[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3907-3908]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. PA-34; File No. S7-02-06]

Privacy Act of 1974: Establishment of a New System of Records:
Visitor Badge and Employee Day Pass System (SEC-52)

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of the establishment of a new system of records.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Securities and Exchange Commission
gives notice of a proposed Privacy Act system of records: ``Visitor
Badge and Employee Day Pass System (SEC-52).'' This system of records
will contain, among other things, records of Commission visitors,
employee day pass information and records related to the status of
trackable (special handling) mail.

DATES: The new system will become effective March 6, 2006 unless
further notice is given. The Commission will publish a new notice if
the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made
based on comment received. To be assured of consideration, comments
should be received on or before February 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

File Number S7-02-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-02-06. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/other.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. All
comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara A. Stance, Chief Privacy
Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission gives notice of the proposed
establishment of a new system of records, entitled ``Visitor Badge and
Employee Day Pass System (SEC-52).'' The new system will contain
records of Commission visitors, employee day pass information and
records related to the status of trackable (special handling) mail.
    The Commission has submitted a report of the new system of records
to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Office of Management
and Budget, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, and Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, ``Federal Agency
Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,'' as
amended on February 20, 1996 (61 FR 6435).
    Accordingly, the Commission is adding a new system of records to
read as follows:
SEC-52

SYSTEM NAME:
    Visitor Badge and Employee Day Pass System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    Visitors from the public, other Federal agencies, Commission
employees who require a Day Pass and Commission employees who pre-
register or authorize visitors. The system also covers individuals or
organizations that send and/or deliver trackable mail to the Commission
(e.g., express mail, courier mail, or other forms of mail that is
tracked from the sender to the recipient).

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
    Records may include name, photograph, signature, company name, the
number of the printed badge issued for each visit, visitor category,
business phone number, fax number, address, e-mail address, Web site if
available, other information from scanned business cards, and the
location, date, and time of entry to the secure Commission facility.
Records will also include the following information from scanned
driver's licenses: Date of birth, weight, height, color of hair and
eyes, date of expiration, and issuing jurisdiction (license numbers
will not be saved in the system). Further information contained within
the system will be the name and title of the person being visited, the
reason for the visit to the facility, notation of approved parking, and
the name, phone number and e-mail address of Commission personnel
requesting authorization for the visitor access. The system will
maintain check in and check out times, current status of visitor, and a
custom ID number assigned sequentially by the system software for each
visitor record. The software system and data base has a module for
tracking packages as well. Records include package check in time,
quantity of packages, name of employee to whom the package is
addressed, location of package, sender's name, type of package, added
description (if appropriate), carrier/agent delivering the package,
time and name of person to whom package is delivered (final destination
within the Commission), and a custom ID number assigned sequentially by
the system software for each visitor record.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    5 U.S.C. 301 and Executive Order 13231 of October 16, 2001 on
Critical Infrastructure Protection.

PURPOSE(S):
    This system was primarily designed to permit access to Commission
facilities by public visitors and representatives from other Federal
agencies. It is also used to issue day passes for Commission staff
members or contract employees who are not presently in possession of
their ID and need to enter the workplace to perform their duties. The
system is further used to record and monitor the status of trackable
(special handling) mail.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:
    These records and information contained in these records may be
disclosed as follows:
    (1) To the appropriate Federal, State or local agency responsible
for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute,
rule, regulation, or order, where the Commission or other appropriate
Federal, State or local agency may be aware of an indication of an
actual or potential health, safety or national security concern or a
violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or
regulation;
    (2) To another Federal agency, in connection with a court
proceeding when the Government is party to a proceeding before the
court or to an adjudicative tribunal when the Government is appearing
in a proceeding before that tribunal;
    (3) To a Federal, State, or local agency, in response to its
requests, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee,
the issuance of a security clearance, or the conducting of a security
or background investigation of an individual, to the extent that the
information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency;
    (4) To the Office of the Inspector General for investigating
allegations of abuse or misconduct, or to perform other functions
within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General; and
    (5) To the Commission Security Branch and/or the Office of the
Inspector General in routine and ad hoc reports to review visitor and
day pass activity and to assess compliance with established security
procedures and policies.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING,
AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
    Records are maintained in a computerized database and on paper.
Paper documents are kept in filing cabinets in secured facilities.

RETRIEVABILITY:
    By use of a database, records may be retrieved by the individual's
name, date of visit and/or badge number (as printed in the form of a
bar code on the badge).

