[Federal Register: December 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 66123-66124]
[DOCID:fr14de09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 7, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER08-1237-002.
    Applicants: Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC.
    Description: Response to Staff Request and Request for Confidential
Treatment of Shiloh Wind Project 2, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091204-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1288-005.
    Applicants: Wapsipinicon Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Response to Staff Request and Request for Confidential
Treatment of Wapsipinicon Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091204-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-4-002.
    Applicants: Krayn Wind LLC.
    Description: Krayn Wind LLC Notice of Change in Status Krayn Wind.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091203-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-195-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits executed Service
Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service between SPP and
American Electric Power Service Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-225-001.
    Applicants: Major Energy Electric Services, LLC.
    Description: Petition for acceptance of initial tariff, waivers and
blanket authority for Major Energy Electric Services, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-317-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits errata filing
with an identical version of the agreement that is properly designated
as Service Agreement 301.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-346-001; ER04-485-014; ER01-1654-019; ER00-
2917-017.
    Applicants: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant LLC; R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC; Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.
    Description: Change in Status Filing of Constellation Energy
Nuclear Group, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091204-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-374-000.
    Applicants: Medicine Bow Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Application for market based rate authority, request
for waivers and authorizations, and request for finding of
qualifications as Category 1 Seller re Medicine Bow Power Partners,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-377-000.
    Applicants: Elm Creek Wind II LLC.
    Description: Application of Elk Creek Wind II, LLC for order
accepting Initial Tariff, Waiving Regulations, and Granting Blanket
Approvals, including Blanket Approvals under 18 CFR part 34 for all
future issuances of securities etc.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-378-000.
    Applicants: Buffalo Ridge II LLC.
    Description: Application of Buffalo Ridge II, LLC for order
accepting initial tariff, waiving regulations, and granting blanket
approvals, including blanket approvals under 18 CFR part 34 for all
future issuances of securities etc.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-380-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits notice of cancellation of
a confirmation letter for Wholesale Electric Energy and Capacity
between Westar and the City of Alma.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-381-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits Notice of Cancellation to
Service Agreement 207 with the City of Wathena, Kansas.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-382-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Progress Energy Florida, Inc submits an executed
operating agreement with Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-383-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits Service
Agreement No 83.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-384-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits the Generation
Interconnection Process Reform Tariff Amendment for its Wholesale
Distribution Access Tariff.
    Filed Date: 12/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091207-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 24, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29662 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47363-47367]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21444]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0244; Product Identifier 2016-NM-044-AD; Amendment
39-19071; AD 2017-20-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a determination that supplemental inspections are
required for timely detection of fatigue cracking for certain
structural significant items (SSIs). This AD requires revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add supplemental
inspections. This AD also requires inspections to detect cracks in each
SSI, and repair of any cracked structure. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 16, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 16,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0244.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0244; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on March 27, 2017 (82 FR 15169). The NPRM was
prompted by a determination that supplemental inspections are required
for timely detection of fatigue cracking for certain SSIs. The NPRM
proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to add supplemental inspections and SSI discrepancy
reporting. The NPRM also proposed to require inspections to detect
cracks in each SSI, and repair of any cracked structure. We are issuing
this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing
Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Program Designation

    Boeing requested that we revise ``maintenance or inspection
program'' to ``maintenance inspection program'' in the proposed AD.
Boeing stated that operators have a single program that relates to the
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID).
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Airplanes operating
under 14 CFR part 91 have ``inspection programs'' while airplanes
operating under 14 CFR part 121 have ``maintenance programs.'' The
decision to use the wording ``maintenance or inspection program'' is
intentional. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Service Information Reference

    Boeing requested that we revise the proposed AD to refer to the
specified service information as ``Revision 1, October 2015,'' instead
of ``Revision, October 2015.''
    We do not agree with Boeing's request. The document title page,
List of Effective Pages table, Revision Highlights table, document
footer, and SSID Revision table listed under ``1.0 Purpose'' all
identify the revision as ``October 2015,'' and not as ``Revision 1,
October 2015.'' We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Times

