those having embodied Airbus
modification 30355 in production.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the side panels of
the keel beams. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracks on the side panels of the keel beams, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Eddy Current Inspection

    At the applicable compliance time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do an eddy current non-destructive test (NDT) inspection
to detect cracks in the keel beam side panels at Area A and Area B,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 04, dated
September 13, 2012. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles or 26,700 flight hours, whichever
occurs first. Area A is part of the area of the upper elliptical
cut-out stringer (STGR) 42 on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH)
side forward of frame (FR) 41; Area B is the area around the
fasteners on both sides of the keel beam side panel below the center
wing box at STGR 42 on the LH and RH side between FR 40 and FR 42.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected as specified in
Airworthiness Limitations Item (ALI) Task 533142-01-1, which was
specified in the Airbus A319/A320/A321 ALI document up to Revision
05 inclusive; or as specified in Airbus A319/A320/A321 Maintenance
Review Board (MRB) Report up to Revision 08 inclusive; or as
specified in the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1060, dated June 19, 2002, or Revision 01, dated April 2, 2004: At
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 4,300 flight cycles or 9,600 flight hours after the
last inspection, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 24,200 total flight cycles, or
48,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Corrective Action for Cracking

    (1) If any crack is found in Area A during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair
the affected area, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060,
Revision 04, dated September 13, 2012. Accomplishing a repair
terminates the repetitive inspections of Area A required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for that side of the keel beam.
    (2) If any crack is found in Area B during any inspection
required by this AD: Before further flight, repair the affected area
in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated
agent).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2010; or
Revision 03, dated January 20, 2012; which are not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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.

(k) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections
21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane
can be repaired (if the operator elects to do so), provided the
conditions in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD are
met. Areas A and B are defined in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A320-53-1060, Revision 04, dated September 13, 2012.
    (1) No multiple cracks in Area A.
    (2) If there is a single crack in Area A, the length must be
less than 20.0 millimeters (0.79 inch).
    (3) No cracking in Area B.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0134, dated
July 15, 2011, for related information, which can be found in

the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the address specified
in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-53-1060, Revision 04,
dated September 13, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20105 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 55839-55841]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56517; File No. PCAOB-2006-03]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to
Inspections

 September 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
``Act''), notice is hereby given that on December 20, 2006, the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared by the Board. On May 31, 2007,
the Board amended its filing because certain of the information
described in the original filing had changed. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.

I. Board's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule

    On December 19, 2006, the Board adopted amendments to its rules
related to inspections. The proposed amendments include a new paragraph
(d) added to existing Rule 4003 and include technical amendments to
nonsubstantive points in existing rules 4006 and 4009. The text of the
proposed amendments are set out below. Language added by these
amendments is in italics. Deleted paragraph references are in brackets.
Other text in Section 4 of the Board's Rules, including notes to the
Rules, remains unchanged and is indicated by `` * * * * * '' in the
text below.

SECTION 4. INSPECTIONS

* * * * *
Rule 4003. Frequency of Inspections
* * * * *
    (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this Rule, with respect to any
registered public accounting firm that became registered in 2003 or
2004--
    (1) this Rule does not require the first inspection of the firm
sooner than the fourth calendar year following the first calendar year
in which the firm, while registered, issued an audit report or played a
substantial role in the preparation or furnishing of an audit report;
and
    (2) this Rule does not require the second inspection of the firm
sooner than the fifth calendar year following the first calendar year
in which the firm, while registered, issued an audit report or played a
substantial role in the preparation or furnishing of an audit report.
* * * * *
Rule 4006. Duty to Cooperate With Inspectors
    Every registered public accounting firm, and every associated
person of a registered public accounting firm, shall cooperate with the
Board in the performance of any Board inspection. Cooperation shall
include, but is not limited to, cooperating and complying with any
request, made in furtherance of the Board's authority and
responsibilities under the Act, to--
    ([1]a) provide access to, and the ability to copy, any record in
the possession, custody, or control of such firm or person, and