SAFEGUARDS:
    Records are safeguarded by restricted computer passwords, locked
file cabinets, and safes.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
    Records are maintained in a computerized database and on paper.
Printed badges, and returned passes (and corresponding electronic
records) are destroyed three months after expiration, revocation, or
return to issuing office, as provided in the National Archives and
Records Administration's General Records Schedule No. 11, Item 4.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
    Chief of Security Branch, Office of Administrative Services,
Security Branch, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1627.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
    All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a
record pertaining to the requesting individual may be directed to the
Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Mail Stop 0-7, Alexandria,
VA 22312-2413.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Persons wishing to obtain information on the procedures for gaining
access to or contesting the contents of this record may contact the
Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Mail Stop 0-7, Alexandria,
VA 22312-2413.

CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:
    See record access procedures above.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Information is provided by the visitor seeking access to Commission
facilities to meet with Commission employees or contractors, by
Commission employees who pre-register visitors, and by Commission
employees or badged contractors who do not have their ID and yet seek
access to their workplace for official business. Additionally,
information is provided by individuals sending trackable (special
handling) mail. Information is further provided by carriers and/or
agents that deliver such mail. Persons who decline to provide the
requested information will be denied access.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    None.

    Date: January 18, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-805 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22148]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS04-286-003]

Exelon Corporation; Notice of Filing

April 16, 2008.
    Take notice that on November 26, 2007, Exelon Corporation, on
behalf of its subsidiary, Commonwealth Energy Company, filed additional
information in response to the Commission's October 26, 2007 Order in
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 24, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-8847 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53409-53411]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0842; Product Identifier 2018-CE-025-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2018-
04-09 for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrectly marked and
annunciated low oil-pressure indication warnings. We are issuing this
proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 7,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027,
Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; facsimile: +64 7
843 6134; email: [email protected]; internet:
www.aerospace.co.nz. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0842; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0842;
Product Identifier 2018-CE-025-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2018-04-09, Amendment 39-19205 (83 FR 9793, March 8,
2018) (``AD 2018-04-09'') to address an unsafe condition on Pacific
Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. AD 2018-04-09 was based on
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New
Zealand.
    Since we issued AD 2018-04-09, Pacific Aerospace Limited has
revised the airplane flight manual (AFM) (pilot's operating handbook).
The CAA revised its previous MCAI and issued CAA AD DCA/750XL/19A,
dated April 26, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
mandate the AFM revisions and also to include an option to modify the
oil pressure/temperature indicator. The MCAI states:

    DCA/750XL/19A revised to introduce revision 30 March 2018 for
PAL 750XL POH AIR3237, and clarify the AD requirements.

    We are proposing this AD to retain the replacement of the pressure
switch for the low oil pressure light and the oil pressure/temperature
indicator. We are also proposing to require the revised AFM provisions
and to clarify that you may modify the oil pressure/temperature
indicator instead of replacing the indicator.
    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0842.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Temporary Revision Instruction
Letter, dated October 2017, which includes Pacific Aerospace Temporary
Revisions XL/POH/00/001, XL/POH/02/001, and XL/POH/03/001; and Pacific
Aerospace Revision Instruction Letter, dated March 2018, which includes
Pacific Aerospace POH AIR 3237 Revision, dated March 30, 2018, for
750XL airplanes. For the applicable configurations, the service
information includes revisions to the AFM that corrects the incorrect
instrument markings.
    We also reviewed Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin
PACSB/XL/088, dated August 11, 2017, which was previously approved for
incorporation by reference on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 9793, March 8,
2018), and describes procedures for replacement or modification of the
low oil-pressure light, pressure switch, and indicator. 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 of the AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or

develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 22 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $500 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $14,740, or $670 per product.
    Since the proposed AD requires the same actions as AD 2018-04-09,
the costs of compliance remains the same and does not impose any
additional costs on U.S. operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    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 small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-19205 (83 FR
9793, March 8, 2018), and adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2018-0842; Product
Identifier 2018-CE-025-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 7, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-04-09, Amendment 39-19205 (83 FR 9793,
March 8, 2018) (``AD 2018-04-09'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, all serial numbers up to 217, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 79: Engine Oil.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrectly
marked and annunciated low oil-pressure indication warnings. We are
issuing this AD to prevent engine oil pressure from dropping below
safe limits, which could cause possible engine damage or failure.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this AD, as applicable:
    (1) For airplanes with Pacific Aerospace Pilot's Operating
Handbook and Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand Approved Flight
Manual AIR 2825 (AIR 2825): Within the next 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, insert Pacific Aerospace Temporary
Revisions XL/POH/00/001, XL/POH/02/001 and XL/POH/03/001 into AIR
2825 following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace
Temporary Revision Instruction Letter, dated October 2017.
    (2) For airplanes with Pacific Aerospace Pilot's Operating
Handbook and Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand Approved Flight
Manual AIR 3237, Issue 2 (AIR 3237): Within the next 30 days after
the effective date of this AD, remove the affected pages and insert
the revised pages, into AIR 3237 following the Accomplishment
Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Revision Instruction Letter, dated
March 30, 2018.
    (3) For Pacific Aerospace 750XL airplanes up to serial number
217: Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 12,
2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-04-09) or within the next 12
months after April 12, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-04-09),
whichever occurs first, replace or modify the pressure switch for
the low oil pressure light by following Part A--Accomplishment
Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/
XL/088, dated August 11, 2017 (PACSB/XL/088).
    (4) For Pacific Aerospace 750XL airplanes up to serial number
217 with a part number (P/N) INS 60-8 oil pressure/temperature
indicator installed: Within the next 100 hours TIS after April 12,
2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-04-09) or within the next 12
months after April 12, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-04-09),
whichever occurs first, replace the oil pressure/temperature
indicator with P/N INS 60-15 by following Part B--Accomplishment
Instructions in PACSB/XL/088, dated August 11, 2017, except you are
not required to return parts to the manufacturer.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must
instead be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or the Civil Aviation
Authority of New Zealand (CAA).

(i) Related Information

    Refer to CAA MCAI AD No. DCA/750XL/19A, dated April 26, 2018,
for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0842. Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton,
Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843
6144; facsimile: +64 7 843 6134; email: [email protected];
internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation
Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-
4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 5, 2018.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2018-22467 Filed 10-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 32668-32670]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60199; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 8, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
substantially prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3030 (Outside Business
Activities of an Associated Person) as FINRA Rule 3270 (Outside
Business Activities of Registered Persons) in the consolidated FINRA
rulebook with moderate changes. The proposed rule change would delete
Incorporated NYSE Rule 346 (Limitations--Employment and Association
with Members and Member Organizations) and its interpretations. The
proposed rule change would require registered persons to give notice to
member firms prior to engaging in an outside business activity (as
defined therein).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 3030 (Outside Business Activities of an Associated Person) as
FINRA Rule 3270 (Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons) in
the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with moderate changes. The proposed
rule change would delete NYSE Rule 346 \4\ (Limitations--Employment and
Association with Members and Member Organizations) and its
interpretations. However, as further described below, the proposed rule
change would incorporate certain provisions of NYSE Rule 346 into new
FINRA Rule 3270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The new FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
    \4\ For convenience, the proposed rule change refers to
Incorporated NYSE Rules as NYSE Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Proposed FINRA Rule 3270 (Outside Business Activities of Registered
Persons)

    Proposed FINRA Rule 3270 would prohibit any registered person from
being an employee, independent contractor, sole proprietor, officer,
director or partner of another person, or being compensated, or having
the reasonable expectation of compensation, from another person as a
result of any business activity outside the scope of the relationship
with his or her member firm, unless he or she has provided prior
written notice to the member. The proposed rule change would expand the
obligations imposed under NASD Rule 3030, which prohibits any
registered person from being employed by or accepting any compensation
from any person as a result of any outside business activity, other
than passive investment, unless he has provided prompt written notice
to his member firm. In contrast, NYSE Rule 346(b) generally prohibits
any member (as defined in the NYSE rules) or employee of a member
organization from being engaged in any other business, or being
employed or compensated by any other person, or serving as an officer,
director, partner or employee of another business organization or
owning any stock or having any direct or indirect financial interest in
any other organization engaged in any securities, financial or kindred
business unless such person has made a written request to, and received
prior written consent from, his or her member organization employer.
    The primary difference between the existing NASD and NYSE rules is
the timing of the required notice and the requirement in the NYSE rule
for a member's prior written consent. With respect to timing, FINRA
believes that registered persons should not be permitted to engage in
outside business activities without the firm's prior knowledge.
Potential investor harm could ensue in the interim period between the
time the registered person commences an outside business activity and
the time a firm receives ``prompt'' written notice. Also, because the
term ``prompt'' is susceptible to differing interpretations, adopting a
prior written notice standard in this context would promote consistency
within the securities industry, though FINRA understands that, in
practice, many firms already require prior written notice. Further, a
prior written notice standard would allow a firm an opportunity to
determine whether the proposed outside business activity is properly
being characterized by the registered representative as an outside
business activity, or whether it is an outside securities activity,
subject to NASD Rule 3040 (Private Securities Transactions of an
Associated Person).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA is proposing to replace NASD Rule 3040 with new
provisions in proposed FINRA Rule 3110(b)(3), as part of the
consolidated FINRA rules addressing supervision and supervisory
controls. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 08-24 (May 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, FINRA proposes that FINRA Rule 3270 require
prior written notice whenever a registered representative will be an
employee, independent contractor, sole proprietor, officer, director or
partner of another person, or will be compensated, or have the
reasonable expectation of compensation, from any other person as a
result of any outside business activity.
    With respect to the requirement in NYSE Rule 346(b) for prior
written consent, FINRA believes that requiring prior written consent
for outside business activities is unnecessary. To the extent that
these activities may

