[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58244-58245]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2197-128]

Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Shoreline Management Plan.
    b. Project No: 2197-128.
    c. Date Filed: September 25, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Yadkin Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Yadkin and Pee Dee rivers in Stanly, Davidson,
Montgomery, Rowan, and Davie counties, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mark Gross, Cube Hydro Carolinas, LLC, 293
Highway 740, Badin, NC 28009-0575,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 13, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2197-128. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: As required by Article 407 of the
September 22, 2016 license, Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC (licensee)
requests Commission approval of a revised shoreline management plan
(SMP) for the project. The SMP describes land uses and environmental
resources at the project, describes the licensee's shoreline
development permitting and shoreline stewardship provisions, and
includes various maps (e.g., land use classifications, environmental
resource maps, etc.) to support its permitting processes.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25174 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28783-28784]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1150

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0917]

Requirements for the Submission of Data Needed To Calculate User
Fees for Domestic Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products;
Small Entity Compliance Guide; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled ``Requirements
for the Submission of Data Needed to Calculate User Fees for Domestic
Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products; Small Entity
Compliance Guide'' for the final user fees rule published July 10,
2014, and for the new user fees regulation. This revised guidance, a
small entity compliance guide (SECG), replaces the SECG of the same
name published on July 16, 2014. The revised SECG is intended to set
forth in plain language the requirements of the user fee regulations
and to help small businesses understand and comply with the
regulations.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-D-0917 for ``Small Entity Compliance Guide: Requirements for
the Submission of Data Needed To Calculate User Fees for Domestic
Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the guidance document may be sent. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Hart, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 1-877-287-1373, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for
industry entitled ``Requirements for the Submission of Data Needed to
Calculate User Fees for Domestic Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco
Products; Small Entity Compliance Guide'' for the final user fee rules
published July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39302). Also, published elsewhere in
this edition of the Federal Register, FDA issued a final rule to amend
21 CFR part 1150 (part 1150) to require domestic manufacturers and
importers of cigars and pipe tobacco to submit to FDA information
needed to calculate the amount of user fees assessed under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). FDA issued this user fee final
rule together with the final rule, ``Deeming Tobacco Products To Be
Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the
Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning
Statements for Tobacco Products'' (Deeming rule), which deems all
products that meet the statutory definition of ``tobacco product,''
except accessories of the newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject
to the FD&C Act. The Deeming rule, among other things, subjects
domestic manufacturers and importers of cigars and pipe tobacco to the
FD&C Act's user fee requirements. Consistent with the Deeming rule and
the requirements of the FD&C Act, this user fee final rule requires the
submission of the information needed to calculate user fee assessments
for each manufacturer and importer of cigars and pipe tobacco to FDA.
In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), FDA is making available
this revised SECG stating in plain language the legal requirements of
the user fee final regulations set forth in part 1150.

II. Significance of Guidance

    FDA is issuing this revised SECG as a level 2 guidance, consistent
with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The
guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or
the public unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are
cited. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic
version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-10689 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 24, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	November 12, 2014 Meeting with AWEA Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 12, 2014, Matt Clouse of EPA-OAP and Howard J. Hoffman of EPA-OGC met by telephone with Gene Grace of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) to discuss legal issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8287-8289]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-E-5846]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; REMEDE SYSTEM

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for REMEDE SYSTEM and is
publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA
has made the determination because of the submission of an application
to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that
medical device.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect must submit either electronic
or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April 10, 2023.

Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination
regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence
during the regulatory review period by August 7, 2023. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 10, 2023. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-E-5846 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; REMEDE SYSTEM.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a
testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing
phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the device and continues until
permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of
a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of
extension that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase
must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before
the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a
regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the
testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C.
156(g)(3)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device REMEDE SYSTEM.
REMEDE SYSTEM is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe
central sleep apnea in adult patients. Subsequent to this approval, the
USPTO received a patent term restoration application for REMEDE SYSTEM
(U.S. Patent No. 8,233,987) from Respicardia, Inc., and the USPTO
requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for
patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 21, 2020, FDA
advised the USPTO that this medical device had undergone a regulatory
review period and that the approval of REMEDE SYSTEM represented the
first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter,
the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
REMEDE SYSTEM is 3,685 days. Of this time, 3,289 days occurred during
the

testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 396 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption for this device, under section 520(g) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
360j(g)), became effective: September 6, 2007. The applicant claims
that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section
520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on
April 30, 2010. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was
determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on
September 6, 2007, which represents the IDE effective date.
    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to
the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e):
September 6, 2016. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the
premarket approval application (PMA) for REMEDE SYSTEM (PMA 160039) was
initially submitted September 6, 2016.
    3. The date the application was approved: October 6, 2017. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that PMA 160039 was approved on October
6, 2017.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 301 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: February 3, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02669 Filed 2-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13680-13681]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5470]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66498; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-020]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the CBOE Stock Exchange Fees Schedule