    ([2]b) provide information by oral interviews, written responses,
or otherwise.
* * * * *
Rule 4009. Firm Response to Quality Control Defects
* * * * *
    (d) The portions of the Board's inspection report that deal with
criticisms of or potential defects in quality control systems that the
firm has not addressed to the satisfaction of the Board shall be made
public by the Board--
* * * * *
    (2) upon the expiration of the period in which the firm may seek
Commission review of any Board determination made under paragraph
([b]c) of this rule, if the firm does not seek Commission review of the
Board determination;
* * * * *

II. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

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

A. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

(a) Purpose
    Section 104 of the Act requires the Board to conduct a continuing
program of inspections to assess the degree of compliance of each
registered public accounting firm and associated persons of that firm
with the Act, the rules of the Board, the rules of the Commission, or
professional standards, in connection with its performance of audits,
issuance of audit reports, and related matters involving issuers. The
Board has adopted an amendment to its Rule 4003 to temporarily adjust
minimum inspection frequency requirement applicable to certain firms.
The Board has adopted technical amendments to its Rules 4006 and 4009
to correct non-substantive points. The proposed amendments are
discussed below.
    Section 104(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Board to conduct an
inspection, at least once every three years, of each registered firm
that regularly provides audit reports for 100 or fewer issuers, and
Section 104(b)(2) of the Act authorizes the Board to adopt rules
adjusting that frequency. In 2003, the Board adopted Rule 4003(b),
which provides that the Board will conduct inspections, on a triennial
basis, not only of each firm that regularly provides audit reports for
100 or fewer issuers, but also of any firm that issues any audit report
or that play a substantial role in the preparation or furnishing of an
audit report.
    In the course of inspection planning, including in connection with
the Board's budget process, the Board identified a way in which a
temporary adjustment to Rule 4003 would, over time, maximize the
Board's ability to allocate its inspection resources more evenly,
consistently, and effectively year-to-year. The issue arises because
the first three years of inspections, 2004 to 2006, coincided with the
Board's initial growth period and, as a consequence, the resources
available for and devoted to the inspections of firms with 100 or fewer
issuer audit clients increased from year to year. The resources
available in each year necessarily informed the extent of the
inspection work performed in that year, including with respect to both
the numbers of firms inspected and the size of firms inspected.\1\ This
resulted in a year-to-year fluctuation that, because of the minimum
frequency requirements of Rule 4003(b), the Board would to some extent
be locked into repeating in succeeding three-year periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2004, the Board inspected 91 firms with 100 or fewer
issuer audit clients. In 2005, the Board inspected 272 such firms.
In 2006, the Board inspected 163 such firms. Because variations in
the nature and size of firms' audit practices result in different
inspection resource requirements, mere comparison of the numbers of
inspected firms does not reflect fully the related resource issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid that consequence, the Board is adding to Rule 4003 a new
paragraph that will temporarily adjust aspects of the inspection cycle
requirement. Paragraph (d) will allow the Board to approach long-term
inspection planning with the flexibility to eliminate the fluctuation
generated in the start-up cycle, including the flexibility to make
adjustments that will result in a relatively consistent, from year to
year, mix of firms in terms of the size and nature of audit
practice.\2\ Paragraph (d) accomplishes that result by providing that,
with respect to firms that became registered in 2003 or 2004,\3\ (1)
the Board need not conduct the firm's first inspection sooner than the
fourth year after the firm, while registered, first issues an audit
report or plays a substantial role, and (2) the Board need not conduct
the firm's second inspection sooner than the fifth year after the firm,
while registered, first issues an audit report or plays a substantial
role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This point should not be understood to suggest that the
Board envisions rigid adherence to a fixed triennial inspection
schedule for each firm once a particular year-to-year mix of firms
is established. For a variety of reasons--including to address
specific risks or to enhance the value of the inspection process by
reducing the predictability of the timing of any firm's next
inspection--the Board may sometimes inspect a firm sooner than three
years after the firm's previous inspection.
    \3\ On October 22, 2003, it became unlawful for any U.S. public
accounting firm to issue, or to play a substantial role in the
preparation or furnishing of, an audit report with respect to any
issuer unless the firm was registered with the Board. The same
registration requirement took effect for non-U.S. firms on July 19,
2004. See Section 102(a) of the Act and PCAOB Rule 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even with this adjustment, the Board expects that each U.S. firm
that issued an original audit report (as distinct from a consent to use
a previously issued audit report) in 2003 or 2004 after registering
with the Board will have its first inspection within the three-year
period after first issuing an original audit report. The flexibility
provided by the adjustment would come into play principally with
respect to the timing of the second inspection of some of those firms,
the timing of the first two inspections of some non-U.S. firms, and the
timing of inspections of firms that play a substantial role but do not
issue audit reports. The adjustment would have no continuing effect on
the timing of any inspections after the second inspections of firms
that registered in 2003 and 2004, and would have no effect on the
timing of any inspection of any firm that registered after 2004.
    It is important to note that Rule 4003 does not limit the Board's
authority to conduct inspections at any time, and that registered
firms' own obligations are not affected by Rule 4003 or the amendment.
Rule 4003 establishes a minimum inspection frequency governing how the
Board carries out its inspection program. Rule 4003 does not preclude
the Board from inspecting any firm more frequently than the schedule
set out in the rule. A firm's obligation is to cooperate in any Board
inspection at any time that the Board determines to inspect the firm,
regardless of the provisions of Rule 4003.
    The temporary adjustment to the inspection frequency requirement is
consistent with the purposes of the Act, the public interest, and the
protection of investors. The adjustment will facilitate the reduction
of certain year-to-year fluctuations in the inspection program, which
otherwise could interfere with the Board's ability to implement a
program consistently and effectively with relatively stable resources
from

