[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 20045-20047]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-51]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922; FRL-8553-6]

Draft Risk and Exposure Assessment Reports for Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft reports for public review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2008, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public review and
comment two draft documents. The first document is titled ``Risk and
Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard: First Draft.'' The title of the
second document is ``Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review
of the NO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard:
Draft Technical Support Document (TSD).'' The purpose of these draft
documents is to convey the approach taken to assess exposures to
ambient NO2 and to characterize associated health risks, as
well as to present the results of those assessments.

DATES: Comments on the above reports must be received on or before May
1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0922, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0922.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922.
     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0922. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Jenkins, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mailcode C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA then issues
air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred
to as ``criteria pollutants.'' The air quality criteria are to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.'' Under section
109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for each listed pollutant, with
the NAAQS based on the air quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA
requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air
quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in
scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health
or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise
the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria.
    Air quality criteria have been established for the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and NAAQS have been established for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), an indicator for NOX. Presently, EPA is
reviewing the air quality criteria for NOX and the NAAQS for
NO2. As part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is preparing an
assessment of exposures and health risks associated with ambient
NO2. A draft plan describing the proposed approaches to
assessing exposures and risks is described in the

draft document, Nitrogen Dioxide Health Assessment Plan: Scope and
Methods for Exposure and Risk Assessment. This document was released
for public review and comment in September, 2007 and was the subject of
a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
on October 24 and 25, 2007. Comments received from that consultation
have been considered in developing the draft risk and exposure
assessment documents being released at this time.
    The draft documents convey the approach taken to assess exposures
to ambient NO2 and to characterize associated health risks,
as well as to present the results of those assessments. These draft
documents will be available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/nox/s_nox_cr_rea.html.
    The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by
means of a review on the draft documents at an upcoming public meeting
of the CASAC. A Federal Register notice will inform the public of the
date and location of that meeting. Following the CASAC meeting, EPA
will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in
preparing a second draft risk and exposure assessment report. The
release of the second draft report will be followed by another CASAC
meeting and ultimately by a final risk and exposure assessment report.

    Dated: April 4, 2008.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 [FR Doc. E8-7882 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70875-70876]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0074]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated November 9, 2012, Canadian National Railway (CN), the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), and the United
Transportation Union (UTU) have jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of their waiver of compliance
from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service laws contained
at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0074.
    In their petition, CN, BLET, and UTU seek relief from 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4), which in part requires a train employee to receive 48
hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive
days. Specifically, CN, BLET, and UTU seek an extension of the existing
waiver to allow a train employee to initiate an on-duty period for 6
consecutive days followed by 24 hours off duty. In support of their
request, CN, BLET, and UTU explained that this type of schedule has not
compromised rail safety. Additionally, as expressed in the original
petition, work-life balance has continued for train employees, and the
railroad has benefitted from continued productivity.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 11, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments

received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-28767 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82279-82281]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2227; Project Identifier AD-2022-00113-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by incidents related to
throttle malfunctions during a balked landing with the auto-throttle
(A/T) engaged, potential erroneous readings from the low range radio
altimeter (LRRA), and possible deficiencies in low airspeed protections
and crew alerting systems. This proposed AD would require updating the
thrust management (TM) and displays and crew alerting (DCA) operational
program software (OPS). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe conditions on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 8,
2024.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2227; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-2227.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Tsuji, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone: 206-231-
3548; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-2227; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00113-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM

contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the
submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Doug Tsuji, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received reports of several incidents involving Model
787 airplanes related to a throttle malfunction.
    The FAA has received a report indicating that a design review of
the dual 787 LRRA system, which included an evaluation of airplane
health management (AHM) records, determined that there is an elevated
rate of in-service altimeter miscompare events and loss of output
events.
    The FAA received an in-service report of a Model 787 airplane with
flight management function (FMF) Block point (BP) 4.0 software
experiencing the throttle returning to IDLE after manual increase of
thrust during a balked landing with the A/T engaged.
    The FAA has reviewed a report of the investigation of an accident
that revealed deficiencies in low airspeed protections and crew
alerting systems on Model 777 and 787 series airplanes.
    As a result of the above, one or more of the following scenarios
could occur.
    During landing, erroneous altimeter readings from the LRRA could
result in the A/T not commanding IDLE during flare, and, in combination
with improper crew reaction, could result in a runway overrun.
    In addition, if the A/T system is engaged during a manual go-around
or missed approach and the thrust mode is set to IDLE, manual attempts
to override the A/T system by pushing the thrust levers forward will
not disconnect the A/T system as expected, resulting in the thrust
levers retarding back to IDLE. This unexpected loss of thrust, if not
corrected, could result in a loss of altitude and possible controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT).
    Further, airplanes with versions of FMF software prior to BP 4 are
susceptible to situations where the flightcrew may believe the airplane
systems will prevent the airplane from having too low an airspeed for
its flight condition, when in fact the systems do not offer that
protection. This can also result in a CFIT event.
    While these conditions may result in a different outcome, they all
can be addressed by the same corrective action. These conditions, if
not addressed, could result in unsafe conditions.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB310018-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021. This service
information specifies procedures for installing updated DCA OPS
software and doing a software configuration check.
    The FAA also reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-
81205-SB340053-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2022. This service
information specifies procedures for installing updated TM OPS software
and doing a software configuration check.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described, except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,''
and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although the service information recommends accomplishing certain
required actions within 12 months, the FAA has determined that a 12
month interval would not address the identified unsafe condition soon
enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA
considered the manufacturer's recommendation and the degree of urgency
associated with the subject unsafe condition. In light of these
factors, the FAA finds that a 6-month compliance time represents an
appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to
operate without compromising safety.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 125 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install and check DCA software...  3 work-hours x $85                 * $0               $255            $31,875
                                    per hour = $255.
Install and check TM software....  4 work-hours x $85                  * 0                340             42,500
                                    per hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Boeing has confirmed that there is no charge for the software.

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2023-2227; Project Identifier AD-
2022-00113-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 8, 2024.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and
787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB340053-00 RB, Issue
001, dated November 16, 2022.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments;
34, Navigation.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD was prompted by incidents related to throttle
malfunctions during a balked landing with the auto-throttle (A/T)
engaged, potential erroneous readings from the low range radio
altimeter (LRRA), and possible deficiencies in low airspeed
protections and crew alerting systems. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address problems with thrust management (TM) and displays and crew
alerting (DCA) operational program software. The unsafe conditions,
if not addressed, could result in possible runway overrun or
controlled flight into terrain.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin B787-81205-SB310018-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021:
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
B787-81205-SB310018-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): Guidance for accomplishing the
actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB310018-00, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021,
which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-
81205-SB310018-00 RB, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021.
    (2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin B787-81205-SB340053-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 16,
2022: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
B787-81205-SB340053-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2022.
    Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2): Guidance for accomplishing the
actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB340053-00, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2022,
which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-
81205-SB340053-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2022.

 (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch,
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
responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)
of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520
Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To
be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

 (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Doug Tsuji, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

 (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB310018-00
RB, Issue 002, dated July 15, 2021.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB340053-00
RB, Issue 001, dated November 16, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on November 17, 2023.
Caitlin Locke,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-25866 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 125]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0809]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority
review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined
that LUXTURNA (voretigene neparvovec), manufactured by Spark
Therapeutics, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gretchen Opper, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria upon approval of those
applications. FDA has determined that LUXTURNA (voretigene neparvovec),
manufactured by Spark Therapeutics, Inc., meets the criteria for a
priority review voucher. LUXTURNA (voretigene neparvovec) is an adeno-
associated virus vector-based gene therapy indicated for the treatment
of patients with confirmed biallelic RPE65 mutation-associated retinal
dystrophy. Patients must have viable retinal cells as determined by the
treating physician(s).
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about LUXTURNA (voretigene neparvovec), go to the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research cellular and gene therapy
products website at https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/default.htm.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-28256 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


From:	Mathias, Scott
Sent:	Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:33 PM
To:	Szabo, Aaron
Cc:	Pepple, Karl
Subject:	RE: interagency comments on EO 12866_13563 2008 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Final Rule

Aaron,

Here are our responses to the additional interagency comments received on January 28.

