[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45513-45515]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18383]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72709; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Clarifying the
Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution,
Order Routing, and Regulatory Compliance

July 29, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 18, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to clarify the Exchange's use of certain data
feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory
compliance. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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
    On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled ``Enhancing Our Market Equity
Structure,'' [sic] Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') requested the equity
exchanges to file with the Commission the data feeds used for purposes
of (1) order handling and execution (e.g., with pegged or midpoint
orders); (2) order routing, and (3) regulatory compliance, if
applicable.\4\ Subsequent to the Chair's speech, the Division of
Trading and Markets stated that it ``believes there is a need for
clarity regarding whether (1) the SIP data feeds, (2) proprietary data
feeds, or (3) a combination thereof,'' are used for these purposes and
requested that proposed rule changes be filed that disclose such
information.\5\ The stated goal of disclosing this information is to
provide broker-dealers and investors with enhanced transparency to
better assess the quality of an exchange's execution and routing
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at the Sandler, O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) (available at
www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw).
    \5\ See Letter from James Burns, Deputy Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, to Jeffrey
C. Sprecher, Chief Executive Officer, Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc., dated June 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data feeds available for the purposes of order handling and
execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance include the
exclusive securities information processor (``SIP'') data feeds \6\ or
proprietary data feeds from individual market centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The SIP feeds are disseminated pursuant to effective joint-
industry plans as required by Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.603(b). The three joint-industry plans are: (1) The CTA Plan,
which is operated by the Consolidated Tape Association and
disseminates transaction information for securities with the primary
listing market on exchanges other than NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''): (2) the CQ Plan, which disseminates consolidated
quotation information for securities with their primary listing on
exchanges other than Nasdaq; and (3) the Nasdaq UTP Plan, which
disseminates consolidated transaction and quotation information for
securities with their primary listing on Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Overview of Exchange Rules Governing Order Handling, Execution, and
Routing
    Before executing any arriving or resting interest, the Exchange
evaluates whether the execution would trade through a protected
quotation \7\ in violation of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (``Rule
611''),\8\ and if so, whether it is eligible for an exception to Rule
611. The Exchange also evaluates whether displaying a bid or offer
would result in locking or crossing a protected quotation in violation
of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS (``Rule 610(d)''),\9\ or if it is
eligible for an exception to Rule 610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``protected bid'' or ``protected offer'' means a quotation
in an NMS stock that (i) is displayed by an automated trading
center; (ii) is disseminated pursuant to an effective national
market system plan; and (iii) is an automated quotation that is the
best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange, the best
bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., or the best bid
or best offer of a national securities association other than the
best bid or best offer of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. 17 CFR
242.600(b)(57). A ``protected quotation'' means a protected bid or a
protected offer. See 17 CRF 242.600(b)(58). The PBBO is the best-
priced protected bid and the best-priced protected offer.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If any protected quotation is superior to the Exchange's best bid
or offer, the Exchange may route a marketable order as an Intermarket
Sweep Order (``ISO'') \10\ (if consistent with the order's
instructions), unless a trade-through exception applies under Rule
611(b). Likewise, if the display of an order would lock or cross a
protected quotation, the Exchange may route such interest to one or
more protected quotations, if consistent with the order's instructions.
The Exchange notes that it only routes to away markets for purposes of
compliance with Rules 611 and 610(d). The Exchange further notes that
its routing brokers do not have any discretion about where to route
such interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An ISO is defined as a limit order for a NMS Stock that (i)
when routed to a trading center, is identified as an ISO; and (ii)
simultaneously with the routing of the ISO, one or more additional
limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full
displayed size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to
sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case
of a limit order to buy, for the MNMS [sic] stock with a price that
is superior to the limit price of the ISO.
    \11\ See Rule 17(c)(1)(A)(i)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Exchange's Stated Policy, Practice, or Interpretation With Respect
to the Meaning, Administration, or Enforcement of an Existing Rule
Regarding How and For What Purpose It Uses Data Feeds
    The Exchange uses the SIP data feeds to determine protected
quotations on markets other than the Exchange for purposes of
compliance with Rule 611 and Rule 610(d), including identifying where
to route ISOs, to calculate the PBBO for purposes of order types that
are priced based on the PBBO, and to determine the national best bid
(``NBB'') \12\ for purposes of compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO and Rule 440B--Equities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The NBBO is defined as the best bid and best offer of an
NMS security that is calculated and disseminated on a current and
continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effective
national market system plan. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3). The Exchange
notes that the NBB may differ from the PBB because the NBB includes
Manual Quotations, which are defined as any quotation other than an
automated quotation. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(37). By contrast, a protected
quotation is an automated quotation that is the best bid or offer of
a national securities exchange. 17 CFR 242.60)(b)(57)(iii) [sic].
    \13\ Rule 440B(b)--Equities requires that Exchange systems not
execute or display a short sale order with respect to a covered
security at a price that is less than or equal to the current NBB if
the price of that security decreases by 10% or more, as determined
by the Exchange, from the security's closing price on the Exchange
at the end of regular trading hours on the prior day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\15\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it provides
enhanced transparency to better assess the quality of an exchange's
execution and routing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 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. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide the
public and investors with information about what data feeds that the
Exchange uses for execution and routing decisions.