year to year. The adjustment will accomplish this while delaying only a
relatively small portion of inspections, and delaying them only for a
short period.
    The Board adopted Rule 4003(d) before obtaining public comment
because of the nature of the rule, which involves a temporary
adjustment, for administrative and programmatic reasons, to an element
of an existing rule to which the Board is not making any permanent
change. Nevertheless, the Board invited public comment on Rule 4003(d),
and the Board provided that Rule 4003(d) would expire on June 30, 2007
unless the Board, after considering any public comment, acted to adopt
the rule for a longer period. The Board received two comment letters,
each expressing general support for Rule 4003(d) and neither raising
any issues concerning the rule. On May 24, 2007, the Board approved
retaining Rule 4003(d) indefinitely beyond the tentative June 30, 2007
expiration date.
    The Board has also adopted technical amendments to two aspects of
the rules relating to inspections. In Rule 4006, the Board is revising
the numbering of the paragraphs from ``(1)'' and ``(2)'' to ``(a)'' and
``(b)'' to conform to the convention in the Board's rules generally. In
Rule 4009(d)(2), the Board is correcting a cross-reference. Rule
4009(d)(2)'s cross-reference to ``paragraph (b) of this rule'' dates to
the Board's originally proposed Rule 4009. The substance of paragraph
(b) in the proposed rule was moved to paragraph (c) in the final rule
adopted by the Board, and the cross-reference in paragraph (d)(2)
should have been revised to cross-reference paragraph (c) at that time.
The Board has now corrected that cross-reference.
(b) Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule is Title I of the Act.

B. Board's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With respect to
the firms subject to an inspection requirement, the proposed rules
impose no burden beyond the burdens clearly imposed and contemplated by
the Act, and the proposed rules do not change the obligations of those
firms as already set out in the Act and in existing Board rules.