1.	Page 75-77 section on fire:
a.	1st paragraph: We accept the first change, adding “behavior and effects”
b.	1st paragraph: We are concerned with the second change in the first paragraph because
during the interagency call on 1/23/2015 the representative from DOI (may have been Paul
Steblein?) indicated that DOI wanted to use the term “wildland” in place of
“prescribed”.  Please verify that the interagency reviewers are in agreement with the
change currently being proposed.
c.	2nd paragraph: We could accept the first change, if we can agree to it as “Some small-scale
wildfires and…” to more clearly contrast with large-scale and catastrophic scale fires, which
are not events that minimize adverse public health effects.
d.	2nd paragraph: We do not agree with the remaining changes to this paragraph. These
proposed changes suggest bounds on state discretion and interactions that are not
consistent with the CAA paradigm of state primacy in SIP development.  Specifically,
suggesting that state RACM determinations are limited to catastrophic fires is not
appropriate, and suggesting that it is land managers/owners that are the initiating actors for
SIP-related plans is also not appropriate. The primary context for this rulemaking is EPA
providing SIP development rules/guidance to the states that are responsible for carrying out
the requirements, not to land managers/owners.

2.	Page 82-83: We accept the typo correction.

3.	Page 115: We accept the changes offered by the interagency reviewer, but ourselves have
noticed an inaccurate word that we are changing.  The word “can” in the first sentence is more
accurately characterized as “…may be able to…”

Let me know if we need to further discuss.

Scott Mathias | Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division | U.S. EPA, RTP, NC 27711 |
919.541.5310

From: Szabo, Aaron<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:02 PM
To: Mathias, Scott
Subject: First interagency comments on EO 12866_13563 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Final Rule
Importance: High

Scott,

I wanted to get these to you as soon as possible.  Please see below for comments that I have received on
the 2008 NAAQS Ozone SIP final rule.  Please let me know if you would like to discuss these
recommendations and what, if any, you have accepted.  Thank you very much.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Page 75-77 section on fire:
Wildfire emissions are a component of background ozone[1] and can significantly contribute to periodic
high ozone levels.[2] Besides their effect on air quality, wildfires pose a direct threat to public safety – a
threat that can be mitigated through management of wildland vegetation. Attempts to suppress
wildfires have resulted in unintended consequences, including increased risks to both humans and
ecosystems.[3] The use of wildland prescribed fire can influence the occurrence, behavior and effects of
catastrophic wildfires which may help manage the contribution of wildfires to background ozone levels
and periodic peak ozone events. Additionally prescribed fires can have benefits to those plant and
animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and reproduction, as
well as myriad ecosystem functions (e.g., carbon sequestration). The EPA understands the importance of
prescribed fire which mimics a natural process necessary to manage and maintain fire-adapted
ecosystems and climate change adaptation, while reducing risk of uncontrolled emissions from
catastrophic wildfires, and is committed to working with federal land managers, tribes, and states to
effectively manage prescribed wildland fire use to reduce the impact of wildfire related emissions on
ozone.