    Boeing and Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we revise the
compliance time for the initial inspections in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD. Boeing requested that the compliance time for initial
inspections be changed from ``before the accumulation of 66,000 total
flight cycles, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later'' to before the accumulation of 66,000 total
flight cycles, or at the next scheduled inspection as required by AD
2008-09-13, Amendment 39-15494 (73 FR 24164, May 2, 2008) (``AD 2008-
09-13''), whichever occurs later. Boeing stated that, if operators have
started SSID inspections, they should continue as scheduled in
accordance with AD 2008-09-13; however, if they have not started
inspections, they should already be prepared to begin at the 66,000
total flight cycle compliance time and that no

new grace period is needed from the effective date of this AD. SWA
stated that operators who have completed SSID inspections as required
by AD 2008-09-13 would be required to repeat inspections within 12
months and it does not believe this is the intent of the proposed AD.
SWA suggested that only inspections with revised requirements in the
proposed AD should require future action and that all other inspections
completed in accordance with the previous SSID revision, including
alternative inspections with an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
approval, should be accepted as compliance to the proposed AD.
    Isaac Trolinder requested that we revise the compliance time
measurement in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD from total flight
cycles to total flight miles.
    We do not agree with Isaac Trolinder's request. Compliance times
for the actions in this AD are defined in terms of total airplane
flight cycles and are not dependent on flight miles.
    We partially agree with Boeing and SWA's requests. We disagree with
Boeing's request to remove the 12-month grace period. Operators who are
very close to accomplishing an initial or repeat inspection required by
AD 2008-09-13 need time to incorporate the revised service information
in their maintenance or inspection program. Because this AD is not
superseding the existing SSID AD, any initial or repeat inspection
required by AD 2008-09-13 will still be required until the
corresponding action in this AD is accomplished.
    We agree with SWA that previously approved AMOCs for inspections of
SSIs that are not affected by the revised service information should
remain applicable. This is addressed in paragraph (1)(4) of this AD.
    We agree with Boeing and SWA that we need to address the situation
where an operator has already initiated inspections on SSIs.
    We have revised the introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD
and added paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) to this AD to include compliance
time options to address compliance times for SSIs affected, and not
affected, by the revised service information. This new wording provides
identical requirements to paragraph (h) in the proposed AD, but offers
a relieving option to operators who have initiated SSID inspections for
certain SSIs.

Request To Address Repaired or Altered SSIs

    Boeing requested that we revise the proposed AD to include a
paragraph that addresses any repair installed on an SSI such that the
repair affects the operator's ability to accomplish inspections
required by the proposed AD. Boeing suggested that we include wording
similar to the wording in paragraph (i) from AD 2008-09-13, except that
we make the actions applicable to a repair installed on an SSI at any
time and not exclusive to repairs installed before the effective date
of the AD.
    We agree with the commenter's request to revise this AD to include
wording to address repairs or alterations on any SSI such that the
repair or alteration affects the operator's ability to accomplish the
inspections required by this AD. We have included paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) in this AD. Paragraph (i)(1) of this AD requires repairs to SSI
structure if cracks are found while accomplishing inspections in
accordance with this AD and is similar to paragraph (i) of the proposed
AD, except for the change described below under ``Change to Paragraph
(i) of the Proposed AD.'' Paragraph (i)(2) is added to this AD to
address repairs or alterations that affect the ability to inspect an
SSI as required by this AD. If an operator finds a repaired or altered
SSI such that the repair or alteration affects the operator's ability
to accomplish the inspections required by this AD and the repair or
alteration does not have AMOC approval in accordance with paragraph (l)
of this AD, then paragraph (i)(2) of this AD will provide the operator
an 18-month grace period after the compliance time to request an AMOC.