C. Board's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Received From
Members, Participants or Others

    The Board solicited comment on Rule 4003(d) when the Board adopted
that rule on December 19, 2006. Since the filing of Form 19b-4 on
December 20, 2006, the Board has received two comment letters on Rule
4003(d). Each comment letter expressed general support for Rule
4003(d), and neither comment letter raised any significant issues about
the rule change. The Board did not solicit or receive comment on the
other proposed rule changes described in Section I above.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period as (i) the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Board consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Title I of 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/pcaob.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number PCAOB 2006-03 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 PCAOB 2006-03. 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/pcaob/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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCAOB. All
comments received will be posted without change; we do 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 PCAOB-2006-03 and should be
submitted on or before October 22, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary
[FR Doc. E7-19275 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27452]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69520; File No. 4-661]

Credit Ratings Roundtable

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of roundtable discussion location change.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the change of location of the May 14,
2013, Credit Ratings Roundtable that was published in the April 29,
2013 Federal Register (78 FR 25101 through 25102). The new location of
the roundtable discussion is Room L-002 (the Auditorium) at the
Securities and Exchange Commission's headquarters located at 100 F
Street NE., in Washington, DC 20549. The public is invited to observe
the roundtable discussion. Seating will be available on a first-come,
first-served basis. The roundtable discussion also will be available
via webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

DATES: The roundtable discussion will take place on May 14, 2013. The
Commission will accept comments regarding issues addressed at the
roundtable until June 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davey at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Credit Ratings, Securities and Exchange Commission, 3 World
Financial Center, New York, NY 10281-1022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 29, 2013, we published a notice in
the Federal Register (78 FR 25101 through 25102) that announced a May
14, 2013 roundtable to discuss various matters related to credit
ratings.

     Dated: May 6, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11082 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19683-19685]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07883]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71853; File No. SR-CME-2014-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Clarifications to Its Chapter 7 Delivery Rules

April 3, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 27, 2014, Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I and II,
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the
proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(1) \4\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CME is filing the proposed rule change that is limited to its
business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the
proposed rule change would clarify certain aspects of CME's Chapter 7
rules with respect to deliveries of futures products.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME 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

    CME is registered as a DCO with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') and offers clearing services for many different
futures and swaps products. The proposed rule change that is the
subject of this filing is limited to its business as a DCO clearing
futures contracts.
    Per existing CME Rule 702, CME guarantees financial performance
(i.e., replacement cost) for all physically deliverable futures
products. In assessing the current rulebook, CME noted that certain
provisions in current Chapter 7 should be clarified to more clearly
state CME's obligations in deliveries and delivery failures as the
existing rule contains some language that may be seen as inconsistent
with the overriding impact of CME Rule 702. As a result, CME is now
proposing clarifying amendments to more clearly state CME's obligations
for deliveries and delivery failures as specified below.
    The proposed amendments to CME Rules 730-732 and 742.A delete the
operational mechanics of the currency delivery rules in light of the
guaranty of financial performance per Rule 702 for deliveries.
    The proposed amendments to CME Rule 743.B clarify that the clearing
member causing a currency delivery failure is liable to CME for any
financial performance paid by CME to the contra-clearing member. The
proposed amendments to CME Rule 743.A delete the reference to charging
a clearing member overdraft fees for late or inaccurate deliveries.
    Finally, CME is proposing changes to CME Rule 702 to harmonize and
more clearly state that CME is responsible for financial performance to
the clearing member that did not cause or contribute to the delivery
failure by strengthening the operative language (the current rule
states that CME ``shall seek to ensure financial performance . . .'').
``Financial performance'' is defined as payment of the commercially
reasonable costs of the affected clearing member for replacing the
failed delivery and includes any fines, penalties and fees incurred in
replacing the delivery and does not include physical performance or
legal fees. The changes further include a deadline for affected
clearing members to seek a claim for financial performance and
codification of the requirement to submit supporting documentation.
    The rule change that is described in this filing is limited to
CME's business as a DCO clearing products under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CFTC and does not materially impact CME's security-
based swap clearing business in any way. The above listed change is a
clarification to existing rules and does not result in changes to the
operational processes or the nature or level of the risks posed to CME
or clearing members. The change will be effective on filing and CME
plans to operationalize it on March 27, 2014. CME notes that it has
also certified the proposed rule change that is the subject of this
filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in a separate filing, CME
Submission No. 14-077.
    CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A.\5\ The proposed
change is intended to clarify existing CME obligations for deliveries
in a manner consistent with CFTC Regulation 39.14(g), which requires
DCOs to state their obligations with respect to deliveries, including
obligations to make or accept deliveries. The proposed change simply
clarifies existing practices by revising current rules to more clearly
state that, in the event of a delivery failure, CME's obligations will
be for financial performance to the clearing member whose actions or
omissions did not cause or contribute with respect to the delivery
failure (the proposed change also clearly defines the term ``financial
performance''). These clarifications to CME's existing delivery process
rules will provide greater clarity to the marketplace regarding CME's
obligations in the delivery process and as such are designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed change is limited in its effect to
futures products currently offered under CME's authority to act as a
DCO. These products are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.
CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering
the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies
underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public
interest.
    Because the proposed change is limited to making clarifications to
more clearly state CME's obligations in the delivery process under
already existing CME rules, the change is therefore consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \7\ and is properly
filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \9\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed change
clarifies existing CME practices and simply states that in the event of
a delivery failure, CME's obligations will be for financial performance
to the clearing member whose actions or omissions did not cause or
contribute with respect to the delivery failure and defines financial
performance to be payment of the commercially reasonable costs of the
affected clearing member for replacing the failed delivery and includes
any fines, penalties and fees incurred in replacing the delivery and
does not include physical performance or legal fees.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \11\ thereunder, as
CME has designated that this rule change constitutes a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule, which renders the
proposed rule change

