[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43629-43632]
[DOCID:fr27au09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0477; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-191-AD;
Amendment 39-16003; AD 2009-18-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD,
-200B, and -300 Series Airplanes; and Model 747SP and 747SR Series
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That
AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in
various areas of the fuselage internal structure, and related
investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires
additional repetitive inspections for cracking of certain fuselage
structure, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
This AD results from fatigue tests and analysis by Boeing that
identified areas of the fuselage where fatigue cracks can occur. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the structural integrity of the
fuselage, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 1, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 1,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-20-30, amendment
39-14327 (70 FR 59252, October 12, 2005). The existing AD applies to
certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24712). That NPRM proposed
to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in
various areas of the fuselage internal structure, and related
investigative/corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed
to require additional repetitive inspections for cracking of certain
fuselage structure, and related investigative/corrective actions if
necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been
received on the NPRM. Boeing concurs with the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the
public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 209 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80
per work hour.

                                             Table--Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Cost per
                                                                Work    airplane, per  Number of U.S.-   Fleet
                           Action                              hours     inspection      registered       cost
                                                                            cycle         airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (required by AD 2005-20-30).....................      130         $10,400              69   $717,600
Additional inspections in Area 1 (new action)...............        6             480              69     33,120
Additional inspections in Area 6 (new action)...............        1              80              69      5,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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); and
    (3) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14327 (70 FR 59252, October 12, 2005) and by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2009-18-07 Boeing: Amendment 39-16003. Docket No. FAA-2009-0477;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-191-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective October 1, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2005-20-30.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes;
certificated in any category; identified in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fatigue tests and analysis by Boeing
that identified areas of the fuselage where fatigue cracks can
occur. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of the structural
integrity of the fuselage, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2002-10-10 With Revised Service
Information (Excluding Upper Deck Floor Beams)

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after June 11, 1993 (the effective date
of AD 93-08-12, amendment 39-8559, which was superseded by AD 2002-
10-10), whichever occurs later, unless accomplished previously
within the last 2,000 flight cycles; and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 3,000 flight cycles: Perform an internal detailed
inspection to detect cracks in the areas of the fuselage internal
structure specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD;
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2349, dated June
27, 1991; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 1,
dated October 12, 2000; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2349,
Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008. After the effective
date of this AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2349 may be used. Continue doing the inspections until the
inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD are done.
    (1) Section 42 upper lobe frames.
    (2) Section 46 lower lobe frames.
    (3) Section 42 lower lobe frames.
    (4) Main entry door cutouts.
    (5) Section 41 body station 260, 340, and 400 bulkheads.
    (6) Main entry doors.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

    (h) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after June 11, 1993, whichever is later,
unless already done within the last 2,000 flight cycles; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles: Do an
internal detailed inspection to detect cracks in the Section 46
upper lobe frames, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53-2349, dated June 27, 1991; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003; or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008.
After the effective date of this AD, only

Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349 may be used.

Repair of Cracks Detected During Paragraph (g) or (h) Inspections

    (i) Before further flight, repair any cracks detected during the
inspections done per paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD by doing the
actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method
approved in accordance with paragraph (p) of this AD.
    (2) Repair in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008. After the
effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2349 may be used. Where either revision of the
service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, repair in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO; or use a method approved in accordance with
paragraph (p) of this AD.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2005-20-30 With Revised Service
Information