March 1, 2012.
    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 February 22, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change
as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'')
Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend CBSX Maker and Taker fees for
competitive and business purposes. First, CBSX proposes to increase the
Maker fee for transactions in securities priced $1 or greater by
$0.0001 per share, to $0.0018. CBSX also proposes to increase the Maker
fee for transactions in securities priced $1 or greater executed by a
market participant that adds two million or more shares of liquidity
that day by $0.0001 per share, to $0.0016.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Maker and Taker fees for
transactions in securities priced less than $1. The Exchange proposes
to assess no Maker fee for such transactions in order to attract
liquidity. The Exchange also proposes to increase the Taker fee for
transactions in securities priced less than $1 to 0.30% of the dollar
value of the transaction in order to normalize the Taker fee to
equivalent offerings by other exchanges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, Section E(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are to take effect March 1, 2012.

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which provides that
Exchange rules may provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities. The slight increases to the Maker
fees for transactions in securities priced $1 or greater are reasonable
because the amount of the increase is minimal, and the amounts of the
fees are within the range of Maker fees that have been assessed
previously. The slight increases to the Maker fees for transactions in
securities priced $1 or greater are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fees will be assessed to all market
participants equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The change to eliminate the Maker for transactions in securities
priced less than $1 fee is reasonable because it will allow market
participants to no longer have to pay a Maker fee for such
transactions. This change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will allow all market participants to avoid paying such a
fee. The change to increase the Taker fee for transactions in
securities priced less than $1 is reasonable because the new amount of
the fee is within the range of fees for similar transactions at other
exchanges,\6\ and is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it will be assessed to all market participants equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \8\ thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 C.F.R. 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-020. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2012-020 and should be
submitted on or before March 28, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5470 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Joseph Bailey/DC/USEPA/US

10/19/2006 05:26 PM

To

"Taub, Cynthia"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Steven Knott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Response to Jim Hale letter of October 17, 2006 - Request to postpone
FIFRA SAP meeting for November 14 - 16, 2006

Dear Mr. Hale,

	Background documents for the November FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
meeting that will address "Studies Evaluating the Impact of Surface
Coatings on the Level of Dislodgeable Arsenic, Chromium and Copper from
Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)-Treated Wood" are publicly available
today in the public docket established at www.regulations.gov (Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0693).  Included in these documents is the draft
final report from the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff with Tab
B photograph exhibit, the draft final report from EPA, and the
Background and Charge to the Panel.  In addition to these documents, the
appendices referenced in the EPA report will be available in the public
docket tomorrow morning.

	As stated in the September 1, 2006 Federal Register Notice announcing
this meeting, the Agency encourages written comments to be submitted no
later than noon on November 1, 2006.  However, written comments will be
accepted until the date of the meeting.

	We appreciate your interest in this topic and will place your October
17, 2006 request to postpone the meeting, and a copy of this response,
in the public docket.  However, at this time, we do continue to plan on
holding the meeting November 14 - 16, 2006.

	Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding the
availability of the documents for this meeting.

	Again, thank you for your interest.