nevertheless raise investor protection concerns and adversely impact
the individual's business within the firm, the proposed rule change has
supplementary material, drawn in part from procedures required in NYSE
Rule 346(e), that sets forth the obligations of a member upon receipt
of a written notice of a proposed outside business activity. FINRA
believes that firms must review the registered person's participation
in the outside activity to determine whether it raises investor
protection concerns. Specifically, the supplementary material states
that a member must make a determination as to whether the proposed
activity raises investor protection concerns, and if so, the firm must
implement procedures or restrictions on the activity to protect
investors, or prohibit the activity. A member also must evaluate the
proposed activity to determine whether the activity properly is
characterized as an outside business activity or whether it should be
treated as an outside securities activity subject to the requirements
of NASD Rule 3040.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FINRA is proposing to replace NASD Rule 3040 with new
provisions in proposed FINRA Rule 3110(b)(3), as part of the
consolidated FINRA rules addressing supervision and supervisory
controls. See FINRA Regulatory Notice 08-24 (May 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also harmonizes and simplifies the
standards for what constitutes an outside business activity. Currently,
the NASD and NYSE rules have a number of overlapping provisions. NYSE
Rule 346(b) generally requires, subject to certain exceptions, written
notice whenever a member or employee of a member organization is
employed or compensated by any other person; serves as an officer,
director, partner or employee of another organization; or owns any
stock or has, directly or indirectly, any financial interest in any
other organization engaged in any securities, financial or kindred
business. NASD Rule 3030 generally requires notice whenever a
registered person is employed by or accepts any compensation from any
person as a result of any outside business activity, other than passive
investment. In reconciling these two standards, the proposed rule
change requires prior written notice whenever a registered
representative will be an employee, independent contractor, sole
proprietor, officer, director or partner of another person, or will be
compensated, or have the reasonable expectation of compensation, from
any other person as a result of any outside business activity. The
inclusion of the phrase ``or have the reasonable expectation of
compensation'' addresses situations in which an outside activity does
not immediately yield compensation (e.g., where a registered person
intends to work for a start-up business). FINRA believes that a
registered person should not be able to engage in an activity in which
he or she reasonably expects to be compensated without providing the
firm with prior written notice, and FINRA believes that a rule
dependent on the prior receipt of compensation is too narrow and may be
susceptible to abuse. Proposed Rule 3270 retains the exemptions in NASD
Rule 3030 for ``passive investments'' and activities subject to the
requirements of NASD Rule 3040.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA is separately considering NASD Rule 3050 (Transactions
for or by Associated Persons) as part of the rulebook consolidation
process and will consider whether transactions subject to NASD Rule
3050, as proposed to be amended, also should be exempted from
proposed FINRA Rule 3270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule would streamline the text by
replacing the phrase ``person associated with a member in any
registered capacity'' with ``registered person'' and would re-title the
rule ``Outside Business Activities of Registered Persons'' to better
reflect its application to registered persons.