Repetitive Inspections

    (j) Do an internal detailed inspection to detect cracking in the
areas of the fuselage internal structure specified in paragraphs
(j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, and internal and external
detailed inspections of the areas specified in paragraphs (j)(4),
(j)(5), (j)(6), and (j)(7) of this AD. Do the inspections in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 2,
dated April 3, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349,
Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008. After the effective date of this
AD, only Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349 may
be used. Do the inspections at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishment of these inspections
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) Section 42 upper lobe frames.
    (2) Section 46 lower lobe frames.
    (3) Section 42 lower lobe frames.
    (4) Main entry door cutouts.
    (5) Nose wheel well bulkheads, sidewall panels, and station
(STA) 360 and 380 floor beams. These areas include Section 41 body
station 260, 340, and 400 bulkheads.
    (6) Main entry doors.
    (7) Main electronics bay access door cutout.
    (k) Do the inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3)
of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
    (1) For airplanes on which the inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(6) of this AD
have been done before November 16, 2005 (the effective date of AD
2005-20-30), but the inspections required by paragraphs (j)(5) and
(j)(7) of this AD have not been done: Within 3,000 flight cycles
since accomplishment of the most recent inspection required by
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(6) of this AD,
except that the inspections specified in paragraphs (j)(5) and
(j)(7) of this AD may be done within 3,000 flight cycles since
accomplishment of the most recent inspection required by paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(6) of this AD, or within
1,000 flight cycles after November 16, 2005, whichever is later.
    (2) For airplanes on which the inspections required by
paragraphs (j)(5) and (j)(7) have been done before November 16,
2005: Within 3,000 flight cycles since accomplishment of the most
recent inspection required by paragraphs (j)(5) and (j)(7) of this
AD, or within 1,000 flight cycles after November 16, 2005, whichever
is later.
    (3) For airplanes on which the inspections required by paragraph
(g) of this AD have not been done before November 16, 2005: Prior to
the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000
flight cycles after November 16, 2005, whichever is later.

Repair of Cracks Detected During Paragraph (j) Inspection

    (l) Before further flight, repair any cracking found during any
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 2, dated April 3,
2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3,
dated October 2, 2008. After the effective date of this AD, only
Revision 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349 may be used.
Where any revision of the service bulletin specifies to contact
Boeing for repair instructions, repair in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or use a method approved in
accordance with paragraph (p) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspections and Repair

    (m) Do initial and repetitive detailed inspections for cracking
in the areas specified in Table 1 of this AD using applicable
internal and external detailed inspection methods; and repair all
cracks, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008, except as required by
paragraph (n) of this AD. Do the initial and repetitive inspections
at the times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the
service bulletin, except as required by paragraph (o) of this AD.
Repair all cracks before further flight after detection.

                     Table 1--Additional Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the addition portion of area 1 and
    area 6 as specified in Boeing Alert      For airplanes identified as
 Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3,   these groups in the service
   dated October 2, 2008 (``the service              bulletin--
               bulletin'')--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Area 1: Fuselage frames at body          1 through 7 inclusive.
 stations 260-520 in areas where the upper
 deck floor beams are attached (Figure 11
 of the Accomplishments Instructions of
 the service bulletin).
In Area 6: Fuselage frames at body          6 and 7.
 stations 400-500 in areas above the Main
 Entry Door 1 cutouts, from the upper
 chord of the upper deck floor beams to
 Stringer 8 (Figure 12 of the
 Accomplishment Instructions of the
 service bulletin).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exceptions to Certain Procedures

    (n) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008, specifies to contact
Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the
crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
    (o) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3,
dated October 2, 2008, specifies a compliance time after the date on
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October
2, 2008, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance
time after the effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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: Ivan Li, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail
information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-20-30
are approved as AMOCs with the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair

required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option
Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be
approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (q) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349,
Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008, as applicable, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20579 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60203-60205]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23655]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73239; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 32 to the
Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis Submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc.,
BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities
Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT, LLC

September 26, 2014.
    Pursuant to Rule 608 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ notice is hereby given that on September 12, 2014, the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, on behalf of Participants
\2\ in the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the
Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and
Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on
Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan''
or ``Plan'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') an amendment to the Plan.\3\ This amendment represents
Amendment No. 32 to the Plan and reflects changes unanimously adopted
by the Plan's Participants. The amendment proposes to change certain of
the voting requirements under the Plan. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on the proposed
Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \2\ The Plan Participants (collectively, ``Participants'') are
the: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''); BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.(``BATS
Y''); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'');
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''); EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''); EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''); Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''); International Securities
Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''); NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX''); Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'');
National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX''); New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca''); and NYSE MKT LLC.
    \3\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for each of its
Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the
current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It
enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current
prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves
as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants,
which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible Securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007) 72 FR
20891 (April 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Rule 608(a)