Joseph E. Bailey

US Environmental Protection Agency

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

202-564-2045


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74038-74042]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0921; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-073-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-14-
05, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-
400F series airplanes. AD 2013-14-05 currently requires repetitive
inspections of the longeron extension fittings for cracking, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2013-14-
05 also provides optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. Since we issued AD 2013-14-05, we determined that more
work is necessary on airplanes on which a terminating action (permanent
repair, longeron extension fitting replacement, or modification) was
accomplished. This proposed AD would continue to require the
requirements of AD 2013-14-05, and would add new repetitive high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of any modified, repaired, or
replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking, and applicable
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the longeron
extension fittings, which can become large and adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 29,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced 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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0921; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0921;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-073-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 25, 2013, we issued AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78
FR 43763, July 22, 2013), for certain the Boeing Company Model 747-400
and 747-400F series airplanes. AD 2013-14-05 requires repetitive
inspections of the longeron extension fittings for cracking, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2013-14-
05 also provides for optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. AD 2013-14-05 resulted from reports of cracking in the
outboard flange of the longeron extension fittings, which attach to the
wing-to-body fairing support frame. We issued AD 2013-14-05 to detect
and correct cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become
large and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22,
2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763,
July 22, 2013), we determined that more work is necessary on airplanes
that accomplished a permanent repair, longeron extension fitting
replacement, or preventive modification (the terminating actions
specified in AD 2013-14-05).

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1,
dated March 18, 2014. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0921.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July
22, 2013), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD
2013-14-05. Those requirements are referenced in the service
information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in
paragraphs (g), (h)(1), and (j) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD
would require additional repetitive HFEC inspections of the left and
right longeron extension fittings for cracking, and applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, for airplanes that have
previously accomplished a permanent repair, longeron extension fitting
replacement, or preventive modification, as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further
investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative
actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or

address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March
18, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how
to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require
repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Clarification of Terminating Actions for Certain Inspections

    Paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD specifies that if the
terminating action is done ``before the effective date of this AD'' in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012, it terminates the
inspections in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. In paragraph (h)(2)
of this proposed AD we specify that the terminating action if done ``on
or after the effective date of this AD'' must be done in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                      Labor cost          Parts cost    Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection [retained action  32 work-hours x $85 per            $0  $2,720 per           $111,520 per
 from AD 2013[dash]14[dash]05,     hour = $2,720 per                      inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
 Amendment 39[dash]17510 (78 FR    inspection cycle.
 43763, July 22, 2013)].
Terminating action for certain    479 work-hours x $85 per            0  $40,715............  $1,669,315.
 inspections [retained action      hour = $40,715.
 from AD 2013[dash]14[dash]05,
 Amendment 39[dash]17510 (78 FR
 43763, July 22, 2013)].
HFEC inspection [new action]....  32 work-hours x $85 per             0  $2,720 per           $111,520 per
                                   hour = $2,720 per                      inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                                 Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...........................  464 work-hours x $85 per hour = $39,440.              $0         $39,440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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)
2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013), and adding
the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0921; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-073-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 29,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763,
July 22, 2013).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March
18, 2014.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the outboard
flange of the longeron extension fittings, and we determined that
more work is necessary on airplanes on which a permanent repair,
longeron extension fitting replacement, or modification was
accomplished, as required by AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78
FR 43763, July 22, 2013) could crack. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which
can become large and adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014: Do surface high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the left and right
longeron extension fittings, and all applicable corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014,
except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions at the applicable time specified in table 1 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014. If no cracking is
found, repeat the inspection thereafter at the intervals specified
in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014,
until a terminating action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is
done.

(h) Terminating Actions for the Inspections Required by Paragraph (g)
of This AD

    (1) Doing the permanent repair, longeron extension fitting
replacement, or preventative modification before the effective date
of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012,
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December
4, 2012, was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-14-05, Amendment
39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013). After accomplishing the
actions specified in this paragraph, the actions specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD must be done at the times specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (2) Doing the repair (PART 4 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014), longeron extension
fitting replacement, or modification on or after the effective date
of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March
18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD,
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD. After accomplishing the actions specified in this
paragraph, the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD must be
done at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Post-Modification/Repair/Replacement Inspections

    For airplanes on which any action identified in paragraph (h) of
this AD has been accomplished (including if done as a corrective
action required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD): At the
applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph
(k)(1) of this AD, do a HFEC inspection of the left and right
longeron extension fittings for cracking, as applicable, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision
1, dated March 18, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions at the
applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph
(k)(2) of this AD. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection
thereafter at the interval specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860,
Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014.

(j) Inspection of Temporary Repair and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes on which a temporary repair as specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860 has been done: At the times
specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18,
2014, do a surface HFEC inspection of the temporary repair of the
longeron extension fittings for cracking, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision
1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(k) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1,
dated March 18, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the
Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1,
dated March 18, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
information: Before further flight, repair using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012, which was incorporated
by reference in AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July
22, 2013).