If wildfire impacts are significant, contributing to exceedances of the standard, states should consider
RACM for this source. Fires play an important ecological role across the globe, benefiting those plant
and animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and
reproduction. Fires are one tool that can be used to reduce fuel load, unnatural understory, and tree
density, helping to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Some wildfires and the use of prescribed fire
can influence the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires which may reduce the probability of fire-induced
ozone impacts and subsequent public health effects. RACM for catastrophic wildfire may include
addressing the wildland fuels through fuels management, and including the use of prescribed fire and
allowing some wildfire to occur naturally in systems that are ecologically fire dependent. Where
appropriate, land managers and owners states may consider developing plans for addressing wildland
fuels in collaboration with states land managers and owners. RACM for prescribed fires should also be
considered. Information is available from DOI and the USDA Forest Service on smoke management
programs and basic smoke management practices and may be considered when determining RACM for
prescribed fires. RACM must be determined for each area on a case-by-case basis.
Page 82-83(typo): We also stated in the proposal that general conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
would apply 1 year after the effective date of nonattainment designations for that NAAQS because
section 176(c)(6) provides a 1-year grace period from the effective date of initial designations before
general conformity determinations are required in areas newly designated nonattainment for a
particular pollutant and standard. In such areas we encourage states to consider in any baseline
inventory used and/or submitted to include emissions expected from projects subject to general
conformity, including emissions from wildland fire that may be reasonably expected in the area .
Page 115: Where interstate transported emissions contribute to an exceedance or violation and come
from prescribed fire, wildfires or other natural sources such as wildfires, air agencies can use the
provisions in the EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to request exclusion of affected data.
Once EPA concurs with an air agency’s request, the event-influenced data are officially noted and
removed from the data set used to calculate official design values.

[1] Jaffe, DA; Wigder, NL. (2012). Ozone production from wildfires: A critical review. Atmos Environ 51: 1-
10.
>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.063<
[2] Emery, C; Jung, J; Downey, N; Johnson, J; Jimenez, M; Yarwood, G; Morris, R. (2012). Regional and
global modeling estimates of policy relevant background ozone over the United States. Atmos
Environ 47:206-217.
>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.012<
[3] Indeed, “Fire policy that focuses on [wildfire] suppression only, delays the inevitable,
promising more dangerous and destructive future…fires.” Stephens, SL; Agee, JK; Fule,
PZ; North, MP; Romme, WH; Swetnam, TW. (2013). Managing Forests and Fire in
Changing Climates. Science 342:41-42.


[Federal Register: April 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21622-21623]
[DOCID:fr22ap08-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC08-561-001; FERC-561]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

April 15, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and an extension of the expiration date for this information
collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in
response to an earlier Federal Register notice of February 11, 2008 (73
FR 7725-26) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 20,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira--
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of
reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings, such comments should be submitted to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 and should refer to Docket No. IC08-561-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at (http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp). To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC-561 ``Annual Report of
Interlocking Positions.''
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No. 1902-0099.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve this information
collection with a three-year extension of the expiration date, with no
changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the
Commission is mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary to enable the Commission to implement the
statutory provisions of Title II, section 211 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (16 U.S.C. 825d) which amended
Part III Section 305(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). Submission of
the list is necessary to fulfill the requirements of section 211--
Interlocking Directorates, which defines monitoring and regulatory
operations concerning interlocking directorate positions held by
utility personnel and possible conflicts of interest. The information
is collected by the Commission to identify persons holding interlocking
position between public utilities and possible conflicts of interest.
Through this process, the Commission is able to review and exercise
oversight of interlocking directorates of public utilities and their
related activities. Specifically, the Commission must determine that
individuals in utility operations holding two positions at the same
time would not adversely affect the public interest. The Commission can
employ enforcement proceedings when violations and omissions of the
Act's provisions occur. The reporting requirements are found at 18 CFR
46.6 and 131.31
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe is comprised of
public utilities and from those entities the Commission received
reports from 1,996 persons serving as officers or directors of those
concerns.
    6. Estimated Burden: 499 total hours, 1996 respondents, 1 response
per respondent, and .25 hours per response (average).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: $30,320. (499 hours
divided by 2,080 hours per year per employee times $126,384 per year
average per employee). The cost per respondent is $15.

    Statutory Authority: Section 305(c) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-8634 Filed 4-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8325]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-730-000]

Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

February 18, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 9, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3632 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76982-76983]
[DOCID:fr18de08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1211; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-13]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Medford, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Medford, WI.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Taylor County Airport,
Medford, WI. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft operations at
Taylor County Airport.