1. Purpose of the Amendment

    The amendment proposes to change certain of the voting requirements
under the Plan. The changes seek to harmonize voting requirements under
the Plan with voting requirements under the CTA Plan and the CQ Plan.
The Participants understand that the Participants under the CTA Plan
and the CQ Plan intend to submit certain changes to the voting
requirements under those plans to cause them to harmonize with voting
under the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
    The voting requirements that this amendment seeks to revise include
the following:
     To change the voting requirement needed to eliminate an
existing fee, or to reduce an existing fee, from unanimity to the
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Participants entitled to vote;
     to change the voting requirement needed to request system
changes other than those related to the processor function from a
unanimous vote to the affirmative vote of a majority of all
Participants entitled to vote;
     to change the voting requirement needed to approve
procedures for selecting a successor processor from unanimity to the
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Participants entitled to vote;
     to establish that selecting a new processor requires the
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all Participants entitled to vote;
     to change the voting requirement needed if the Plan does
not specify another voting requirement from unanimity to the
affirmative vote of a majority of all Participants entitled to vote.
(a) Fee Setting
    In the Participants' view, a two-thirds vote of the Participants,
rather than unanimity, is the appropriate voting requirement for the
Participants to eliminate or reduce an existing fee. The Plan currently
requires a unanimous vote to eliminate a fee. The change with respect
to eliminating a fee would harmonize that voting requirement with the
voting requirements under the CTA and CQ Plans.
    The Plan currently requires a unanimous vote to reduce a fee. The
CTA and CQ Plans also require unanimity to reduce a fee. However, the
Participants understand that the Participants under the CTA and CQ
Plans intend to amend those plans to require a two-thirds vote to
reduce a fee. In addition, subjecting fee reductions to a two-thirds
vote would harmonize the Plan with the counterpart requirement under
the OPRA Plan.
    The Participants note that, after the amendment to the Plan and the
anticipated amendments to the CTA and CQ Plans, all three plans will
require a two-thirds vote to add, delete or eliminate a fee or to
establish a new fee. These changes would provide the Participants with
greater flexibility in respect of the plan's fee schedule.
(b) System Changes
    The Plan currently requires a majority vote to approve system
changes related to the processor function, but requires a unanimous
vote to approve other system changes. The Participants do not believe
that this anomaly is warranted. Rather, in their view, the Plan should
subject all system changes to the same voting requirement. They believe
that that voting requirement should be a majority vote. A majority
voting requirement rather than unanimity would afford the Participants
greater flexibility and make it easier for the Participants to arrive
at decisions regarding necessary system upgrades and changes. The
Participants note that the CTA Plan, the CQ Plan and the OPRA Plan all
require a majority

vote for decisions relating to system changes.
(c) Processor Selection Procedures
    Section V (E) of the Plan sets forth a series of guidelines for the
Participants to follow in establishing procedures for selecting a new
processor. That section currently subjects the Participants' approval
of those procedures to a two-thirds majority vote. In the Participants'
view, a majority vote of the Participants, rather than a two-thirds
vote, is the appropriate voting requirement for approval of the
procedures for selecting a new processor. This vote is only to
establish the selection procedures. Because the Participants may have
divergent views on the form that those procedures should take, a
majority vote makes it easier for the Participants to arrive at a
decision. The Participants note that the CTA Plan, the CQ Plan and the
OPRA Plan all require a majority vote for decisions relating to
procedures for selecting a new processor.
(d) Processor Selection
    The Plan does not currently specify the voting requirement for
selecting a new processor. Since the Plan is silent, the applicable
voting requirement would be the requirement that applies to matters for
which the Plan does not specify a voting requirement. That default
voting requirement is currently unanimity, but, as discussed above, the
amendment seeks to change that to a majority vote. The Participants
believe that a unanimous vote could make it too difficult for the
Participants to arrive at a decision and that a matter as significant
as selecting a Plan processor should require more than a simple
majority vote. In their view, a two-thirds majority vote strikes the
right balance of requiring a strong consensus without allowing a single
Participant or a small number of Participants to block the selection of
a new processor.
(e) Default Voting Requirement
    The Plan currently requires a unanimous vote in respect of any
matter for which the Plan does not specify a voting requirement. This
requirement can make it unwieldy for the Participants to act, as all
Participants do not always agree on every matter. The Participants
believe that the affirmative vote of a majority of Participants
provides greater flexibility and facilitates their ability to take
action under the Plan. They note that the CTA Plan, the CQ Plan and the
OPRA Plan all require majority votes to act on matters for which those
plans do not specify a voting requirement.