Change to Paragraph (i) of the Proposed AD

    Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies to repair ``using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.'' We have changed the method of compliance
language in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to specify to repair ``using an
FAA-approved method.'' Specifying an FAA-approved method will allow for
FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) to approve repairs in
addition to the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) and the Los Angeles ACO Branch as specified by the
procedures in paragraph (l) of this AD. If an FAA DER has the
appropriate structures delegation for major repairs on 14 CFR part 25
airplanes, then the DER has the authority to approve these types of
repairs.

Acknowledgement of Revision to Global AMOC Needed

    Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) acknowledged that installation of
supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE requires the modification
of wing structure on Boeing Model 737-300 and -500 airplanes, making it
impossible to inspect the modified structure using the service
information. APB noted that it has a global AMOC to paragraphs (g) and
(h) of AD 2008-09-13 for alternative inspections of the STC modified
structure. APB stated that it will revise its inspection program for
STC ST01219SE to adjust for the changes in Boeing Document D6-82669,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/500
Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015, that affect the modified structure.
APB stated that it will request a new global AMOC when the final rule
is published.
    We acknowledge APB's comment. No change is needed to this AD in
this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Document D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,'' Revision
October 2015. The service information identifies SSIs having fatigue
crack growth characteristics warranting special attention, describes
procedures for inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified
as SSIs, and provides corrective actions for cracked SSI structure.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 500 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of maintenance or inspection   1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $42,500
 program.                                hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have not specified cost estimates for the inspections and repair
specified in this AD. Compliance with this AD constitutes a method of
compliance with the FAA aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) for
certain baseline structure of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage
tolerance inspections into their maintenance programs. These
requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 14 CFR
129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions specified in this AD will
meet the requirements of these regulations for certain baseline
structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this
AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR for
airplanes affected by that rule. For airplanes not affected by the
AASFR, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the inspection portion of this AD.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary reporting that
would be required based on the results of the inspections specified in
the revision of the maintenance or inspection program. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting.....................................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85              $0             $85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-20-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19071; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0244; Product Identifier 2016-NM-044-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 16, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2008-09-13, Amendment 39-15494 (73 FR 24164,
May 2, 2008) (``AD 2008-09-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors; 53,
Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a structural reevaluation conducted by
the manufacturer. We have determined that supplemental inspections
are required for timely detection of fatigue cracking for certain
structural significant items (SSIs). We are issuing this AD to
ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of the Maintenance or Inspection Program for All Airplanes

    Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within
12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later: Incorporate a revision into the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, that provides no less than the required
damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in Boeing Document
D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-
300/400/500 Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015. The required DTR
value for each SSI is listed in Boeing Document D6-82669,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/
500 Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015. The revision to the
maintenance or inspection program must include, and must be
implemented in accordance with, the procedures in Section 5.0,
``Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System Application;'' and Section
6.0, ``SSI Discrepancy Reporting;'' of Boeing Document D6-82669,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/
500 Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015. Accomplishment of the
revision required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of AD 2008-09-13.

(h) Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD, perform an inspection in accordance with Boeing Document
D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-
300/400/500 Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015, to detect cracks of
the applicable structure identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals
specified in Boeing Document D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,'' Revision
October 2015. Accomplishing an initial inspection required by this
paragraph terminates the corresponding inspection required by
paragraph (h) of AD 2008-09-13.
    (1) For all structure identified in Boeing Document D6-82669,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/
500 Airplanes,'' Revision October 2015, except for empennage SSIs E-
19, E-21, E-29, E-30, and E-31: Before the accumulation of 66,000
total flight cycles, at the next repetitive inspection required by
paragraph (h) of AD 2008-09-13, or within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
    (2) For empennage SSIs E-19, E-21, E-29, E-30, and E-31: Before
the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 12 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(i) Repairs and Alterations