DATE: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before February 2,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2008-1211/Airspace Docket No. 08-
AGL-13, at the beginning of your comments. You

may also submit comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the
ground floor of the building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone: (817)
222-5582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-1211/
Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace for SIAPs operations at
Taylor County Airport, Medford, WI. The area would be depicted on
appropriate aeronautical charts.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend
controlled airspace at Taylor County Airport, Medford, WI.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Medford, WI [Amended]

Medford, Taylor County Airport, WI
    (Lat. 45[deg]06'04'' N., long. 90[deg]18'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Taylor County Airport, and within 2.7
miles each side of the 162[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.8-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on December 9, 2008.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-30035 Filed 12-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 60866-60867]
[DOCID:fr19oc05-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549-0004.

Extension:
    Rule 32a-4; SEC File No. 270-473; OMB Control No. 3235-0530.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved
collections of information discussed below.
    Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act requires that
shareholders of a registered investment management or face-amount
certificate company (``fund'') ratify or reject the selection of a
fund's independent public accountant. Rule 32a-4 exempts a fund from
this requirement if (i) the fund's board of directors establishes an
audit committee composed solely of independent directors with
responsibility for overseeing the fund's accounting and auditing
processes,\1\ (ii) the fund's board of directors adopts an audit
committee charter setting forth the committee's structure, duties,
powers and methods of operation, or sets out similar provisions in the
fund's charter or bylaws,\2\ and (iii) the fund maintains a copy of
such an audit committee charter permanently in an easily accessible
place.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 32a-4(a).
    \2\ Rule 32a-4(b).
    \3\ Rule 32a-4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each fund that chooses to rely on rule 32a-4 incurs two collection
of information burdens. The first, related to the board of directors'
adoption of the audit committee charter, occurs once, when the
committee is established. The second, related to the fund's maintenance
and preservation of a copy of the charter in an easily accessible
place, is an ongoing annual burden. The information collection
requirement in rule 32a-4 enables the Commission to monitor the duties
and responsibilities of an independent audit committee formed by a fund
relying on the rule.
    Commission staff estimates that, on average, the board of directors
takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff
has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board,\4\
total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours. Combined with an
estimated 1 hour of paralegal time to prepare the charter for board
review, the staff estimates a total one-time collection of information
burden of 3 hours for each fund. Once a board adopts an audit committee
charter, a fund generally maintains it in a file cabinet or as a
computer file. Commission staff has estimated that

there is no annual hourly burden associated with maintaining the
charter in this form.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Management Practice Inc. Bulletin: Fund directors pay
increases 17% in smaller complexes, 8% in larger (2003) available at
http://www.mfgovern.com.

    \5\ No hour burden related to such maintenance of the charter
was identified by the funds the Commission staff surveyed.
Commission staff understands that many audit committee charters have
been significantly revised after their adoption in response to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745) and other
developments. However, the costs associated with these revisions are
not attributable to the requirements of rule 32a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because virtually all funds extant have now adopted audit committee
charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden
associated with adopting audit committee charters in the future will be
limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission
staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 400 new
funds each year,\6\ and that all of these funds will adopt an audit
committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission
staff estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with
adopting an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 going forward will
be approximately 1200 hours.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Investment Company Institute (``ICI''), Mutual Fund
Factbook (2005) (``ICI 2005 Factbook''), at 9. The total number of
funds in the marketplace has remained approximately the same each
year for the past three years. Although there has been some
variation in the number of funds that are newly established and
funds that has ceased operations each year, Commission staff has
estimated that the total number of respondents will remain constant.
Id at 9.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (3.0
burden hours for establishing charter x 400 new funds = 1200 burden
hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, all funds that rely on rule 32a-4 are subject to
the ongoing collection of information requirement to preserve a copy of
the charter in an easily accessible place. This ongoing requirement,
which Commission staff has estimated has no hourly burden, applies to
the 400 new funds that adopt an audit committee charter each year and
the 8044 funds that have previously adopted the charter and continue to
maintain it.
    When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on
rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring
outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that
those costs average approximately $1000 per fund.\8\ Commission staff
understands that virtually all funds now rely on rule 32a-4 and have
adopted audit committee charters, and thus estimates that the annual
cost burden related to hiring outside legal counsel will, in the
future, be limited to newly established funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Costs may vary based on the individual needs of each fund.
However, based on the staff's conversations with outside counsel
that prepare these charters, legal fees related to the preparation
and adoption of an audit committee charter usually average $1000 or
less. The Commission also understands that the ICI has prepared a
model audit committee charter, which most legal professionals use
when establishing audit committees, thereby reducing the costs
associated with drafting a charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Commission staff estimates that approximately 400
new funds each year will adopt an audit committee charter in order to
rely on rule 32a-4, and that an additional 8044 funds will continue to
preserve their audit committee charters in order to rely on rule 32a-4.
Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden
associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately
$400,000.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: ($1000
cost of adopting charter x 400 newly established funds = $400,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These estimates are based on telephone interviews between
Commission staff and fund representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collections of information required by rule 32a-4 are necessary
to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB
approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    General comments regarding the above information to the following
persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503
or e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