(2) Deleted Provisions of Incorporated NYSE Rule 346 and Its
Supplementary Material and Interpretations

    FINRA proposes to delete other provisions of NYSE Rule 346 that are
unnecessary and/or duplicative of provisions in the federal securities
laws or the FINRA Rulebook and delete NYSE Rule Interpretations that
are unnecessary or inconsistent with Proposed Rule 3270.
    NYSE Rule 346(a) and related NYSE Interpretation 346/01 require
natural persons not associated with entities that are registered
broker-dealers to register with the SEC unless specifically exempted by
the Exchange Act. FINRA proposes to delete these provisions as
redundant in light of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 346(c) provides that where a member organization approves
an employee's participation in a private securities transaction in
which regard the employee has or may receive selling compensation, the
transaction shall be recorded on the books and records of the member
organization, which shall supervise such participation as if the
transaction were executed on its behalf. FINRA proposes to delete this
provision as redundant of NASD Rule 3040 (Private Securities
Transactions of an Associated Person).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 346(d) provides that no member shall qualify more than
one member organization for membership. This provision is inconsistent
with FINRA's approach to membership, which allows the same individual
to qualify more than one firm for membership, as appropriate. FINRA
examines separately the merits of each membership application and
proposes to delete the prohibition in the NYSE rule.
    NYSE Rule 346(e) requires every employee of a member organization
who is assigned or delegated any responsibility or authority pursuant
to NYSE Rule 342 to devote his entire time during business hours to the
business of such member organization unless an alternative arrangement
has been approved in writing by the member organization. FINRA believes
that the existing and proposed rules on supervision and outside
business activities adequately ensure that the member firm's business
is not adversely affected by outside activities. Moreover, associated
persons in the independent broker-dealer channel at times devote
substantial time to non-member business and this provision would create
unnecessary administrative burdens if applied to them. Accordingly,
FINRA proposes to delete this provision.
    NYSE 346(f) provides that unless otherwise permitted by the
Exchange, no member, member organization, approved person, employee or
any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under
common control with a member or member organization shall have
associated with him or it any person who is known, or in the exercise
of reasonable care should be known, to be subject to any ``statutory
disqualification'' defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act.\10\
In connection with FINRA's consolidation transaction, FINRA amended its
definition of disqualification in its By-Laws to align with the
Exchange Act definition, thereby incorporating additional categories of
statutory disqualification, including certain affiliated
relationships.\11\ Accordingly, FINRA proposes to delete NYSE Rule
346(f) as redundant.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
    \11\ For further discussion, see Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 59586 (March 17, 2009), 74 FR 12166 (March 23, 2009) (Order
Approving SR-FINRA-2008-045).
    \12\ This was confirmed in a conversation with Gary Goldshelle
of FINRA on June 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA proposes to delete NYSE Rule Interpretations 346/02
and/03, which address personal business expenses and factors to
consider when

approving outside activities, FINRA believes the Interpretations are
unnecessary or inconsistent with proposed FINRA Rule 3270. In
particular, the provisions in NYSE Rule Interpretation 346/02 requiring
a firm to assume responsibility for all activities effected on its
behalf and under its name are addressed by other FINRA rules, including
supervision rules. In addition, FINRA has chosen not to impose a
requirement for firms to approve all advertisements of an outside
business, although a firm may impose such restrictions as part of its
obligations under supplementary material .01. FINRA requires firms to
approve all advertisements for member firm business, even if an
advertisement relates to the firm's non-securities business; however,
FINRA does not believe that approval should be required for outside
business activities permitted under the proposed rule change.
    For the reasons noted above, FINRA proposes to transfer NASD Rule
3030 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with the changes described
herein. In addition, FINRA proposes to delete NYSE Rule 346 and its
interpretations from the Transitional Rulebook also as described
herein.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed rule change will clarify and streamline
NASD Rule 3030 for adoption as a FINRA rule in the new Consolidated
FINRA Rulebook, while also implementing additional protections such as
the need for registered persons to provide prior written notice to its
member firms of proposed outside business activities and for firms to
determine whether the proposed activities raise investor protection
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-042 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-042. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-042 and should be
submitted on or before July 29, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15996 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 34781]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14783]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'') will hold public roundtable discussions on
Thursday, June 16, 2011 at the CFTC's headquarters at Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public,
with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be
subject to security checks. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued
because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes panel discussions concerning
the definitions of ``swap dealer,'' ``security-based swap dealer,''
``major swap participant,'' and ``major security-based swap
participant'' in the context of certain authority that Section
712(d)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act granted the Agencies.
    For further information, please contact the CFTC's Office of Public
Affairs at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the SEC's Office of Public Affairs at
(202) 551-4120.