    (1) If any cracked SSI structure is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repair before further flight
using an FAA-approved method or using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD. Within 18 months after repair, incorporate a revision into the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include a
damage-tolerance-based alternative inspection program for the
repaired structure. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in
accordance with the alternative program. The inspection method and
compliance times (i.e., threshold and repetitive intervals) of the
alternative program must be approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (2) If any repair or alteration to an SSI is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD such that the repair
or alteration affects your ability to accomplish the inspections
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, within 18 months after the
inspection compliance time, incorporate a revision into the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include a
damage tolerance based alternative inspection program for each
affected SSI. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in
accordance with the alternative inspection program. The inspection
method and compliance times (i.e., threshold and repetitive
intervals) of the alternative inspection program must be approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD. Accomplishing an initial inspection required by this paragraph
terminates the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of
AD 2008-09-13.

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2008-09-13

    Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD
and all initial inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD
terminates all requirements of AD 2008-09-13.

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft ACO Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008-09-13 are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD
for the SSIs identified in the AMOC, except for AMOCs written for

empennage SSIs E-19, E-21, E-29, E-30, and E-31.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer
Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section FAA, Los Angeles
ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Document D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document, Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,'' Revision
October 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 27, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-21444 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


affidavit, and in the case of subpoenas, the original document, to the
issuing officer. In case of failure to make service, the reasons for
the failure shall be stated on the original document.

Sec.  700.73  Compulsory process.

    (a) If a person refuses to permit a duly authorized representative
of the Department of Commerce to have access to any premises or source
of information necessary to the administration or the enforcement of
the Defense Production Act, the Selective Service Act, or this part,
the Department of Commerce representative may seek compulsory process.
Compulsory process means the institution of appropriate legal action,
including ex parte application for an inspection warrant or its
equivalent, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
    (b) Compulsory process may be sought in advance of an audit,
investigation, or other inquiry, if, in the judgment of the Director of
the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Chief Counsel for
Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, there is reason to
believe that a person will refuse to permit an audit, investigation, or
other inquiry, or that other circumstances exist which make such
process desirable or necessary.

Sec.  700.74  Notification of failure to comply.

    (a) At the conclusion of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry,
or at any other time, the Department of Commerce may inform the person
in writing where compliance with the requirements of the Defense
Production

Act, the Selective Service Act, or this part were not met.
    (b) In cases where the Department of Commerce determines that
failure to comply with the provisions of the Defense Production Act,
the Selective Service Act, or this part was inadvertent, the person may
be informed in writing of the particulars involved and the corrective
action to be taken. Failure to take corrective action may then be
construed as a willful violation of the Defense Production Act, this
part, or an official action.

Sec.  700.75  Violations, penalties, and remedies.

    (a) Willful violation of the provisions of the Defense Production
Act, the priorities provisions of the Selective Service Act, or this
part is a crime and upon conviction, a person may be punished by fine
or imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalty provided by the Defense
Production Act is a $10,000 fine, or one year in prison, or both. The
maximum penalty provided by the Selective Service Act is a $50,000
fine, or three years in prison, or both.
    (b) The government may also seek an injunction from a court of
appropriate jurisdiction to prohibit the continuance of any violation
of, or to enforce compliance with, the Defense Production Act, this
part, or an official action.
    (c) In order to secure the effective enforcement of the Defense
Production Act, this part, and official actions, the following are
prohibited (see section 704 of the Defense Production Act; see also,
for example, sections 2 and 371 of Title 18, United States Code):
    (1) No person may solicit, influence or permit another person to
perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the
Defense Production Act, this part, or an official action.
    (2) No person may conspire or act in concert with any other person
to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the
Defense Production Act, this part, or an official action.
    (3) No person shall deliver any item if the person knows or has
reason to believe that the item will be accepted, redelivered, held, or
used in violation of the Defense Production Act, this part, or an
official action. In such instances, the person must immediately notify
the Department of Commerce that, in accordance with this provision,
delivery has not been made.

Sec.  700.76  Compliance conflicts.

