1 Napolitano, 2003 Acid Rain Division Data  PEMS Petition Acceptance for Mead Coated Board January 28, 2003 2 Euhus, 1999, www. pacsim. com/ Articles/ NOx_ PEMS/ NOx_ PEMS. doc 3 4 Shakenback 2003 PEMS RATA Spread Sheets 5 Golden Specialty Consulting Letter to Air Liquide May 30, 2001 6 Golden Specialty Consulting Letter to Air Liquide March 21, 2001 7 Golden Specialty Consulting Letter to Air Liquide June 23, 2001 8 Golden Specialty Consulting Letter to Air Liquide May 30, 2001 9 Golden Specialty Consulting Letter to Air Liquide June 13, 2001 10 White Star RATA Sept 26, 1999 GT# 1 11 White Star RATA Oct 2 3, 1999 GT# 2 12 White Star RATA Sept 28, 1999 GT# 1 13 TASC Environmental Services November 22,2000 THW 33 14 TASC Environmental Services November 21, 2000 THW 34 15 TASC Environmental Services November 21, 2000 THW 43 16 RMB Consulting & Research Inc Oct 30, 1997 THW 31 17 Radian International LLC Nov. 11, 1977 18 Griffin Letters( 2) to Haight, TASC Environmental Services Acid Rain Files 19 Douglas Neeley to Angie Eastman  WestPoint Stevens Clemson Report from Air Techniques Inc. Boiler # 1 20 Douglas Neeley to Angie Eastman  WestPoint Stevens Clemson Report from Air Techniques Inc. Boiler # 2 21 Smith letter to Mobley Degussa 8/ 30/ 2000 Boiler # 3 22 Moore ( BP) letter to Region IV March 6, 2001+ Shakenback 2003 spreadsheet 23 Moore ( BP) letter to Region IV March 6, 2001+ Shakenback 2003 24 TASC Env Services Oct 21, 1999 GT 30 25 TASC Env Services Oct 28, 1999 GT 32 26 TASC Env Services Oct 22, 1999 GT 33 27 TASC Env Services Oct 28, 1999 GT 45 28 TASC Env Services Sept 28, 1999 GT 62 29 TASC Env Services Oct 8, 1999 GT 63 30 TASC Env Services Oct 21, 1999 GT 66 31 TASC Env Services Oct 15, 1999 GT 67 32 Griffin Letters( 2) to Haight, Acid Rain Files 33 Napolitano, August 2003 Acid Rain Division Data  PEMS Petition Acceptance CO Reference Macak 1996 The Pros and Cons of Predictive, Parametric, and Alternative Emissions Monitoring Systems for Regulatory Source Type PEMS System/ Model Manufacturer Condition or Capacity CO RATA Results % Units CO FTest F l a g CO R2 Corr. F l a g Bias Adj.

Factor PEMS Input Factors Number of Tests/ Number of Continuous Operating Hours Ref.

Gas Turbine Texas Average 1.34 4.09E 03 P 0.927 P 1 9 RATA Tests*

Assumed 10 1 Base ( Premix) 1.53 4.04E 03 P 2 Lean Lean 1.23 7.92E 03 P 3 Lean Lean Positive 1.27 3.00E 04 P Gas Turbine Texas Average 2.54 6.44E 02 P 0.988 P 1 9 RATA Tests*

Assumed 11 1 Base ( Premix) 2.28 2.00E 04 P 2 Lean Lean 0.93 2.90E 03 P 3 Lean Lean Positive 4.42 1.90E 01 P Gas Turbine Deer Park, TX Average 0.70 3.53E 03 P 0.910 P 9 RATA Tests*

Assumed 12 1 72 MW 0.860 1.00E 03 P 2 63 MW 0.760 2.00E 03 P 3 42 MW 0.480 7.60E 03 P Table 3. CO PEMS RATA Summary * Each RATA test consists of 21 consecutive one minute runs. 2 of 2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11847]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirteenth Meeting: Joint RTCA Special Committee 213: EUROCAE WG-
79: Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

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

ACTION: Notice of Joint RTCA Special Committee 213: EUROCAE WG-79:
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Joint RTCA Special Committee 213: EUROCAE WG-79: Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held March 29-31, from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. Point of Contact is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Joint RTCA Special Committee 213: EUROCAE WG-79:
Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)
meeting.
    The agenda will include:

Tuesday, March 29

 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Plenary discussion.
     Introductions and administrative items.
     Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting.
     Review Advanced Vision Systems performance objectives.
     Review DO-315B FRAC Draft.

Wednesday, March 30

 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Plenary Discussion 1 (SVS) and Working Group 2
(EFVS) discussion.