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-
17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), and (j) of this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 5, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29232 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


March 19, 2008

Bob McDonald

Project Lead

Bureau of Land Management

Tillamook Resource Area

4610 3rd St.

Tillamook, OR 97141

RE: Protest to the Roaring Creek Decision Rationale as they relate to
the City of Hillsboro’s Slow Sand Filter Plant

Dear Mr. McDonald,

The City of Hillsboro Water Department submits this protest regarding
the Roaring Creek Projects Decision and Decision Rationale. The City of
Hillsboro Water Department submitted comments on the EA expressing
concerns of inadequate drinking water protection.  As indicated in those
comments our Slow Sand Filtration Plant (SSFP) is extremely susceptible
to turbidity events in the Upper Tualatin River Basin.

The SSFP is located on the Tualatin River west of Haines Falls,
approximately ½ mile downstream from the proposed density management
treatment areas in section 29, and just over a mile from the nearest
proposed road work. The SSFP is the sole water supply source for the
community of Cherry Grove and the primary source for Dilley, LA Water
Cooperative, and the City of Gaston.

BLM’s proposed actions threaten to disrupt or severely degrade the
capability of the plant to serve those communities. Due to the limited
nature of the treatment process at the SSFP, it is very sensitive to
additional sediment loads. The EA points out that the treatment plant
has experienced high turbidity and nutrient problems in the past (page
57) yet no accommodating changes were made in the Decision Rationale
[were no changes made or were there changes that just aren’t adequate
to address high turbidity and nutrient problems]. The Water Department
is concerned that implementation of the proposed actions could result in
significant impacts to our drinking water supply. It is for these
reasons that we are particularly concerned about the impacts the Roaring
Creek project may have on sedimentation and turbidity. This sole
drinking water source has not received sufficient management
considerations.

We want to be clear that the Water Department is supportive of [or not
opposed to] timber harvest that ensures full protection of our public
water supply sources that provide drinking water to the more than
300,000 Oregonians that we serve.  We also recognize that BLM has a
unique responsibility under the Oregon and California (O&C) Act to
provide a sustainable supply of timber.  However, In addition to
sustainable production of timber, the of O&C Act mandates that timber be
sold, cut, and removed “in conformity with the principal of sustained
yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply,
protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the
economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing
recreational facilities . . .(43 U.S.C. §1181a)”.   Given potential
impacts from roads and timber harvest we do not believe that BLM’s
proposed decision adequately protects a watershed that is the sole water
supply source for the community of Cherry Grove and the primary source
for the communities of Dilley, LA Water Cooperative, and the City of
Gaston. Further, we believe that impacts to public water supply from
BLM’s proposed actions will have adverse economic and destabilizing
effects on local communities and industries served by Hillsboro’s Slow
Sand Filter Plant.  These mandated O&C Act requirements for protecting
watersheds and contributing to the economic stability of communities
have not been adequately addressed by the proposed action, nor in the
responses to our comments.

We also note the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are federal
laws which require full protection of water quality and beneficial uses
such as municipal water supply.  The O&C Act does not obviate the need
to meet these federal laws.

In the EA’s scoping letters [whose letter(s)?] a comment was made that
commercial harvest activities and road construction in municipal
watersheds should be avoided. The BLM responded that no such municipal
watersheds existed in the project area. Since this information is
incorrect we are asking for a reconsideration of the proposed actions to
increase protections to the City of Hillsboro’s municipal water supply
source.

Please respond to our additional questions about proposed treatements.
What is the current relative density in riparian areas and upland areas
in the harvest units?  Will trees in the 60’ no cut zone count towards
calculation of the post-treatment relative density targets for riparian
areas?  Why were proposed relative density targets chosen that will not
maximize forest stand vigor and growth and canopy closure levels?