    Dated: June 9, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14783 Filed 6-10-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 36699-36700]
[DOCID:fr05jy07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1267-080]

Greenwood County, South Carolina; Notice of Application and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

June 27, 2007.
    a. Type of Application: Application to amend article 407 of the
project license.
    b. Project Number: Project No. 1267-080.
    c. Date Filed: May 22, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Greenwood County, South Carolina.
    e. Name of Project: Buzzard's Roost Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.
1267).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Saluda River in
Greenwood, Laurens and Newberry Counties, South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Charles M. Watson Jr., County Attorney,
County of Greenwood, 600 Monument St., Suite 102, Greenwood, SC 29646,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Chris Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: July 27, 2007.
    k. Description of Application: The applicant seeks approval to
amend article 407 of its project license to revise the schedule for
management of lake levels (rule curve). The licensee proposes to
commence filling the lake one month earlier in order to obtain a lake
elevation of 439 feet by March 15, provide steady lake levels during
fish spawning, and to maintain the lake at the summer level until
November 1 in order to facilitate late-season recreation. The licensee
also proposes to maintain the lake at its annual low from December 15
until January 1 of each year in order to provide a period for adjacent
landowners to work on permitted encroachments. Additionally, with the
exception of the fish spawning period from March 15 to June 30, the
licensee requests that it be allowed to fluctuate the reservoir within
6 inches above and below the levels determined by the rule curve to
provide for some peaking operation. The licensee states that it will
vary from article 407 to perform necessary maintenances, safely manage
flood flows, during operating emergencies, and to meet minimum flow
requirements under article 408.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (p-1267) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and

reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (p-1267-080). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-12933 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

03/12/2008 08:54 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johansson, Robert"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas
Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet
Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin
Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rob Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron
Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott
Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia
Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy
Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia
Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David
Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim
Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry
Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark
Corrales/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal
Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Norm Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat
Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Mason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Serpil
Kayin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J
Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Ozone Final RIA - Submission to OMB (ch. 3 and ch. 3 appendix)

Heidi,

   In the draft that we submitted for your, OPEI, and internal OAR
review last night, we noted that chapter numbers were being updated
concurrent to the review.  I am pleased to send this clean version
tonight that has correct chapter numbers, all appendices, and, to my
knowledge, has within it addressed all outstanding comments and issues
from all stakeholders.  Typically these chapters would make their way to
you via OPEI, however due to the unusual circumstances regarding our
deadline, and the need for after-hours delivery, there was no person
available at OPEI to transmit it, so I am cc'ing them for their records.

Please let me know if you have any trouble with the files.

Thanks,

Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I area of a specific landmark or panorama located
outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I area.'' Visibility in any
mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista associated with that
area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Alabama. In
addition, the Class I area in Alabama is neither experiencing RAVI, nor
are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the
Alabama regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two
requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions. However, Alabama previously made a
commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment
from an individual source.\19\ EPA proposes to find that this regional
haze submittal appropriately supplements and augments Alabama's RAVI
visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the
monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Alabama submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing
RAVI on November 20, 1985, which EPA approved on February 10, 1986
(51 FR 4908).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its July 15, 2008, submittal, ADEM updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed an LTS to address regional haze. Also
in this submittal, ADEM affirmed its commitment to complete items
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, ADEM made a
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, ADEM made a commitment to
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory
Class I area located within Alabama and in each mandatory Class I area
located outside Alabama which may be affected by emissions from within
Alabama. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP
revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of
the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for
RAVI and regional haze, Alabama will rely on the IMPROVE network for
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the
Alabama new source review (NSR) rules, previously approved in the
State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and
coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze)
in any federal Class I area.
    The original Alabama visibility SIP submitted to EPA November 20,
1985, addressing the NSR and monitoring strategy requirements in 40 CFR
51.307 and 40 CFR 51.305, respectively, was supplemented by an EPA
regulation (40 CFR 52.61) on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45138), which
incorporates 40 CFR 52.29 into the Alabama SIP and continues to be in
effect. Because the July 15, 2008, submittal appropriately addresses
the LTS requirements and supersedes these previous requirements, EPA is
proposing to rescind the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 and rely
on the provisions in Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal to meet
these requirements.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Alabama is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2. of this action, there
is currently one IMPROVE site in Alabama, which serves as the
monitoring site for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE
measurements are central to Alabama's regional haze monitoring
strategy. Each IMPROVE monitor represents a different airshed.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the July 15, 2008,
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Alabama states its intention
to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze
monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional
haze implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
Alabama is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited
monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress
toward regional haze goals. Such measurements include a
PM2.5 Federal Reference Method monitor.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate

consultation meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the
methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for
reasonable progress. The states invited FLM and EPA representatives to
participate and to provide additional feedback. The Directors discussed
the results of analyses showing contributions to visibility impairment
from states to each of the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    Additionally, ADEM hosted a meeting amongst the States of Alabama,
Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana in January 2007 to discuss issues
specific to the Breton Wilderness Area located in Louisiana. Also,
Louisiana participated in a June 2007 FLM/EPA meeting hosted by VISTAS
in Asheville, North Carolina, where each state discussed the process
used to evaluate sources for reasonable progress. ADEM also
participated in Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP)
meetings during development of its SIP to keep abreast of CENRAP's and
Louisiana's analyses and plans for Breton with respect to regional
haze.
    ADEM has evaluated the impact of Alabama sources on Class I areas
in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is
responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of
that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because many
of these states had not yet defined their criteria for identifying
sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, Alabama applied its AOI
methodology to identify sources in the State that have emissions units
with evaluated visibility impacts large enough at Class I areas outside
Alabama to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. Alabama
identified three non-EGU emissions units at two facilities in the State
as meeting its minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control
evaluation at two Class I areas outside of the State, i.e., Breton
Wilderness Area in Louisiana and St. Marks Wilderness Area in Florida.
Based on an evaluation of the four reasonable progress statutory
factors, Alabama determined that there are no additional control
measures for these three Alabama non-EGU emissions units that would be
reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas
in these neighboring states. Additionally, Alabama identified EGUs in
the State impacting Class I areas in the Joyce-Kilmer Wilderness area
in North Carolina (TVA-Widows Creek: Point ID 008); the Breton area in
Louisiana (Alabama Power Company--Barry: Point ID 002, 003, 004, 005);
and the Cohutta Wilderness Area in Georgia (TVA-Widows Creek: Point ID
009, 008). Since these EGUs are subject to CAIR, Alabama determined
that no additional SO2 controls beyond CAIR are reasonable
for this implementation period for these EGUs. ADEM has consulted with
these states regarding its reasonable progress control evaluations
showing no cost-effective controls available for those emissions units
in Alabama contributing at least one percent to visibility impairment
at Class I areas in the states. The documentation for these formal
consultations is provided in Appendix J of Alabama's SIP.
    In addition to Alabama's independent evaluation of the impacts of
its sources on neighboring states' Class I areas, the State received
letters from the States of Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, which
are included in Appendix J of Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal.
North Carolina's letter to Alabama, dated August 2, 2007, states that
there are no emissions units in North Carolina that contribute one
percent or greater to visibility impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness
Area. North Carolina identified one Alabama emissions unit, TVA-Widows
Creek (Point ID 008) in Jackson County, Alabama, as meeting North
Carolina's threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation, and
requested that Alabama share its reasonable progress control evaluation
for this unit. Because this unit is subject to CAIR and has a scrubber
already installed, Alabama has determined that no additional controls
beyond CAIR are reasonable for this unit for this first implementation
period. The letter from Georgia asked Alabama to share its final list
of emissions units for reasonable progress evaluation. Correspondence
from Florida in May 2007 initially identified four emissions units at
two Alabama facilities, Sanders Lead (Point ID 003 and 008) and
Continental Carbon Company (Point ID 003 and 008), on its working list
as meeting Florida's threshold for a reasonable progress control
evaluation. In November 2007, Florida sent the final list of units
meeting the State's threshold to evaluate for reasonable progress
control, which did not identify any units in Alabama.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I
areas in Alabama, the State identified two emissions units at Georgia
Power Company-Plant Yates that contribute one percent or greater to
visibility impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. These two EGUs are
subject to CAIR. Therefore, ADEM did not request further evaluation of
these units from the State of Georgia.
    As noted above, ADEM has consulted with Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and Louisiana regarding the emissions units in Alabama
contributing at least one percent to visibility impairment at Class I
areas in those states. The documentation for these formal consultations
is provided in Appendix J of Alabama's SIP and is also summarized in
the SIP Narrative. EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately
addressed the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately
documented its consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Alabama and the nine other member states
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze
plan for Alabama was out for FLM and EPA discussions in the November to
December 2007 period. Alabama subsequently modified the plan to address
FLM comments received in 2007 and provided the revised plan for full
public comment in the March to April 2008 time period. On the initial
November 2007 draft plan, the FLM comments expressed concern regarding
the State's proposal to use the glidepath data points as the RPGs for
the best and worst days at the Sipsey Wilderness Area instead of the
modeled levels, stating this does not meet the RHR. The State corrected
this approach in the proposed plan issued for public comment. The FLMs
requested that Alabama add more information from the appendices into
the main body of the SIP submittal regarding the impacts of sources
outside of the State on the Sipsey Wilderness Area and the impacts of
Alabama sources on out-of-state Class I areas. The State augmented the
SIP narrative with the requested information in the proposed plan
issued for public comment. To address the requirement for continuing
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), ADEM
made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on
regional haze issues throughout implementation of its plan. ADEM also
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources
subject to the State's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with 40
CFR 51.308(g), ADEM affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress

report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following
the initial submittal of the Alabama regional haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I
area located within Alabama and within each mandatory Class I area
located outside Alabama which may be affected by emissions from within
Alabama. ADEM also offered recommendations for several technical
improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS.
These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Alabama submittal
in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Alabama's SIP
needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate
consultation Alabama agrees, today's action may be revisited or
additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-
year progress report SIP revision.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Alabama
SIP submitted by the State of Alabama on July 15, 2008, as meeting some
of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described
previously in this action. Also in this action, EPA is proposing to
rescind the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were approved into
the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and to rely on the provisions in
Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the LTS requirements for
RAVI at 40 CFR 51.306.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have Federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4689 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 14, 2004

                     NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-12503

_____________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

1.  Application of FLORIDA WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. (Florida
West)

filed    5/27/04  for:

XX  Waiver of startup deadline in Order 2004-3-16 for U.S.-Ecuador
all-cargo services

2.  Application of ATLAS AIR, INC. (Atlas Air),  filed    5/28/04  for:

XX  Waiver of startup deadline in Order 2004-3-16 for U.S.-Ecuador
all-cargo services

Background:

By Order 2004-3-16, the Department, among other things: (1) granted to
Florida West five available frequencies to conduct scheduled
U.S.-Ecuador all-cargo air transportation services; and (2) granted to
Atlas Air six available frequencies to conduct scheduled U.S.-Ecuador
all-cargo air transportation services.  These awards were subject to the
condition that the carriers commence service with the frequencies no
later than June 14, 2004.  Once service was implemented, the frequencies
were subject to a 90-day dormancy condition whereby the frequencies
would expire and would revert automatically to the Department if they
were not used for a period of 90 days.

Applications for Waivers of the Startup Condition:

On May 27, 2004, Florida West filed an application in the captioned
docket for a waiver of the startup condition imposed by Order 2004-3-16,
and asked that the startup period be extended through September 15,
2004.   Florida West states that, although it has made substantial
progress with its application for Ecuadorian Government authority to
provide the services proposed in this matter, it will likely take an
additional 90 days for the Government of Ecuador to issue the subject
authority.  Florida West states that it is prepared to inaugurate the
proposed scheduled service to Ecuador as soon as it receives its
Ecuadorian authority.  (Applicant rep.:	 Marshall S. Sinick
(202)626-6651)

On May 28, 2004, Atlas Air filed an application in the captioned docket
for a waiver of the startup condition imposed by Order 2004-3-16, and
asked that the startup period be extended through September 15, 2004.
Atlas Air states that, although it has worked diligently to effect
certain required notifications and has compiled all the documents
necessary for the Ecuadorian Government authority to provide the
services proposed in this matter, it anticipates that it will take
several more months to receive the subject authority.  Atlas Air states
that it is prepared to inaugurate scheduled service to Ecuador as soon
as it receives its Ecuadorian authority.  (Applicant rep.:  Russell E.
Pommer<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Answers/Responsive Pleadings:

No party opposed the requests of Florida West or Atlas Air in this
matter.

											2

Disposition:

We are granting the applications filed by Florida West and Atlas Air for
waivers of the startup deadline imposed by Order 2004-3-16 in the 2002
U.S.-Ecuador All-Cargo Service Case, and are amending the startup
deadline through September 15, 2004, for frequencies allocated to
Florida West and Atlas Air in this matter.

We found that the requested waivers from the startup condition imposed
on Florida West’s and Atlas Air’s award in Order 2004-3-16 were in
the public interest in the circumstances presented; namely, that both of
the carriers have indicated on the record that they are working to
obtain the requisite Ecuadorian Government authority to commence
services as soon as possible, and that no party has opposed their
respective requests for waivers of the startup deadline.

The above action was effective when taken: June 11, 2004.

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy,  and (2) grant of the request(s) was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

  Florida West’s and Atlas Air’s extension of the startup deadline
is effective through September 15, 2004, or until the date on which
Florida West or Atlas Air begins service with each of their allocated
U.S.-Ecuador frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.  As to any frequency
with which Florida West or Atlas Air does not begin service by September
15, 2004, the allocation with respect to that frequency will expire
automatically.