Thursday, March 31

 8 a.m.-3 p.m. Plenary discussion.
     Advanced Vision Systems Discussion.
     Administrative items (meeting schedule).
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 25, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-4766 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70671]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3063-020]

Blackstone Hydro Associates; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 3063-020.
    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2016.
    d. Submitted By: Blackstone Hydro Associates.
    e. Name of Project: Central Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Blackstone River, in Providence County, Rhode
Island. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Simeon Bruner, Blackstone Hydro
Associates, 130 Prospect Street, Cambridge, MA 02139; phone: (617) 492-
8400.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Watts at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Blackstone Hydro Associates (Blackstone Hydro) filed its request
to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 29, 2016. Blackstone
Hydro provided public notice of its request on August 3, 2016. In a
letter issued on September 15, 2016, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Blackstone Hydro's request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Officer,
as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. Blackstone Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 3063. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by July 31,
2019.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: October 6, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24729 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9970-9971]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0242; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-51-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-80C2 and
CF6-80E1 Series Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 and CF6-80E1 series turbofan
engines. This proposed AD would require replacement of all clevis pins
installed on the thrust reverser central drive units and upper and
lower actuators, or replacement of pins that fail an on-wing rebound
hardness test. This proposed AD results from failure of a thrust
reverser during landing due to unapproved clevis pins being installed.
The failure was due to lack of clevis pin hardness. We are proposing
this AD to prevent thrust reverser failure, which could lead to damage
to the thrust reverser and airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by April 25,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Richards, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(781) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0242; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-51-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    In January 2007, an MD-11 airplane landed with one actuator on a
thrust reverser inoperative. When a single actuator is inoperative, the
thrust reversers are designed to continue normal operation until the
next inspection. Upon landing, the thrust reversers deployed and two of
the clevis pins failed on the thrust reverser with one actuator
inoperative. These failures caused a transcowl to separate from the
thrust reverser damaging the thrust reverser and airplane, and causing
the transcowl to become hazardous debris on the runway. Investigation
revealed that:
     The lower actuator on the affected thrust reverser had
failed some time before the incident; and
     Of the three thrust reverser central drive unit clevis
pins affected, one clevis pin was found sheared in half, with part of
the pin still in place in the rod-end bearing and clevis. The pin was
an unapproved part, made of carbon steel alloy, which had too low a
strength and hardness for this application.
     One of the clevis pins remained installed, and was found
to be an approved part clevis pin and with the correct hardness of 31
to 38 Rockwell Hardness (C Scale).
     The third clevis pin was not found.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in thrust reverser
failure, which could lead to damage to the thrust reverser and
airplane.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
replacement of all clevis pins installed on the thrust reverser central
drive units and upper and lower actuators, or replacement of pins that
fail a rebound hardness test.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 802 CF6-80C2 series
turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it would take about one work-hour per engine to perform
the proposed rebound hardness test and three work-hours per engine to
replace the six pins. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Pins
cost about $144 per pin. If all pins are replaced, we estimate the
total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $949,568. CF6-
80E1 series turbofan engines are not currently installed on U.S.
registered airplanes, so we did not estimate any cost for them.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2007-0242; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-51-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 25,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2
and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines. These engines are installed
on, but not limited to, Airbus A300-600/R/F, A310-200/-300, and
A330-200/-300 airplanes, Boeing 747-300/-400/-400ER, and 767-200/-
200ER/-300/-300ER/-400ER airplanes, and MD-11 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from failure of a thrust reverser during
landing due to unapproved clevis pins being installed. The failure
was due to lack of clevis pin hardness. We are issuing this AD to
prevent thrust reverser failure, which could lead to damage to the
thrust reverser and airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within 18 months or 4,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless the
actions have already been done.
    (f) Replace the six clevis pins installed on the thrust reverser
central drive units and actuators with clevis pins that pass the
hardness test identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) below;
or
    (g) Perform a rebound hardness test of installed thrust reverser
central drive unit and actuator clevis pins as follows:
    (1) Remove any corrosion from the head of the pin.
    (2) Perform the rebound hardness test on the head of the clevis
pin.
    (3) If the hardness measured is outside of the range of 31 to 38
Rockwell Hardness (C Scale), replace the clevis pin with an approved
part clevis pin.
    (4) If the hardness measured is within the range of 31 to 38
Rockwell Hardness (C Scale), and the pin has no visible defects, the
clevis pin can remain in service, as allowed per the engine
maintenance manual.
    (5) Perform the steps in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) to all
six clevis pins on the thrust reverser.

Install Approved Part Clevis Pins

    (h) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
thrust reverser central drive unit and actuator clevis pins that do
not pass the hardness test of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Contact Christopher Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (781)
238-7199, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 15, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3463 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 2913-2914]
[DOCID:fr23ja07-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55103; File No. SR-CHX-2006-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Participant Fees and Credits