effective upon filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(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 No. SR-CME-2014-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2014-11. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site at http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings.html.
    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-CME-2014-11 and
should be submitted on or before April 30, 2014.

    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. 2014-07883 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62004-62006]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25886]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0800; FRL-9476-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California
Air Resources Board--Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California Air
Resources Board portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from consumer products. We are approving a local rule that
regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0800, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available

electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the State and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Regulation                            Regulation title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Code of Regulations, Title 17,       Article 2--Consumer Products....        08/06/10        01/28/11
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2011, the submittal for California Code of Regulations,
Title 17, Division 3, chapter 1, subchapter 8.5--Consumer Products was
deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Article 2 of CARB's Consumer
Products regulation into the SIP on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27613). CARB
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on August 6, 2010 and
submitted them to us on January 28, 2011.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.
    The California Health and Safety Code (Section 41712(b)) requires
CARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in
volatile organic compounds emitted by consumer products if the state
board determines that adequate data exist to establish both of the
following:
    (1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal
ambient air quality standards.
    (2) The regulations are commercially and technologically feasible
and necessary.
    CARB's current amendments to their consumer products regulations
establishes lower VOC limits for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners
and establishes new limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint
Thinners. Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners are subject to a
two tier limit. The first tier establishes a 30 weight percent limit
effective December 31, 2010. The second tier is not included in the
submitted SIP revision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Robert D, Fletcher (CARB), letter to Jared Blumenfeld (EPA
Region IX), January 28, 2011, submitting the August 6, 2010
amendments to California's Consumer Products Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments also: (1) Add new definitions for: Aromatic
compound, artists solvent/thinner, high temperature coating, industrial
maintenance coating, and zinc-rich primer; (2) modify the definitions
for ASTM, Multi-purpose Solvent, Paint Thinner, and Automotive
windshield washer fluid--diluted and premixed; (3) prohibit the use of
the toxic air contaminants methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or
trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners; (4)
prohibit the use of compounds with a global warming potential (GWP) of
150 or greater in Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners; (5)
temporarily prohibits flammable or extremely flammable products from
using generic product names such as ``Multi-purpose Solvent'', ``Paint
Thinner'', or ``Paint Clean-up''; (6) prohibit the sale or manufacture
for use in California Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners
containing greater than one percent by weight of ``aromatic
compounds''; and (7) require responsible parties to report to CARB
specific progress towards meeting the second tier limits for Multi-
purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners by June 30, 2012.
    Generally, CARB received support for their amendments from both
industry and environmental organizations, although there were comments
from industry about the technological challenges posed by limits on the
aromatic compound content of Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners.
In response to these comments, CARB noted in its Final Statement of
Reasons for Rulemaking that there is a potential for adverse ozone
impact if significant amounts of aromatic compounds are used in
reformulated products.
    CARB estimates these amendments will achieve 8.4 tons per day (tpd)
of VOC reductions Statewide in 2010 and 10.4 tpd in 2012. These values
do not include emissions or reductions from the Multi-purpose Solvents
and Paint Thinners categories in the South Coast Air Basin because
South Coast adopted its own rule for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint
Thinners prior to CARB's action. EPA's technical support document (TSD)
has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA
for approval into a SIP must be clear and legally enforceable. CAA
section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA. California's consumer products regulation covers VOC area
sources and not stationary sources. In 1998 EPA promulgated a national
rule to regulate VOC emissions from consumer products (63 FR 48831,
September 11, 1998). EPA's national rule largely parallels CARB's
earlier SIP-approved consumer products rule. The