Multiple-objective thinning research on Olympic National Forest has
found that a relative density of 35 to 50 maximizes forest stand vigor
and growth.  The relative density of mature stands inventoried in
Washington State ranged from approximately 60 to 87 (see Study on
Riparian Desired Future Condition Performance Targets for Forests and
Fish Program 2004).  BLM’s proposed action would result in stands with
a relative density of 25on upland sites and 30 in riparian stands.
While we understand that BLM wants to accelerate the growth of
individual trees it is not clear how treatments would meet Aquatic
Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives 4 and 5 which focus on
maintaining and restoring water quality and sediment regimes.  Proposed
ground based skidding on over half the area, new roads, and the level of
tree removal do not support BLM’s affirmative findings for these two
ACS objectives.  We believe that the proposed harvest methods and
intensity levels are not appropriate given the public water supply
concerns.  We suggest that post treatment relative density targets
towards the high end of the range for maximizing forest stand vigor and
growth would be appropriate. We are not certain how this would relate to
BLM’s basal area targets but note that the above referenced inventory
of mature stands in Washington found mean basal area levels ranging from
approximately 300 square feet/acre to 368 square feet/acre depending on
site productivity. Removal of no more than a third of the basal area on
stands in BLM’s sale units would help maintain a higher canopy level
and result in less ground disturbance. We would be agreeable to
eliminating harvest and new roads on slopes above 50% in section 29 and
on units where there are steep headwall areas or high to moderate
erosion potential.

Sedimentation due to timber yarding, hauling and road construction and
maintenance.

BLM’s argument that the only increase sediment will result from the
removal of an existing culvert in Section 29 is not supported.  We
believe that the high level of ground based skidding, new road
construction, and the relatively high level of tree removal will
exacerbate sedimentation and stream turbidity which are already a
periodic problem at the SSFP.  We support planning operations during the
summer season and agree that increased sedimentation will occur during
the first rainfall event.  However, the effects of topsoil disturbance,
roads, reduced canopy levels, soil compaction, and disturbance of steep
headwalls will be seen in subsequent winter seasons.

Review of analysis determining road construction affects on water
quality.

BLM comments that any increases in sedimentation and turbidity would
occur over a three year time period. Our municipal water supply must
deliver water every hour of every day. The turbidity increases for three
years will require major operational and maintenance adjustments by
means of increasing staff time to monitor turbidity levels and the
increased capital costs of filtration materials.

As implied by the EA, road use alone causes increases in sedimentation.
The mere presence of an improved road can increase the sedimentation
delivery (Jones). We do acknowledge and support BLM efforts to
decommission decaying roads. We object to BLM’s reluctance to
acknowledge that even well constructed roads can increase sedimentation
delivery, particularly in a watershed that provides such a sensitive
municipal water supply source.

Based on our discussions with the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency it is our understanding
that other Oregon municipalities are dealing with high turbidity levels
as a result of forest practices attributed to roads and harvest levels
and methods.  Water quality impacts from forest practices on private and
State lands and management associated with other land uses makes a
conservative approach on BLM lands even more important from a cumulative
effects perspective.

City of Hillsboro coordination with BLM

The City of Hillsboro is very appreciative of the assurances BLM has
made to keep our staff involved. We will be required to increase staff
presence at the SSFP to track turbidity levels to prevent a total plant
shut down. The COH Water Department requests to be informed of all
pending land use activities including harvest, fertilizer and herbicide
application.

Sedimentation

The Decision Rationale claims to accommodate the Upper Tualatin/Scoggins
Creek Watershed analysis. According to this document a key water quality
recommendation is to “expand the Best Management Practices to reduce
sediment discharge to streams and revegetate eroding areas.”
Sedimentation is impairing the biological function of the watershed
(Upper Tualatin Watershed Analysis). The reduction of erosion and mass
flow events is also a major management goal of the Upper Tualatin
watershed analysis. It recommends increases in riparian vegetation to
reduce erosion and filter pollutants.

Currently the BMPs for erosion reduction have not been adequately
assessed for the Upper Tualatin basin (watershed analysis). However, the
NW Forest Plan Preliminary Assessment has shown that riparian reserves
of this magnitude have been successful in maintaining watershed
conditions. These riparian reserves are 180 feet along intermittent
streams and 360 feet along fish bearing streams. We ask that the BLM
consider increasing the riparian reserves to meet these NW Forest Plan
requirements. It has been shown that an effective buffer width is 300ft
for overland flows, but that sediment can be transported 4500ft if
channels are formed (Belt and O’Laughlin 1994). Given the steep
topography and highly erodible soils we request an increased buffer
width.

We ask that the BLM create BMPs to control erosion. BMPs and erosion
control measures on roads- newly constructed and decommissioned- and
surrounding any harvest activities affecting the SSFP at least one year
after operations. Coordinating the implementation of these BMPs with the
COH is the best method. This has been successful in coordinating with
private forestry operations adjacent to COH’s municipal water supply
sources.