     September 12, 2005.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5747 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 63856]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL19-12-000]

Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund
Effective Date

Dynegy Commercial Asset Management, LLC,
Dynegy Energy Services (East), LLC,
Dynegy Energy Services, LLC,
Dynegy Marketing and Trade, LLC,
Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC,
Dynegy Power Marketing, LLC,
Dynegy Resources Management, LLC,
Illinois Power Generating Company,
Illinois Power Marketing Company,
Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC

    On December 6, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL19-12-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the
above-captioned entities' market-based rate authority in the Louisville
Gas & Electric/Kentucky Utilities balancing authority area is just and
reasonable. Dynegy Commercial Asset Management, LLC et al., 165 FERC
61,211 (2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL19-12-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL19-12-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: December 6, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26890 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9721-9723]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3739]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66386; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for
``Self-Trade Prevention'' on the Exchange

February 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that,
on January 30, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I 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 add new Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.76A (Order Execution--OX) to provide for ``Self-Trade
Prevention'' on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca
Options Rule 6.76A (Order Execution--OX) to provide for ``Self-Trade
Prevention'' on the Exchange.\3\ As proposed, the Exchange would cancel
any resting Market Maker quote(s) and order(s) \4\ to buy (sell) that
are priced equal to or higher (lower) than an incoming Market Maker
quote, order or both to sell (buy) entered under the same trading
permit