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: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 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
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the 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-NYSEMKT-2014-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-62. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-62 and should
be submitted on or before August 26, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18383 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14438]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-47-000]

PPL Montana, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

March 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 10, 2010, PPL Montana, LLC (PPL Montana)
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.208 (2009), requesting the
Commission to issue an order confirming PPL Montana's rights as a
Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS) customer under the
transmission provider NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern), and how
NorthWestern should accommodate PPL Montana and its other NRIS
customers in its generation interconnection studies, pursuant to
Commission Order Nos. 2003,\1\ 890,\2\ and NorthWestern's Open Access
Transmission Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, Order No. 2003, 68 FR 49,846 (Aug. 19, 2003), FERC
Stats. & Regs ] 31,146 (2003) (Order No. 2003); order on reh'g,
Order No. 2003-A, 69 FR 15,932 (Mar. 26, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs.
31,160, at P 531 (2004) (Order No. 2003-A); order on reh'g, Order
No. 2003-B, 70 FR 265 (Jan. 4, 2005) (Order No. 2003-B) FERC Stats &
Regs. ] 31,171 (2005); order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, 70 FR
37,661 (June 30, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,190 (2005).
    \2\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 72 FR 12,266 (March 15, 2007),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, at PP 418-602 (2007) (Order No. 890);
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 (2008) (Order No. 890-A); order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008); order on
reh'g and clarification, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009);
order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 9, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6570 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 37805]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3840-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Calpine Greenleaf, 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 July 12, 2011.
    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 Street, 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>.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16172 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 62465-62468]
[DOCID:fr05no07-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-13-000]

Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Palomar Gas
Transmission Project; Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and
Notice of Public Meetings

October 29, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is in
the process of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the
environmental impacts of the Palomar Gas Transmission Project involving
the construction and operation of a new underground natural gas
pipeline proposed by Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC (PGT). This Notice
of Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process that will be used to
gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project.
Your input will help determine which issues will be evaluated in the
EIS. Please note that the scoping period for this project will close on
November 28, 2007.
    Comments on the project may be submitted in written form or
verbally. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, we\1\
also invite you to attend the public scoping meetings that have been
scheduled in the project area. The meetings are scheduled for Monday,
November 12 in Maupin, Oregon; Tuesday, November 13 in Molalla, Oregon;
Wednesday, November 14 in McMinnvile, Oregon; and Thursday, November 15
in Forest Grove, Oregon. Further details on how to submit comments and
additional details of the public scoping meetings are provided in the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FERC will be the lead federal agency in the preparation of an
EIS that will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and will be used by the FERC to consider the
environmental impacts that could result if the Commission issues PGT a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act.
    This NOI is being sent to Federal, State, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American
organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to
notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a PGT representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides.asp
). This fact sheet addresses a number of

typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    PGT has announced its proposal to construct and operate a new
natural gas pipeline and associated structures with a bi-directional
flow capacity of 1.4 billion cubic feet per day. The project would be
located in northwest Oregon and consist of a 211-mile-long, 36-inch-
diameter pipeline running from near Shaniko, Wasco County, Oregon to
near Wauna, Clatsop County, Oregon. The pipeline would travel across
Wasco,