The limited buffer size proposed by the BLM is not congruent with the
recommendations of either the watershed analysis, or the NW Forest Plan.
We ask that the BLM aggressively consider increasing the size of the
stream buffer width, especially in section 29.

Mass Wasting

Pg 64 of EA “Most of the eroded material in the upper Roaring Creek
appears to originate from natural sources, mainly from deep-seated mass
wasting.” Pg 49” A few additional, small fragile areas will probably
be identified and removed upon closer examination during the timber sale
layout” We implore the BLM to be overly cautious when selecting these
areas especially in area 29.

Additionally, all activities in riparian areas must not retard or
prevent attainment of NW Forest Plan aquatic conservation strategy
objectives. Including maintaining and restoring the sediment regime
composed of timing, volume, rate and character of sediment input,
storage and transport. We feel that the currently proposed actions put
the soil at high risk for major alterations to the sediment regime and
the increase of mass wasting events.

Since, the primary interest is to increase the growth rate of individual
tress the RD should be increased even further from 30 to a minimum of 35
or more agreeably to 50. An RD of this magnitude will minimize soil
displacement and maximize precipitation interception. The proposed RD of
30 in this highly sensitive area is deemed inadequate in our opinion.

No-Harvest Areas

Riparian no harvest buffers may have yarding corridors cut through if
necessary. Trees cut in the buffer will be left on site to augment CWD
(Pg 25). Yarding corridors expected to be 12 feet wide and 150 feet
apart.

Cumulative Impacts

In the past decade the Upper Tualatin watershed has been heavily logged
by private industrial and non-industrial owners. Combine these recent
logging events with the planned BLM and ODF ones and it becomes obvious
that the SSFP has been placed in a precarious environment.

Nonmarket values

Impacts to nonmarket values are not well described or quantified in the
EA analysis. These values affect the economic well-being, health, and
resiliency of these local communities served by the COH SSFP. Clean
drinking water is a highly valued commodity produced by BLM lands. The
valuable commodity of the clean drinking water entrusted to BLM’s
hands of economic well-being, public health, and resiliency of these
local communities. The increased value of the BLM’s fiduciary
responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public
would.

Even if full SSFP shut down is not a direct result of the actions taken
by BLM, even minor increased sedimentation loads will increase the
operational and maintenance cost including staff time, filtration,
monitoring

Protection measures

As administrators of the Clean Water Act, the DEQ regulates water
protection measures. Although the State of Oregon does not have a water
quality standards specifically for protection of municipal water sources
(pg 57) a turbidity water quality standard does exist. Water quality
standards not only include a numeric and narrative criteria, they also
include designated beneficial uses which must be fully protected, and an
anti-degradation policy.  We note that municipal water supply is one of
if not the most sensitive beneficial use which must be protected.  All
waters within Oregon regardless of whether they pass through public or
private lands must not increase turbidity levels more than 10% of
background levels. All BLM operations must meet this standard of the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The SSFP closely monitors turbidity
levels, should the level increase more than 10% the DEQ will be notified
of the violation. Should turbidity levels become higher than 5 NTUs we
will need to shut down the SSFP.

Recommendations

Eliminate logging on slopes above 50% in section 29 [see earlier text
for other areas].

Increase harvest buffer to meet NW Forest Plan standards, including
180ft buffers along intermittent streams and 360ft buffers along fish
bearing streams. Or at least 100 ft buffers along intermittent. [are you
sure these aren’t the buffers proposed]

	BMPs and erosion control measures on roads- newly constructed and
decommissioned- and surrounding any harvest activities affecting the
SSFP at least one year after operations.

	Minimize number and potential impact of corridors needed for operations
within no harvest buffers and riparian reserves.

	If considering no harvest buffer and/or riparian reserve within the RD
calculation, then increase RD to 0.4.  If these areas are not included
in the RD calculation, then increase the RD to 0.35. [see earlier
discussion]

Make sure recommendations are conistent with earlier text or change
earlier text.

Please call if you have any questions at<PHONE_NUMBER>

Sincerely,

Kevin Hanway

Director, Water Department

City of Hillsboro

(503) 615-6585

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
CITY OF HILLSBORO

150 E. Main Street, Hillsboro Oregon 97123	                Office:
503-615-6702

	                   Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Water Department