identification.\5\ The following examples illustrate how Self-Trade
Prevention would function:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Self-Trade Prevention would only be applicable to electronic
trading on the Exchange.
    \4\ The Exchange will specify from time to time via a Regulatory
Information Bulletin the Market Maker trading interest (i.e., quotes
and orders) to which Self-Trade Prevention will apply. Currently,
the Exchange plans to initially apply Self-Trade Prevention to the
following order types used by Market Makers: ``PNP Orders,'' PNP-
Blind Orders,'' and ``PNP-Light Orders.'' PNP Orders, PNP-Blind
Orders, and PNP-Light Orders are defined in NYSE Arca Options Rule
6.62, and each is a type of non-routable Limit Order that is only
executed on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that Market Makers
primarily use these order types, as opposed to other order types
offered by the Exchange, because they are similar to quotes (i.e.,
they are non-routable Limit Orders). The Exchange currently plans to
expand Self-Trade Prevention to other Market Maker trading interest
(e.g., quotes) when certain technology changes have been completed,
and would announce any such expansion through a Regulatory
Information Bulletin under this proposed rule change pursuant to
Commentary .01 of NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.76A. In the future, the
Exchange may expand Self-Trade Prevention to other orders used by
Market Makers (including routable orders), and it also would
announce any such changes through a Regulatory Information Bulletin
under this proposed rule change pursuant to Commentary .01 of NYSE
Arca Options Rule 6.76A. The Exchange would submit a separate
proposed rule change if it were to make Self-Trade Prevention
available to non-Market Maker trading interest.
    \5\ The Exchange would use a Market Maker's trading permit
identification (``TPID'') to monitor for self-trades in the proposed
Self-Trade Prevention functionality. TPIDs are assigned to Market
Makers, as well as other OTP Firms and OTP Holders, to identify them
in the Exchange's systems. Market Makers on the Exchange are not
able to submit orders on an agency basis. Thus, a Market Maker
within a firm that conducts both an agency and market making
business would have a unique TPID that could only be used for that
Market Maker's quotes and orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 1
    [ssquf] The National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') for a particular
option series is $1.15 (bid)--$1.20 (offer);
    [ssquf] The Exchange Best Bid and Offer (``BBO'') is $1.15 (bid)--
$1.25 (offer);
    [ssquf] A Market Maker has a single resting PNP Order to buy on the
Exchange's Consolidated Book with a price of $1.15;
    [ssquf] If the Market Maker submits a PNP Order to sell with a
price of $1.15, the NYSE Arca System would cancel the Market Maker's
resting PNP Order to buy with a price of $1.15.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Example 1 illustrates that Self-Trade Prevention would
result in the cancellation of the Market Maker's resting order (or
quote) to buy regardless of whether the incoming order (or quote)
and the resting order (or quote) would actually execute against each
other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2
    [ssquf] The NBBO and BBO are the same as in Example 1;
    [ssquf] A Market Maker has two separate resting PNP Orders to buy
on the Exchange's Consolidated Book, with prices of $1.15 and $1.13,
respectively;
    [ssquf] If the Market Maker submits a PNP Order to sell with a
price of $1.14, the NYSE Arca System would cancel the Market Maker's
resting PNP Order to buy with a price of $1.15, but would not cancel
the Market Maker's resting PNP Order to buy with a price of $1.13.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Example 2 illustrates that Self-Trade Prevention would not
result in the cancellation of the Market Maker's resting order (or
quote) to buy with a price of $1.13 because the price of the resting
order (or quote) to buy is lower than the price of the incoming
order (or quote) to sell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Self-Trade Prevention would be in effect throughout
the trading day for all Market Markers on the Exchange,\8\ but not
during Trading Auctions.\9\ In this regard, the Exchange believes that
it is highly unlikely that a Market Maker would trade against its own
resting interest during a Trading Auction. Moreover, the Exchange notes
that it would be difficult to implement this functionality from a
technological and operational perspective because it would require the
Exchange to cancel resting, executable Market Maker trading interest as
it is calculating the price at which to conduct the Trading Auction.
For these reasons, the Exchange is not applying Self-Trade Prevention
to Trading Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Market Markers on the Exchange would not have the ability to
deactivate Self-Trade Prevention or change any settings related to
it.
    \9\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes that Self-Trade Prevention would not be
applicable to individual legs of Complex Orders.\10\ In this regard,
senders of Complex Orders, including Market Makers, view them as
discrete orders, serving a particular investment purpose, that are
contingent on all of the legs of the Complex Order being executed.
Thus, they are only interested in having all of the legs of a Complex
Order executed. Because the non-execution of one leg of a Complex Order
is contrary to the investment purpose of the Complex Order, the
Exchange has determined to not apply Self-Trade Prevention in a manner
that would prevent a Complex Order sent by a Market Maker from
executing against that Market Maker's resting interest in the leg
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.62(e), which defines Complex
Order. See also NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.91, which describes
electronic Complex Order trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Self-Trade Prevention would not relieve or
modify a Market Maker's obligations under the Exchange's Rules, such as
the Market Maker's quoting obligations, or any other rules and
regulations to which the Market Maker is subject.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Self-Trade Prevention is
very similar to functionality currently offered by the Nasdaq Options
Market (``NOM''). In particular, NOM provides market makers on its
market with an ``anti-internalization'' functionality, whereby quotes
and orders entered by NOM market makers using the same market
participant identifier will not be executed against quotes and orders
entered on the opposite side of the market by the same market maker
using the same identifier, but instead the NOM system will cancel the
oldest of the quotes or orders back to the entering party prior to
execution.\11\ Similarly, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
provides for a market-maker trade prevention order, which is a market
maker immediate-or-cancel order that, if it would trade against a
resting quote or order for the same market-maker, is cancelled along
with the resting quote or order.\12\ Additionally, NYSE Arca Equities
provides for a self trade prevention order modifier that prevents
orders so designated from executing against resting opposite side
orders entered under the same equity trading permit identification that
are also designated with the modifier.\13\ The change proposed herein
would therefore provide Market Makers with a method of managing their
trading interest that is similar to functionalities that are currently
available on other markets. Because of the technology changes
associated with this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to
announce the implementation date of Self-Trade Prevention on the
Exchange via a Regulatory Information Bulletin. This Bulletin also
would include the Market Maker trading interest to which Self-Trade
Prevention initially would apply.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Chapter VI, Section 10(6) of the NOM Rules.
    \12\ See CBOE Rule 6.53(c)(v).
    \13\ See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(qq). Similar to the Self-
Trade Prevention functionality proposed in this filing, the NYSE
Arca Equities Self Trade Prevention modifier is not in effect during
auctions.
    \14\ See supra note 4. As mentioned above, the Exchange notes
that any such announcements regarding Self-Trade Prevention would
not be for the purpose of, or permit the Exchange to, expand the
applicability of Self-Trade Prevention beyond Market Maker trading
interest. Any such expansion would be the subject of a separate
proposed rule change submitted by the Exchange to the Commission.
The Exchange further notes that the Commission has previously
permitted other option exchanges to communicate settings or
eligibility for various exchange mechanisms to their members through
exchange notices, bulletins or circulars. See, e.g., Interpretation
and Policy .05 to CBOE Rule 6.74A, which provides that any
determinations made by CBOE regarding CBOE's Automated Improvement
Mechanism, such as eligible classes, order size parameters and the
minimum price increment for certain responses, shall be communicated
in a Regulatory Circular. See also CBOE Rules 6.45A and 6.45B, which
provide that CBOE will issue a Regulatory Circular to specify
certain priority-related information, including specifying which
priority rules will govern which classes of options any time the
exchange changes the priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade
because it would provide Market Makers with a functionality to manage
their trading interest that is similar to functionalities currently
available on other markets.\15\ Additionally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because
it would allow Market Makers to better manage their trading interest
and provide a means to prevent executions against their own