Clackamas, Marion, Yamhill, Washington, Columbia, and Clatsop Counties
in Oregon. The pipeline would connect the existing Gas Transmission
Northwest Corporation (GTN) mainline pipeline system in central Oregon
to the Northwest Natural Gas Company (NW Natural) distribution system
near Molalla in Clackamas County. The pipeline is also proposed to
extend to other potential interconnections with NW Natural's system and
to an interconnection with NorthernStar Energy LLC's proposed Bradwood
Landing pipeline near Wauna in Clatsop County, Oregon. The proposed
project would also include a 3.8-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter lateral
pipeline \2\ near Molalla, Clackamas County, Oregon, to connect the
Palomar Project mainline to an existing NW Natural city gate. Certain
associated aboveground facilities are also proposed, i.e., mainline
valves spaced at intervals along the pipeline as defined by U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations per the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 49 Part 192, at least three meter stations, and pig
launcher and receiver facilities. At this time, PGT does not anticipate
that compression will be required for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the main system
to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another
interstate transmission system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, PGT proposes the following primary project
components:
    [square] A 211-mile-long, 36-inch diameter underground natural gas
mainline consisting of two segments:
    [square] Segment 1: a 108.5-miles of mainline from TransCanada's
GTN pipeline system northwest of Madras in Wasco County to a location
southwest of Molalla in Clackamas County; and a 3.8-mile, 36-inch
diameter accessory lateral pipeline, the Molalla Lateral, which will
connect the main pipeline to NW Natural's distribution system;
    [square] Segment 2: a 102.5-mile segment commencing at the Molalla
Lateral interconnect and terminating at the proposed connection to the
Bradwood Landing pipeline near Wauna, Clatsop County; there is
potential for additional interconnections with NW Natural along this
route;
    [square] two meter stations, eight mainline valves, and two pig
launchers/receivers on Segment I; one pig launcher/receiver on the
Molalla Lateral; and one meter station, eight mainline valves, and one
pig launcher/receiver on section II;
    [square] temporary pipe storage and contractor yards at various
locations along the pipeline for office trailers, parking, and pipe and
equipment storage during construction; and
    [square] temporary construction roadways and short permanent roads
from existing roads to meter station sites and other aboveground
facilities.
    A location map depicting PGT's proposed facilities is attached to
this NOI as Appendix 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies can be obtained from the
Commission's Web site (excluding maps) at the ``eLibrary'' link,
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, or by calling (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
end of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action when it considers whether or
not a natural gas pipeline should be approved. FERC will use the EIS to
consider the environmental impacts that could result if it issues
project authorizations to PGT under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas
Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public
may have about proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.''
The main goal of scoping is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the
important environmental issues. With this NOI, the Commission staff is
requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed
in the EIS. All comments received will be considered during preparation
of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project
under these general headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Water resources.
     Aquatic resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Threatened and endangered species.
     Land use, recreation, and visual resources.
     Cultural resources.
     Socioeconomics.
     Air quality and noise.
     Reliability and safety.
     Cumulative impacts.
    In the EIS, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft
EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners;
environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional
Native American organizations; commentors; other interested parties;
local libraries and newspapers; and FERC's official service list for
this proceeding. There will be at minimum a 45 day comment period
allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all comments on
the draft EIS and revise the document, if necessary, before issuing a
final EIS. We will consider all comments on the final EIS before we
make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure that your
comments are considered, please follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section of this NOI.
    Although no formal application has been filed, FERC has already
initiated its NEPA review under its pre-filing process. The purpose of
the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested
stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application
is filed with FERC.
    With this NOI, we are asking Federal, State, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EIS. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.
    The EIS will examine the proposed action and alternatives that
require administrative or other actions by other Federal agencies. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service has identified the
possible need to amend the existing Mt. Hood National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plans. The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of
Land Management has identified the possible need to amend the existing
Resource Management Plans of the Salem and Prineville Districts.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on our previous experience with similar projects in the region.
This preliminary list of issues, which is presented below, may be
revised based on your comments and our continuing analyses specific to
the Palomar Gas Transmission Project.
     Potential for disturbance to residents along pipeline
construction route, including noise and aesthetics;

     Potential for geological hazards, including seismic
activity, to have impacts on the pipeline;
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on water bodies and
wetlands, including issues of erosion control;
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on vegetation, including
the clearing of forested areas;
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on threatened and
endangered species and wildlife habitat;
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on cultural resources;
and
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on recreation and scenic
resources.

Public Participation

    You are encouraged to become involved in this process and provide
your specific comments or concerns about PGT's proposal. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative
facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To expedite the FERC Staff's receipt and consideration of
your comments, electronic submission of comments is strongly
encouraged. For information on electronically filing comments, please
see the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's

Guide as well as information in 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii). Before you
can file comments, you will need to create a free account, which can be
accomplished online by clicking on ``Sign-up'' under ``New User.'' This
type of submission is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' Comments
submitted electronically must be submitted by November 28, 2007.
    If you wish to mail comments, please mail your comments so that
they will be received in Washington, DC on or before November 28, 2007
and carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E/Gas Branch 2, PJ-11.2.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-13-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before November 28, 2007.
    The public scoping meetings (dates, times, and locations listed
below) are designed to provide another opportunity to offer comments on
the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged
to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental
issues that they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript
of the meetings will be generated so that your comments can be
accurately recorded. All meetings will begin at 7 p.m., and are
scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, November 12, 2007..............  Imperial River Company, 304
                                          Bakeoven Road, Maupin, OR
                                          97037,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007.............  Molalla Adult Center, 315
                                          Kennel Street, Molalla, OR
                                          97038,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007...........  Patton Middle School, 1175 East
                                          19th Street, McMinnville, OR
                                          97128,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, November 15, 2007............  Pacific University, 2043
                                          College Way, Forest Grove, OR
                                          97116,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
                                         Meeting will be held in the
                                          Multipurpose Room located on
                                          ground floor of Washburne
                                          Hall. Optimum parking would be
                                          in lot ``D'' off of Cedar
                                          Street and on College Way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once PGT formally files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    Everyone who responds to this notice or provides comments
throughout the EIS process will be retained on the mailing list. If you
do not want to send comments at this time but want to stay informed and
receive copies of the draft and final EISs, you must return the Mailing
List Retention Form (Appendix 2). If you do not send comments or return
the Mailing List Retention Form asking to remain on the mailing list,
you will be taken off the mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372), or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary

link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF07-
13) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary
helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web
site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription
that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in
specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend
researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/

EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.
    Finally, PGT has established a Web site for this project at http://www.palomargas.com/project.html.
 The Web site includes a project

overview, timeline, safety and environmental information, and answers
to frequently asked questions. You can also request additional
information by e-mailing PGT directly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
writing to: Palomar Gas Transmission, 1400 SW. Fifth Avenue, Suite 900,
Portland, OR 97201.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21651 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 170)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50648-50650]
[DOCID:fr04se07-7]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27891; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-14-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-2C,
-3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, -5R, -20R, -20AR, -
20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60 Series Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C,
-3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, -5R, -20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR,
-40R, and -60 series turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require
removal from service of certain high pressure (HP) turbine rotor
assemblies with part numbers (P/Ns) 3075772-1 and 3060841-1 using a
drawdown schedule, and returning them to Honeywell for curvic root
radius inspection. This proposed AD results from the manufacturer's
report that some HP turbine rotor discs received improperly machined
radii in the root of the forward and aft curvic teeth during
manufacture. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of
the HP turbine rotor assembly and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 5,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     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.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     You can get the service information identified in this
proposed AD from Honeywell Technical Publications and Distribution, M/S
2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170; telephone: (602) 365-
2493 (General Aviation),<PHONE_NUMBER> (Commercial Aviation), fax:
(602) 365-5577 (General Aviation and Commercial Aviation).
     Also, for technical support regarding the curvic root
dimensional inspection criteria, contact the Technical Operations
Center: telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (U.S.) or<PHONE_NUMBER>
(International) and press option 9; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-27891;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-14-AD'' in the subject line of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the
DOT Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    In June of 2006, we became aware of a manufacturing audit that
found that some HP turbine rotor discs, part numbers (P/Ns) 3075772-1
and 3060841-1, received improperly machined radii in the root of the
forward and aft curvic teeth. We have determined that the improperly
machined radii will cause a higher stress in the curvic area of the HP
turbine rotor disc than originally calculated. Although no reports of
cracked HP turbine rotor discs due to improperly machined radii have
been received, this higher stress reduces the calculated low-cycle-
fatigue life limit, to below the current published life limit. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained failure of the
HP turbine rotor assembly and damage to the airplane. Honeywell
established a serial number list of suspect HP turbine rotor discs
possibly having the improperly machined radii. This proposed AD would
require operators to

send suspect HP turbine rotor discs to Honeywell for curvic root
inspection before the discs are eligible for reinstallation in an
engine. Since the dimensional inspection requires proprietary tooling
and methods, Honeywell is specified as the sole provider of the curvic
root inspections. Other repair or maintenance facilities that believe
they are capable of conducting the inspection may apply for an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the AMOC
paragraph in the proposed AD.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Honeywell
Alert Service Bulletin No. TFE731-A72-5185, dated July 5, 2006, and
Service Bulletin No. TFE731-72-3720, dated July 5, 2006. These service
bulletins contain the serial numbers of suspect HP turbine rotor discs,
and describe procedures for removing the suspect HP turbine rotor
assemblies from service.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
removal of certain HP turbine rotor assemblies from service using a
drawdown schedule and returning them to Honeywell Engines, Systems, and
Services for curvic root radius inspection. The proposed AD would
require you to use the service information described previously to
identify suspect HP turbine rotor discs by serial number.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 400 HP turbine rotor
discs installed in TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60
series turbofan engines, and 170 HP turbine rotor discs installed in
TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R
series turbofan engines, installed in airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it would take about 42 work-hours per engine to
perform the proposed actions at an unscheduled removal, and about 2
work-hours at a scheduled removal. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $46,535 per engine. We
estimate that 50 percent of the HP turbine rotor discs will fail the
curvic root radius inspection. Based on these figures, we estimate the
total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $13,490,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc. and Garrett
Turbine Engine Co.): Docket No. FAA-2007-27891; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-14-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 5,
2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell)
TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, -5R, -
20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60 series turbofan engines
with certain high pressure (HP) turbine rotor discs part numbers and
serial numbers. These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
the following airplanes:

Avions Marcel Dassault Mystere-Falcon 10 and 50 Series
Cessna Model 650; Citations III, VI, and VII
Dassault-Aviation 20, 50, 50EX, 900, MF900, and 900EX (900DX) Series
Gulfstream Aerospace LP (formerly IAI) 1125 Westwind Astra, Astra SPX,
 Gulfstream 100 Series
Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) 1124 Series (Westwind 1124)
Learjet 31, 35, 36, 45 (or Learjet 40), and 55 Series
Lockheed-Georgia 3329-25 Series (731 Jetstar, Jetstar II)
Raytheon Corporate Jets (formerly British Aerospace) Hawker 800 and 850
 Series
Sabreliner NA-265-65 (Sabreliner 65)

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that some HP turbine rotor
discs received improperly machined radii in the root of the forward
and aft curvic teeth during manufacture. We are issuing this AD to
prevent uncontained failure of the HP turbine rotor assembly and
damage to the airplane.

Compliance

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

TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R
Series Turbofan Engines

    (f) For TFE731-2C, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, -4R, -5AR, -
5BR, and -5R series turbofan engines, remove HP turbine rotor
assemblies from service containing HP turbine rotor discs, part
number (P/N) 3075772-1, having any serial number (SN) in Table 1 of
Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) No. TFE731-72-3720, dated July 5,
2006. Use the following drawdown schedule:

    (1) For HP turbine discs with 4,200 cycles-since-new (CSN) or
more on the effective date of this AD, remove HP turbine rotor
assemblies within 100 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) For HP turbine discs with fewer than 4,200 CSN on the
effective date of this AD, remove HP turbine rotor assemblies at the
next access to the HP turbine rotor discs, but not to exceed 4,300
CSN.

TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60 Series Turbofan
Engines

    (g) For TFE731-20R, -20AR, -20BR, -40, -40AR, -40R, and -60
series turbofan engines, remove HP turbine rotor assemblies from
service containing HP turbine rotor discs, P/N 3060841-1, having any
SN in Table 1 of Honeywell Alert SB No. TFE731-A72-5185, dated July
5, 2006. Use the following drawdown schedule:
    (1) For HP turbine discs with 3,200 CSN or more on the effective
date of this AD, remove HP turbine rotor assemblies within 100 CIS
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For HP turbine discs with fewer than 3,200 CSN on the
effective date of this AD, remove HP turbine rotor assemblies at the
next access to the turbine rotor discs, but not to exceed 3,300 CSN.

For All Engines

    (h) HP turbine rotor discs removed per paragraphs (f) and (g) of
this AD must pass a curvic root radius inspection performed by
Honeywell Engines, Systems and Services, Phoenix, Arizona,
Certificate Repair Station No. ZN3R030M, before the discs are
eligible for reinstallation in an engine.
    (i) For the purposes of this AD, access to the HP turbine rotor
discs is defined as the removal of the HP turbine rotor assembly
from the engine.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

Related Information

    (k) Contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (562) 627-

5210, for more information about this AD.
    (l) For more information regarding the engine manufacturer's
accomplishment instructions or material information, refer to
Honeywell Alert SB No. TFE731-A72-5185, dated July 5, 2006, and SB
No. TFE731-72-3720, dated July 5, 2006.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 28, 2007.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-17384 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[ADAMA Makhteshim, Ltd. c/o Makhteshim Agan of North America d/b/a ADAMA 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27604]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from [ADAMA Makhteshim, Ltd. c/o Makhteshim Agan of North America d/b/a ADAMA], [3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604] requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	[acetophenone, CAS No. 98-86-2) under 40 CFR 180.920 when used as an inert ingredient as a solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide formulation, without any limitation. As an inert ingredient, acetophenone is exempt from the requirement for a tolerance when used as an attractant in pesticide formulations when used on growing crops only under 40 CFR 180.920. This petition is for expansion of use of acetophenone as solvent/cosolvent in pesticide formulation under 40 CFR 180-920 (Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.parts per million (ppm).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. NA-Remove based on fact this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption. No specific plant metabolism data is available, nor is it required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.