January 12, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 21, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the CHX.
The CHX has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CHX pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal 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)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Credits (``Fee Schedule'') to include changes in the fees charged for
orders routed through the NMS Linkage Plan \5\ to The NASDAQ Stock
Market (``Nasdaq''), the National Stock Exchange (``NSX''), the Boston
Equities Exchange (``BeX'') and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange
(``PHLX''). The text of this proposed rule change is available at the
CHX, on the CHX's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm
, and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54548 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59159 (October 6, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-28) (approving
exchange-to-exchange billing procedures under the Plan for the
Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Communications
Linkage Pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Linkage Plan'')); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54551 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59148 (October 6, 2006) (approving
Linkage Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's Fee Schedule, among other things, identifies the
fees that are charged to participants on account of outbound NMS
Linkage Plan orders. Section E.6 of the Fee Schedule applies to orders
that are Matching System-eligible \6\ and therefore are routed from the
Matching System to other market centers. Section E.8 of the Fee
Schedule applies to orders that have not yet migrated to the Matching
System and therefore are routed from the Exchange's pre-new NTM
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29,
2006), 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05) (approving
rules to implement a new trading model (``NTM'') that allows
Exchange participants to interact in a fully-automated Matching
System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an outbound NMS Linkage Plan order is executed on another NMS
Linkage participant market, that market will directly invoice the CHX
for a transaction fee, in an amount that may not exceed the transaction
fee that it would charge its own member for such an execution. The CHX
is then responsible for payment of such invoice. Sections E.6 and E.8
of the Fee Schedule permit the CHX to collect a corresponding fee from
the CHX participant that generated the outbound NMS Linkage Plan order.
The CHX believes that it is appropriate to establish outbound NMS
Linkage fee rates that reasonably correspond to the respective
transaction fee rates being charged by the executing markets.
Accordingly, it is submitting changes to Sections E.6 and E.8 of the
Fee Schedule, to reflect recent developments regarding applicable
transaction fees assessed by Nasdaq, NSX, PHLX, and BeX on account of
NMS Linkage Plan executions.\7\ Specifically, the proposal would change
the outbound fee for NMS Linkage orders routed to Nasdaq (in issues
other than exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'')) from $.0015/share to
$.0030/share, effective January 1, 2007. The proposal would also change
the outbound fee for NMS Linkage orders routed to NSX and PHLX to
$.0030/share for orders in all securities (ETFs and all other
securities). Finally, the proposal would change the outbound fee for
NMS Linkage orders routed to BeX to $.0028/share for orders in all
securities (ETFs and all other securities).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Nasdaq Head Trader Alert 2006-199 (November 30,
2006); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55041 (January 4, 2007),
72 FR 1356 (January 11, 2007) (SR-NSX-2006-17); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54941 (December 14, 2006), 71 FR 77079 (December 22,
2006) (SR-PHLX-2006-70); and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54795 (November 20, 2006), 71 FR 68850 (November 28, 2006) (SR-BSE-
2006-44).
    \8\ BeX has implemented a fee that charges $.0028/share for
taking liquidity, subject to a maximum of .3% of the quotation price
per share, for securities with a share price less than $1.00. The
CHX's systems cannot currently calculate that type of fee cap and,
for that reason, the CHX is not currently proposing that cap as part
of its fees for routing orders to BeX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \9\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and is consistent with
the allocation of dues, fees and other charges utilized by other self-
regulatory organizations that have implemented trading platforms
similar to the CHX new trading model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee

or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-CHX-2006-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX.
    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-CHX-2006-39
and should be submitted on or before February 13, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-907 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17931-17933]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-1261]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; AVI July Fireworks Display; Laughlin, NV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone on the navigable waters
of the lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in support of a fireworks
display near the AVI Resort and Casino. This safety zone is necessary
to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators,
participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-1261 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Petty Officer Shane Jackson, USCG, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-1261), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-1261'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2008-1261 in the Docket ID box, press

Enter, and then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also
visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101
between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Lower Colorado River, Laughlin, NV in support
of a fireworks show in the navigation channel of the Lower Colorado
River, Laughlin, NV. The fireworks show is being sponsored by AVI
Resort and Casino. The safety zone is set at a 1,000 foot radius around
the anchored firing barge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the show's crew, spectators, participants of
the event, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone that would be enforced from
8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2009. The limits of the safety zone
include all navigable waters within 1,000 feet of the firing location
adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino. The zone is centered in the
channel between Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI
Resort and Casino Cove in position: 35[deg]00[min]45[sec] N,
114[deg]38[min]16[sec] W.
    This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crews, spectators, and participants of the event and to protect other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although the safety zone
will restrict boating traffic within the navigable waters of the Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, the effect of this regulation will not be
significant as the safety zone will encompass only a small portion of
the waterway and will be very short in duration. The entities most
likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing. As such, the Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this rule to be minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the region of the lower Colorado
River adjacent to AVI Resort and Casino from 8 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. on
July 4, 2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
safety zone only encompasses a small portion of the waterway, it is
short in duration at a relatively late hour when commercial traffic is
low, and the Captain of the Port may authorize entry into the zone, if
necessary. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a
local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone
is enforced.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Shane Jackson,
USCG, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at (619)
278-7267. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around
a pyrotechnics firing site. We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 122, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public
Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add new temporary safety zone Sec.  165.T11-167:

Sec.  165.T11-167  AVI July Fireworks Display; Laughlin, Nevada.

    (a) Location. The limits of the proposed safety zone are as
follows: all navigable waters within 1000 feet of the firing location
adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino, centered in the channel between
Laughlin Bridge and the northwest point of the AVI Resort and Casino
Cove in position: 35[deg]00[min]45[sec] N, 114[deg]38[min]16[sec] W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-9004 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P