trading interest. The Exchange notes that Market Makers have asked for
this functionality to prevent them from inadvertently trading with
their own interest. In such a situation, the firms ask the Exchange to
nullify the trades, which they are permitted to do under the Exchange's
rules because they are on both sides of the trades.\16\ While the
proposed Self-Trade Prevention functionality would prevent inadvertent
self-trading, the Exchange notes that the functionality would also
prevent intentional self-trading. In this regard, the proposed rule
change provides a means to prevent manipulative conduct such as ``wash
trading.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra notes 11, 12 and 13.
    \16\ Under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.77, a
``trade may be nullified if all parties to the trade agree to the
nullification,'' and when ``all parties to a trade have agreed to a
trade nullification, one party must promptly notify the Exchange for
dissemination of cancellation information to the Options Price
Reporting Authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, the Exchange is proposing that Self-Trade Prevention be
applicable only for Market Makers. The Exchange has made this decision
because Market Makers are the most likely market participants to
execute against their own trading interest. The Exchange may propose to
expand the Self-Trade Prevention functionality to other OTP Holders and
OTP Firms in the future, subject to being in a position to implement
the functionality in a manner consistent with a firm's agency
responsibilities to its customer orders. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination.
    For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\17\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied the five-day prefiling requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal will provide a tool for Exchange market
makers to better manage their trading interest and provide a means to
prevent manipulative conduct such as ``wash trading.'' Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-08 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-NYSEArca-2012-08. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-08 and should
be submitted on or before March 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3739 Filed 2-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P