	2. Analytical method. [NA- Analytical methods for crop commodities are not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [No specific residue data is available, nor is it required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption. Default inert residue data were used for dietary assessment.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Acetophenone is relatively of low acute toxicity via oral and dermal routes of exposure. Acute oral LD50 is 815-3200 mg/kg (rat) and dermal LD50 is 20,000 mg/kg (Guinea pigs). It is a mild skin irritant and severely irritating to the eye's of rabbits. It is not a skin sensitizer.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Available mutagenicity studies such as reverse mutation assays, mouse lymphoma assay, chromosomal aberration test and in vivo micronucleus assay. No studies are available. Acetophenone is not a genotoxic agent based on available data.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [In a repeat dose toxicity test combined with a reproduction/developmental screening test conducted following OECD Guideline No. 422, mean forelimb grip strength and motor activity were decreased in the high dose males. Predose and post dose salivation was noted in both the 225 and 750 mg/kg/day groups. The intensity of salivation, duration of salivation and number of animals affected were not reported. The salivation may be due to gavage dosing and/or irritating property of acetophenone. There were no parental deaths in the reproduction study; however, the live birth index, pup survival during the lactation phase and mean pup body weights were decreased in the high dose group. Hence, the 225 mg/kg/day dose level was considered a NOAEL for reproductive effects. The NOAEL for systemic, reproductive and off spring toxicity was 225 mg/kg bw/day based on clinical and neurobehavioral findings, decreased in live birth index, and decreased in pup body weights seen at the LOAEL of 750 mg/kg bw/day.       In a developmental toxicity study in rats, the maternal and developmental toxicity NOAEL was 300 mg/kg was based on increased clinical signs and decreased in uterus weights in maternal animals, and on a slight body weight reduction and skeletal findings (bilateral pelvic girdle caudal shift) in fetuses (low concern, at the limit of historical control level and with no other adverse effects) as cited in ECHA]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In a 30-day repeat dose toxicity study in rats, no treatment-related toxicity was observed at doses up to 102 mg/kg/day; the highest dose tested. Similarly in another repeat dose study in rats fed acetophenone in diets at dose up to 10,000 ppm (equivalent to 423 mg/kg/day), no treatment related toxicity was observed.

      In a 90-day toxicity study in rats, treatment related effects such as slight to moderate deceased in spontaneous activity, decreased in body weights, in males, and increased reticulocytes in both sexes associated with increased in cell volumes at the highest dose tested (500 mg/kg/day (gavage dosing). In males, hyaline inclusions in the kidneys increased in incidence and severity in all male dose groups. The hyaline inclusions corresponded with the presence of α2-microglobulin by immunohistochemistry. The increase of this protein was statistically significant in the male of the mid dose and the high dose compared to controls. It is not considered as an adverse response since it a typical issue in male rats and was considered as a non-adverse metabolic change as there were no further lesions in the kidneys. The NOAEL was 250 mg/kg/day based on increased reticulocytes counts, reduced activity and decreased in body weight development seen at 500 mg/kg/day.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [No data are available. EPA (IRIS 1991) classified acetophenone as Group D- not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [However, based on the plausible metabolic pathways, no metabolites of toxicological concern are expected.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [Acetophenone is rapidly absorbed from the gut, metabolized efficiently by the liver to benzoic acid or mandelic acid, and excreted primarily in the urine and, to a very small extent, in the feces. No metabolites of toxicological concern are expected.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Acetophenone does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the estrogen receptor or endocrine system. Available data for acetophenone do not show any alert for endocrine disruptor endpoints.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [The predominant route of potential human exposure to acetophenone associated with their proposed use is through the diet. A comprehensive dietary exposure assessment on acetophenone has been conducted and results support the proposed acetophenone tolerance exemptions. The basis of the dietary assessment builds on the screening-level dietary exposure model for inerts (l-DEEM) developed by the EPA with additional modifications that embody guidance provided by the Agency for dietary risk assessment for inert ingredient tolerance exemptions. The modeled dietary exposure is likely an over-estimation of dietary exposure because only negligible food residues are anticipated from pre-harvest uses of acetophenone. Dietary exposure is conservatively estimated to be 0.189 mg/kg bw/day for the general population and 0.706 mg/kg bw/day for the most highly exposed subpopulation of children aged 1-2 years old.]

	i. Food. [Acetophenone chronic dietary exposure assessment utilized the EPA's dietary screening-level model l-DEEM with appropriate adjustments to reflect the use without any limitations proposed in this petition.]

	ii. Drinking water. [EPA default value of 100 ppb in drinking water is included in the inert DEEM exposure assessment; exposure to acetophenone via drinking water is expected to be negligible.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Thc predominant use of acetophenone is in pesticide products used for agricultural crop production, and to a significantly lesser extent in outdoor residential products. Acetophenone is unlikely to be used in indoor pesticide products and not believed to be widely used in consumer or personal care products. Therefore, non-dietary exposure to acetophenone is expected to be minimal.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding for acetophenone. It is therefore appropriate to consider only the potential risks associated with acetophenone.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [A dietary exposure assessment using current EPA screening level methodology (l-DEEM) was conducted. Based on the highly conservative l-DEEM dietary exposure estimates, available information on the fate of acetophenone in soil and plants, and the low exposure associated with non-dietary uses of acetophenone, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the US population from the aggregate exposure to acetophenone as a result of its proposed use.]