amendment from CARB that we are proposing to approve today contains a
more stringent limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners than EPA's
1998 national rule and also covers two new consumer product categories,
Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. CARB points out that
although emissions from individual consumer products may not seem
large, collectively, they represent a significant source of emissions
when taking into account 38 million California residents use these
products and that given the severity of air pollution in California,
``dramatic emission reductions from all sources contributing to ground-
level ozone are necessary''.\2\ CARB estimates that ozone pollution
damage to crops is estimated to cost agriculture over $500 million
dollars annually.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products
Regulations Initial Statement of Reasons. Release Date: August 7,
2009. IV-30. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf.
    \3\ Ibid. IV-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules, guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and SIP revisions include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 2000 (the
Bluebook).
    2. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. 40 CFR 59 subpart C, National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Consumer Products.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant requirements
and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. CARB's
Consumer Products regulation contains more stringent limits and covers
more than twice the number of categories covered by EPA's national
Consumer Products rule. As requested by CARB, our proposed action does
not cover the second tier VOC emission limits for Multi-purpose
Solvents and Paint Thinners. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it under section
110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 28, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-25886 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60980-60981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725F); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC 725F (Mandatory Reliability Standard for
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-3-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC 725F, Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant
Interface Coordination.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0249.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725F information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the information collected by the
FERC-725F to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). On August 8, 2005, the
Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A,
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law.\1\
EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, which required a
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to
Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight,
or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.\3\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO. The Reliability Standards
developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to users,
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System as set forth in each
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2007, NERC filed its petition for Commission
approval of the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability
Standard, designated NUC-001-1. In Order No. 716, issued October 16,
2008, the Commission approved the standard while also directing certain
revisions.\4\ Revised Reliability Standard, NUC-001-2, was filed with
the Commission by NERC in August 2009 and subsequently approved by the
Commission January 21, 2010.\5\ On November 4, 2014, in Docket No.
RD14-13, the Commission approved revised Reliability Standard NUC-001-
3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination, Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065, at P 189 & n.90
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 716-A, 126 FERC ] 61,122 (2009).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 130 FERC ]
61,051 (2010). When the revised Reliability Standard was approved,
the Commission did not go to OMB for approval. It is assumed that
the changes made did not substantively affect the information
collection and therefore a formal submission to OMB was not needed.
The most recent OMB approval for FERC-725F was issued on 6/15/2015.
    \6\ The Letter Order is posted at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13675845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of Reliability Standard NUC-001-3 is to require
``coordination between nuclear plant generator operators and
transmission entities for the purpose of ensuring nuclear plant safe
operation and shutdown.'' \7\ The Nuclear Reliability Standard applies
to nuclear plant generator operators (generally nuclear power plant
owners and operators, including licensees) and ``transmission
entities,'' defined in the Reliability Standard as including a nuclear
plant's suppliers of off-site power and related transmission and
distribution services. To account for the variations in nuclear plant
design and grid interconnection characteristics, the Reliability
Standard defines transmission entities as ``all entities that are
responsible for providing services related to Nuclear Plant Interface
Requirements (NPIRs),'' and lists eleven types of functional entities
(heretofore described as ``transmission entities'') that could provide
services related to NPIRs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Reliability Standard NUC-001-2 at http://www.nerc.com/files/NUC-001-3.pdf.