    If compliance with any provision of the Defense Production Act, the
Selective Service Act, or this part would prevent a person from filling
a rated order or from complying with another provision of the Defense
Production Act, this part, or an official action, the person must
immediately notify the Department of Commerce or the appropriate
Delegate Agency for resolution of the conflict.
    10. Subpart I is revised to read as follows:
Subpart I--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec.
700.80 Applicability of this part and official actions.
700.81 Communications.

Subpart I--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec.  700.80  Applicability of this part and official actions.

    (a) This part and all official actions, unless specifically stated
otherwise, apply to transactions in any state, territory, or possession
of the United States and the District of Columbia.
    (b) This part and all official actions apply not only to deliveries
to other persons but also include deliveries to affiliates and
subsidiaries of a person and deliveries from one branch, division, or
section of a single entity to another branch, division, or section
under common ownership or control.
    (c) This part and its schedules shall not be construed to affect
any administrative actions taken by the Department of Commerce, or any
outstanding contracts or orders placed pursuant to any of the
regulations, orders, schedules or delegations of authority under the
Defense Materials System, Defense Priorities System or the Defense
Priorities and Allocations System previously issued by the Department
of Commerce. Such actions, contracts, or orders shall continue in full
force and effect under this part unless modified or terminated by
proper authority.
    (d) Any repeal of any provision of this part or any order, schedule
or delegation of authority issued pursuant to this part shall not
release or extinguish any penalty or liability incurred under that
provision, order, schedule or delegation of authority. That provision,
order, schedule or delegation of authority shall be treated as still
remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any action for the
enforcement of such penalty or liability.

Sec.  700.81  Communications.

    All communications concerning this part, including requests for
copies of the regulation and explanatory information, requests for
guidance or clarification, and requests for adjustment or exception
shall be addressed to the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic
Security, Room 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230,
Ref: DPAS; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications may also be submitted electronically at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with reference to the topic of the communication in
the subject line.

Subpart J--[Removed]

    11. Subpart J is removed.

Subpart K--[Removed]

    12. Subpart K is removed.

Subpart L--[Removed]

    13. Subpart L is removed.

    Dated: May 28, 2010.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-13395 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76427-76430]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31290]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0347; FRL-9765-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Milwaukee-Racine Nonattainment Area; Determination of
Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 24, 2012, EPA proposed to determine that the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area had attained the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (2006 PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). EPA received several comments on the original proposal,
including one suggesting that the suspension of certain Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements cannot be applied in this instance because it only
pertains to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and not to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result, we are reproposing a narrow
portion of our original determination to address this issue. We will
address all comments received on the original proposal and this
proposal in our final notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0347, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-3047. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

    I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    II. What action is EPA taking?
    III. What is the background for this action?
    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    On April 24, 2012, at 77 FR 24436, EPA proposed to determine that
the Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area had attained the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received several comments on the original
proposal, including one suggesting that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) cannot be
applied in this instance because it only pertains to the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and not to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 40
CFR 51.1004(c) pertains to the suspension of certain CAA requirements
including the requirements for Wisconsin to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures (RACM)
to include reasonably available control technology (RACT), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues until such time, if any,
that EPA subsequently determines that the area has violated the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Our original proposal did not clearly explain EPA's views on the
applicability of CFR 51.1004(c) to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As
a result, in this re-proposal, EPA today is explaining its views and
soliciting comment on this specific issue. We will address all comments
received on the original proposal and this proposal in our final
notice.