	2. Infants and children. [A reliable toxicology database is available on acetophenone and includes acute toxicity, subchronic, mutagenicity, reproduction and developmental toxicity studies. The available data suggest no qualitative or quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility to infants and children. Therefore the dietary assessment conducted using EPA screening level methodology (1-DEEM) is below the EPA's level of concern, and there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to sensitive subpopulations, including infants and children, as a result of aggregate exposure to acetophenone.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no known international tolerances for acetophenone.]


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 51343-51344]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 30b1-6T, SEC File No. 270-599, OMB Control No. 3235-0652.

    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 (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 30b1-6T (17 CFR 270.30b1-6T) under the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (the ``Act'') is entitled: ``Weekly Portfolio Report for
Certain Money Market Funds.'' The rule requires that if the market-
based net asset value (``market-based NAV'') of a registered investment
company, or series thereof, that is regulated as a money market fund
under rule 2a-7 (17 CFR 270.2a-7) on any business day is less than
$.9975 \1\ that money market fund must promptly notify the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') by electronic mail and provide
a portfolio schedule to the Commission within one business day.
Subsequently, the money market fund must submit a portfolio schedule
within two business days after the end of each week until the fund's
market-based NAV at the end of the week equals or exceeds $.9975. The
portfolio schedule must be sent electronically in Microsoft Excel
format. The purpose of the rule is to facilitate the Commission's
oversight of money market funds and ensure that the Commission receives
substantially similar information to that which it received from money
market funds participating in the Treasury Department's Temporary
Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds (``Guarantee Program''), which
had guaranteed the $1.00 share value of accounts held by investors as
of September 19, 2008 in participating money market funds.\2\ The
Guarantee Program was established to help stabilize money market funds
following a period of substantial redemptions that threatened the
ability of some money market funds to maintain the $1.00 share
value.\3\ The program expired on September 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Most money market funds seek to maintain a stable net asset
value per share of $1.00, but a few seek to maintain a stable net
asset value per share of a different amount, e.g., $10.00. For
convenience, we generally refer to the stable net asset value of
$1.00 per share.
    \2\ Our staff estimates that approximately 79 percent of money
market funds participated in the Guarantee Program, and that the
money market funds that did not participate in the program were
mostly funds that invest predominately in U.S. Treasury and U.S.
Government securities.
    \3\ See Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Treasury
Announces Guaranty Program for Money Market Funds (Sept. 19, 2008),
available at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1147.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates estimate, based on past experience under
the Guarantee Program, that 10 money market funds are required by rule
30b1-6T to provide weekly reports disclosing certain information
regarding the fund's portfolio holdings. Staff estimates that money
market funds require an average of approximately 6 burden hours to
compile and electronically submit the initial required portfolio
holdings information, and an average of approximately 4 burden hours in
subsequent reports.\4\ Based on these estimates, we estimate that the
annual burden will be 210 hours per money market fund that is required
to provide the information and an aggregate annual burden of 2100 hours
for all of the money market funds required to submit portfolio
schedules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We understand that the required information is currently
maintained by money market funds pursuant to other regulatory
requirements or in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, for
the purposes of our analysis, we do not ascribe any time to
gathering the required information.
    \5\ Because one report is required each week, a fund would
submit 52 reports in one year. The first report would require 6
hours and subsequent reports would require 4 hours each. The
difference between the hours is due to the fact that funds generally
would not incur the additional start-up time applicable to the first
report. The annual burden of the reporting requirement would be 210
hours (1 report x 6 hours = 6 hours, 51 reports x 4 hours = 204
hours, and 6 hours + 204 hours = 210 hours). 210 hours x 10 (the
estimated number of money market funds that will be required to
submit portfolio schedules under the rule each year) = 2,100 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. 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. Compliance with rule 30b1-6T
is mandatory for any money market fund whose market-based NAV is less
than $.9975. Responses to the disclosure requirements will be kept
confidential.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23995 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78159-78161]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1122]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Submarine Cable Installation Project; Chicago River
South Branch, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Chicago River South Branch near Chicago, Illinois. This zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Chicago River South
Branch due to the installation of submarine cables in the vicinity of
the Madison Street Bridge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated
with the installation of submarine cables in the vicinity of the
Madison Street Bridge. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. on December
16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1122 and are available online
by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1122 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact or email BM1 Adam Kraft, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when an agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this. The final details for this project were not
received by the Coast Guard until December 1, 2011, less than four
weeks before the start of the submarine cable installation project.
Waiting for a comment period to run would prevent the Coast Guard from
performing its statutory function of protecting life on navigable
waters and thus would be impractical and contrary to the public
interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
prevent the Coast Guard from performing its statutory function of
protecting life on navigable waters and thus would be impractical and
contrary to the public interest.