    \8\ The list of functional entities consists of transmission
operators, transmission owners, transmission planners, transmission
service providers, balancing authorities, reliability coordinators,
planning authorities, distribution providers, load-serving entities,
generator owners and generator operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-725F information collection requirements include establishing
and maintaining interface agreements, including record retention
requirements. These agreements are not filed with FERC, but with the
appropriate entities as established by the Reliability Standard.
    Type of Respondent: Nuclear operators, nuclear plants, transmission
entities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \9\ The Commission estimates the average
annual burden and cost \10\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Refer to
5 CFR 1320.3 for additional information.
    \10\ The wage and benefit figures are based on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) data (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) for May 2016 for Sector 22, Utilities. (The benefits
figure is based on BLS data as of September 8, 2017, which indicates
that wages are 69.6% and benefits are 30.4% of total salary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).)
    The estimated hourly cost (for wages plus benefits) for
reporting requirements is $84.23/hour, based on the average for an
electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071, $68.12/hour), legal
(occupation code 23-0000, $143.68/hour), and office and
administrative staff (occupation code 43-000, $40.89/hour).
    The estimated hourly cost (wages plus benefits) for record
keeping is $32.74/hour for a file clerk (occupation code 43-4071).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual  number
                                           Number of         of  responses   Total number    Average burden hours   Total annual burden      Cost per
             FERC-725F                    respondents             per        of responses    & cost per response   hours & total  annual    respondent
                                                              respondent                        ($) (rounded)       cost  ($) (rounded)    ($) (rounded)
                                     (1)..................             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)..................  (3) * (4) = (5)......      *(5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or Modifications to Existing     60 nuclear plants +                 2             360  66.67 hrs.; $5,616...  24,001 hrs.;                  $11,231
 Agreements (Reporting).              120 transmission                                                              $2,021,621.
                                      entities 11.
New or Modifications to Existing     60 nuclear plants +                 2             360  6.67 hrs.; $218......  2,401 hrs.; $78,615..            $437
 Agreements (Record Keeping).         120 transmission
                                      entities.
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  .....................  ..............          12 360  .....................  26,402 hrs.; 13        ..............
                                                                                $2,100,236.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This figure of 120 transmission entities is based on the
assumption that each agreement will be between 1 nuclear plant and 2
transmission entities (60 x 2 = 120). However, there is some double
counting in this figure because some transmission entities may be
party to multiple agreements with multiple nuclear plants. The
double counting does not affect the burden estimate, and the correct
number of unique respondents will be reported to OMB.
    \12\ The 180 respondents affected by the reporting requirements
are also affected by the recordkeeping requirements.
    \13\ The reporting requirements have not changed. The decrease
in the number of respondents is due to: (a) Normal fluctuations in
industry (e.g., companies merging and splitting, and coming into and
going out of business), and (b) no new agreements being issued due
to the lack of new nuclear plants being developed.

    Dated: December 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27732 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11573]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03563]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-014; ER10-1911-014.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analyses for Northeast Region of
the Duquesne Sellers.
    Filed Date: 2/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170215-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-969-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3165 Otter Tail Power Company NITSA
and NOA Notice of Cancellation to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170215-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-974-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: WAPA Work Performance
Agreement for Cottonwood-Olinda Line 1 and 2 (RS 228) to be effective
2/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20170215-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-975-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SPS-GSEC-RBEC-IA McDowell-
688-0.0.0 to be effective 2/17/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20170216-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

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

    Dated: February 16, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03563 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P