III. What is the background for this action?

    In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).
In March 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Final Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and appropriate
guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory
requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In general, EPA
believes that the interpretations of the statute in the framework of
the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant to the
statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * *
*.'' Id., page 1. With respect to the statutory provisions applicable
to 2006 PM2.5 implementation, the guidance emphasized that
``EPA outlined its interpretation of many of these provisions in the
2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory
provisions, EPA provided substantial general guidance for attainment
plans for PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the [sic] 2007
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In keeping with
the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect to the
effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with respect to the
implications of clean data determinations that it set forth in the
preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard and in the regulation
that embodies this interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\1\ EPA has long
applied this interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10
standard, and the lead standard. While EPA recognizes that the
regulatory provisions of 51.1004(c) do not explicitly apply to the 2006
PM2.5 standard, the statutory interpretation that it
embodies is identical for both the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the general preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10,
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Stephen Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004). Since 1995, EPA has applied its
interpretation under the Clean Data Policy in many rulemakings,
suspending certain attainment-related planning requirements for
individual areas, based on a determination of attainment. See 60 FR
36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, 1-hour
ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour
ozone); 61 FR 31831 (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour
ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-
Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003)
(St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22,
2004) (San Francisco Bay Area, California, 1-hour ozone), 75 FR 6570
(February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1-hour ozone), 75 FR 27944
(May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction, California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and
have consistently upheld them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
    EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings,
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72
FR

20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also 75 FR 31288 (June 3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode
Island, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 62470 (October 12, 2010)
(Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 53219 (August 31,
2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75 FR 54778
(September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour ozone), 75
FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour
ozone), 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan
Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR 31273 (May 31, 2011)
(Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone), 76 FR
33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour
ozone), 76 FR 7145 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone), 77 FR 31496
(May 29, 2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-
hour ozone). See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-
Winston-Salem-High Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5), 75
FR 230 (January 5, 2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina,
1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville,
Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 1850 (April 5, 2011)
(Rome, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011)
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5), 76
FR 31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5), 76
FR 36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5),
76 FR 38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997
PM2.5), 76 FR 5542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-
Ashland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5), 76 FR
60373 (September 29, 2011) (Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997
PM2.5), 77 FR 18922 (March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-
Carlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
1997 PM2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\3\ As
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all RACM; RFP;
and implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet
deadlines for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as
not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an
area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan
demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General
Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide
for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to
attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' See also
Memorandum from John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
RACM as expeditiously as practicable''. Since RACM is an element of the
attainment demonstration, see General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the
same reason the attainment demonstration no longer applies by its own
terms, RACM also no longer applies to areas that EPA has determined
have attained the NAAQS. Furthermore, EPA has consistently interpreted
this provision to require only implementation of such potential RACM
measures that could advance attainment.\4\ Thus, where an area is
already attaining the standard, no additional RACM measures are
required. EPA's interpretation that the statute requires only
implementation of the RACM measures that would advance attainment was
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir. 2002) and by the
United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA,
294 F. 3d 155, 162-163, DC Cir. 2002). See also the final rulemakings
for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October 19,
2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble, see
57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155
(DC Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by definition, the
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the state will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency
measures are implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if
attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has
already achieved attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency
measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to
attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: ``The section
172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564.
Thus these requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the
standard.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice and comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for
Wisconsin to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, and it would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this proposed 2006 PM2.5 clean NAAQS data determination for
the Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
Matter, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-31290 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 68471-68473]
[DOCID:fr18no08-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58929; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.
Relating to the Definition of ``Market for the Underlying Security''

November 12, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 3, 2008, the NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\4\ proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1017, Openings in
Options, to replace references to the ``primary market'' in respect of
an underlying security with references to the ``market for the
underlying security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.phlx.com/regulatory/reg_rulefilings.aspx.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify the
circumstances under which the Exchange's electronic trading platform
for options, Phlx XL,\5\ would initiate an automated opening in a
particular option series upon receipt of the opening trade or quote in
the primary market for the underlying security, by more specifically
defining ``primary market'' in the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27,
2004), 69 FR 44612 (August 3, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Definition of ``Primary Market''