Basis and Purpose

    The submarine cable installation project in the vicinity of the
Madison Street Bridge will occur from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. on December 16,
2011. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect vessels from
the hazards associated with those submarine cable installation efforts.
The hazards associated with the installation of submarine cables pose
serious risks of injury to persons and property. As such, the Captain
of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the submarine
cable installation project in the vicinity of the Madison Street Bridge

does pose significant risks to public safety and property and that a
safety zone is necessary.

Discussion of Rule

    The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the
Chicago River South Branch in the vicinity of the Madison Street Bridge
between Mile Marker 325.1 and Mile Marker 325.5 of the Chicago River
South Branch in Chicago, Illinois.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or a designated
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of
the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we
anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. The safety zone around the bridge project will be
relatively small and exist for relatively short time. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may
still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of
the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the vicinity of the Madison Street Bridge between
Mile Marker 325.1 and Mile Marker 325.5 of the Chicago River South
Branch between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. on December 16, 2011.
    This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule will only be enforced while unsafe conditions exist.
Vessel traffic will be minimal due to the fact that the location of the
safety zone is in an area that typically does not experience high
volumes of vessel traffic during the hours of 5 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Several commercial traffic entities have already been contacted
concerning this closure and have confirmed that the effective period of
the closure will not affect them in a negative way.
    In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on scene representative to transit
through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public
via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-(888) REG-FAIR (1-(888) 734-3247). The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph
34(g) of the Instruction.
    A final environmental analysis check list and categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-1122 to read as follows

Sec.  165.T09-1122  Safety Zone; Submarine Cable Installation Project,
Chicago River South Branch, Chicago, IL

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River South Branch in the vicinity of the Madison
Street Bridge between Mile Marker 325.1 and Mile Marker 325.5 of the
Chicago River South Branch in Chicago, IL. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective and
enforceable between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. on December 16, 2011.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
33 CFR part 165, subpart C, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or a
designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be on land in the
vicinity of the safety zone and will have constant communications with
the involved safety vessels which will be provided by the contracting
company, James McHugh Construction.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or
his or her designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.

    Dated: December 5, 2011.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-32229 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From: Klara Zimmerman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 11:43 AM
To: [Addressees]
Cc: Wen, Chen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Request for feedback on Safer Choice Product Recognition Program

[Salutation],

I'm writing from Abt Associates on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Safer Choice Program.  We're currently supporting Safer Choice in conducting research on the burden associated with its Product Recognition Program.  The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal agencies re-evaluate every three years the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with information collection requests of this nature.

As a potential respondent, we would value your feedback about the burden associated with the Safer Choice Product Recognition Program to ensure that our estimates are reasonable.

Attached is a copy of the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Safer Choice Product Recognition Program.  For your reference, here is a link to the federal register notice:  https://federalregister.gov/a/2016-05175

Please give particular attention to Section 6 of the ICR, which includes burden estimates associated with the Product Recognition Program.  When reviewing, please consider the following questions:
      (i) is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility?;
      (ii) are the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, reasonable and accurate?;
      (iii) could the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected be improved?

We would greatly appreciate your feedback on the above items and also value your suggestions for future improvements to the Product Recognition Program.  Please send me any comments or feedback by May 9, 2016.

Thanks in advance for your time and assistance!

Sincerely,

Klara Zimmerman
Environment & Natural Resources Division | Abt Associates
4550 Montgomery Avenue Suite 800 North | Bethesda, MD 20814
301·634·1722 | www.abtassociates.com


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22789]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0262]

Withdrawal of Approval of Part of a New Animal Drug Application;
Tiamulin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of those parts of a new animal drug application (NADA) for a tiamulin
Type A medicated article that pertain to the production indications for
use of increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency in
swine. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this
product is no longer marketed for these uses.

DATES: Withdrawal of approval is effective April 17, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Novartis Animal Health US, Inc. (Novartis),
3200 Northline Ave., suite 300, Greensboro, NC 27408, has requested
that FDA withdraw approval of those parts of NADA 139-472 for DENAGARD
(tiamulin) Type A medicated article pertaining to the production
indications for use of increased rate of weight gain and improved feed
efficiency in swine. Novartis requested voluntary withdrawal of
approval of these indications for use because this product is no longer
marketed for these uses. Revised product labeling reflecting the
withdrawal of these indications has been approved in a supplement to
NADA 139-472.
    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs and redelegated to the Director of the Center for Veterinary
Medicine, and in accordance with Sec.  514.116 Notice of withdrawal of
approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval
of those parts of NADA 139-472 pertaining to the production indications
for use of increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency
in swine are hereby withdrawn, effective April 17, 2012.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending
the animal drug regulations to reflect the withdrawal of approval of
those parts of NADA 139-472.

    Dated: March 21, 2012.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2012-9195 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P