    Currently, Exchange Rule 100(b)31 defines the term ``primary
market'' in respect of an underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund
Share as the principal market in which the underlying stock or
Exchange-Traded Fund Share is traded.
    The Exchange believes that the current definition of ``primary
market'' in respect of an underlying security is not sufficiently
specific to capture the various marketplaces that might be determined
to be the ``primary market'' for such underlying security. Because
underlying securities trade on multiple exchange platforms and various
Electronic Commerce Networks (``ECNs'') and other venues, the term
``primary market'' has become increasingly difficult to define in
determining the principal market in which the underlying stock or
Exchange-Traded Fund Share is traded. In order to account for this
respecting openings in options, the Exchange intends to code its
automated opening system to open trading in options upon receipt of an
opening price on the ``market for the underlying security,'' as defined
more specifically below.

Market for the Underlying Security

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1017 by eliminating
the requirement that the Phlx XL automated opening system must receive
an opening price in the ``primary'' market for the underlying security
in order to open trading in the overlying options, and accordingly, to
adopt a definition of ``market for the underlying security'' in
proposed Rule 1017(k). Under the proposal, the term ``market for the
underlying security'' would mean either the primary listing market, the
primary volume market (defined as the market with the most liquidity in
that underlying security for the previous two calendar months), or the
first market to open the underlying security, as determined by the
Exchange on an issue-by-issue basis and communicated to members on the
Exchange's Web site.

Openings in Options

    The Exchange believes that this proposed definition should more
accurately capture the manner in which the Phlx XL system determines to
open a particular option series based on the opening trade or quote on
the primary market in the underlying security.
    Exchange Rule 1017, Openings in Options, currently lists various
scenarios that take place when a quote or trade has been disseminated
by the primary market for the underlying security. For example,
respecting the pre-opening phase of the Phlx XL automated opening
system, Rule 1017(b) states that the system will calculate an
Anticipated Opening Price (``AOP'') and Anticipated Opening Size
(``AOS'') in equity options when a quote or trade has been disseminated
by the primary market for the underlying security.\6\ Other sections of
Rule 1017 require an opening quote or trade in the ``primary market''
for the underlying security in order to open, and base the timing of
the opening on the dissemination of such a quote or trade by the
primary market for the underlying security.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The rule goes on to state generally that an AOP can only be
calculated when either (A) the specialist's quote has been
submitted; (B) the quotes of at least two Phlx XL participants have
been submitted within two minutes of the opening trade or quote on
the primary market for the underlying security in the case of equity
options; or (C) if neither the specialist's quote nor the quotes of
two Phlx XL participants have been submitted within two minutes of
the opening trade or quote on the primary market for the underlying
security in the case of equity options, one Phlx XL participant has
submitted their quote.
    \7\ Rule 1017(b)(iii) provides that the system will open the
series for trading within a time period not to exceed 5 seconds (as
determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership via
Exchange circular) following: (A) respecting equity options, the
dissemination of an opening quote or trade in the primary market for
the underlying security; or (B) respecting index options, following
the dissemination of a quote or trade by the primary markets for
underlying securities constituting 100% of the index value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has experienced situations where the ``primary
market'' for the underlying security in a particular series has been
delayed in disseminating an opening quote or trade when other markets
for the underlying security for the series have already disseminated an
opening quote or trade in such underlying security. If the Exchange
were to limit its definition of ``primary market'' for the underlying
security to mean the ``principal market in which the underlying stock
or Exchange-Traded Fund Share is traded,'' it would risk the
possibility that other options markets with more specific definitions
of the market in the underlying security whose opening quote or trade
would initiate an automated opening \8\ could open the particular
series, while the Exchange could not. This would place (and has placed)
the Exchange and its market participants at a distinct competitive
disadvantage concerning openings in options, because market prices for
options trading on other options exchanges would be established through
free trading while the Exchange establishes its options pricing on the
``primary market'' for the underlying security, which may not yet be
open for the affected series. Exchange participants could thus open an
option series at an opening price that is inferior to the price
established in free trade on away markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, Chicago Board Options Exchange Rule 6.2B, on
which the instant proposal is based, states, ``[U]nless unusual
circumstances exists (sic), at a randomly selected time within a
number of seconds after the opening trade and/or the opening quote
is disseminated in the market for the underlying security (or after
8:30 a.m. for index options), the System initiates the opening
rotation procedure and sends a notice (``Rotation Notice'') to
market participants. For purposes of this paragraph, the ``market
for the underlying security'' shall be either the primary listing
market, the primary volume market (defined as the market with the
most liquidity in that underlying security for the previous two
calendar months), or the first market to open the underlying
security, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis
and announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the term ``primary
market'' from the rule, together with the proposed definition of
``market for the underlying security,'' should capture the manner in
which the Phlx XL system will evaluate underlying prices, thus
preserving the Exchange's ability to compete with other options
exchanges respecting openings.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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, by adopting a definition of ``market for the underlying
security,'' thus ensuring that

the Exchange is on an even playing field with competing options
exchanges concerning openings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed definition of ``market for
the underlying security'' should enable Exchange options participants
to price options promptly and accurately at the opening of trading,
resulting in narrower spreads and deeper markets on the Exchange.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change will
provide it with more flexibility to determine when to permit the Phlx
XL automated opening system to begin, which should contribute to the
Exchange's ability to conduct openings in a fairly and orderly manner.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The proposed rule change is being designated by the Exchange as a
``non-controversial'' rule pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the
Act and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\12\ because the
proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) does not 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, provided that the Exchange has given
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change at least five business days prior to the filing of the proposed
rule change.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
filing of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed rule
change is based on the rules of another self-regulatory
organization,\16\ and this proposal does not raise any novel issues. In
addition, the Exchange states that it is being placed at a competitive
disadvantage because other exchanges are able to open trading in an
options series at times when the Exchange cannot. Allowing the proposed
rule change to become operative on filing will ensure that the Exchange
is on an even playing field with competing options exchanges concerning
openings. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56600 (October 2,
2007), 72 FR 57619 (October 10, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-88).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's effect on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-75 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-Phlx-2008-75. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. 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-
Phlx-2008-75 and should be submitted on or before December 9, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27282 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6278-6279]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

February 3, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP96-320-097.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Co submits a capacity release
agreement containing negotiated rate provisions executed with Texla
Energy Management, Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0478.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-320-098.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company submits Amendment to
Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement re the East Texas to Mississippi
Expansion Project.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-180.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
an amendment to an existing negotiated rate Transportation Rate
Schedule FTS Agreement with Tenaska Marketing Ventures.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0476.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-181.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
the Storage Rate Schedule NSS Agreements etc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0477.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-182.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
amendments to the Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement with Eagle
Energy Partners I, LP.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0479.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP04-274-014.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits 2nd
Substitute 6th Revised 18th Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff,
Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP06-298-008.
    Applicants: Public Service Commission of New York.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. submits its Semi-annual
Report of Operational Sales of Gas.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090130-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-42-001.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company submits tariff sheets for
inclusion in its tariff, proposed to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-272-087.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Co submits 15 Revised Sheet
66B.01 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-309-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 27 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090130-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-310-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC submits a negotiated
rate agreement under Rate Schedule FTS executed.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090130-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-311-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company submits First Revised
Sheet 272B et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/3/09.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0544.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-312-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 6 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 2/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0545.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-313-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company, LLC submits the
Interim Negotiated Rate Agreement re the Gulf Crossing Project.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-315-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 306 and 373 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-317-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 2200, and First Revised Sheet 3201 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume 1, to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-318-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Co submits 81 Revised Sheet 53 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-319-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 5225 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-320-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Millennium Pipeline Co, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 178 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective
3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-321-000.
    Applicants: MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C.
    Description: Markwest Pioneer, LLC submits its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 1 for the Arkoma Connector Pipeline to be effective 4/
1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2567 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P