2. Governing or Constituent Documents

    Not applicable.

3. Implementation of Amendment

    All of the Participants have manifested their approval of the
proposed amendment by means of their execution of the amendment. The
Plan amendment would become operational upon approval by the
Commission.

4. Development and Implementation Phases

    Not applicable.

5. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed
plan amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory
for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.

6. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of,
or Participation in, Plan

    Not applicable.

7. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan

    See Item A(3) above.

8. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed
Amendment

    Not applicable.

9. Terms and Conditions of Access

    See Item A(1) above.

10. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and
Charges

    See Item A(1) above.

11. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

12. Dispute Resolution

    Not applicable.

B. Rule 601(a)

1. Reporting Requirements

    Not applicable.

2. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and
Disseminating Last Sale Information

    Not applicable.

3. Manner of Consolidation

    Not applicable.

4. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness
of Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

5. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative
Dissemination

    Not applicable.

6. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports

    Not applicable.

7. Identification of Marketplace of Execution

    Not Applicable.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission seeks general comments on Amendment No. 32.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-24-89 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of
the submission, all written statements with respect to the proposed
Plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed Plan amendment between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for Web
site viewing and printing at the Office of the Secretary of the
Committee, currently located at the CBOE, 400 S. LaSalle Street,
Chicago, IL 60605. 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 S7-24-
89 and should be submitted on or before October 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23655 Filed 10-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16023-16024]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13806-001]

5440 Hydro, Inc.: Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13806-001.
    c. Date Filed: January 17, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: 5440 Hydro, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Upper Ammonoosuc River, near the Town of
Groveton in Coos County, New Hampshire. No federal lands are occupied
by the project works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Lutz Loegters, 5440 Hydro, Inc.,
717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Ramer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. 5440 Hydro, Inc. filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on January 17, 2012. 5440 Hydro, Inc. provided public
notice of its request on January 17, 2012. In a letter dated March 13,
2012, the Acting Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing
approved 5440 Hydro, Inc.'s request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the New Hampshire
State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106,
National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations
of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. 5440 Hydro, Inc. filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6523 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15092-15096]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 401

[USCG-2007-0039]
RIN 1625-AB23

2008 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: As required by statute, the Coast Guard has reviewed and is
updating the rates for pilotage service on the Great Lakes for the 2008
navigation season. We are increasing pilotage rates an average 8.17%
over the last ratemaking that was completed in September 2007. This
rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard strategic goals of maritime safety,
protection of natural resources, maritime security, and maritime
mobility.

DATES: This interim rule is effective March 21, 2008. Comments and
related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before
April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0039 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this interim rule,
please call Mr. Paul Wasserman, Chief, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch,
Commandant (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax 202-
372-1929, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Dockets Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

     I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
     II. Effective Date
     III. Background and Purpose
     IV. Discussion of Comments
     V. Discussion of the Interim Rule
     VI. Regulatory Evaluation

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in
view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039)
in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

D. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

II. Effective Date

    This interim rule takes effect upon publication in the Federal
Register. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Coast Guard finds good cause for
this interim rule to take effect less than 30 days after

publication. Congress mandates that Great Lakes pilotage rates be
reviewed and adjusted annually by March 1. This interim rule cannot be
issued until some time after that date, but we expect it to be issued
close to the beginning of the 2008 Great Lakes shipping season in late
March. If the interim rule takes effect upon publication, the
Congressional intent for rate adjustments before the shipping season
opens will essentially be met. Although the public comments received in
response to our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 73 FR 6085, Feb.
1, 2008) raised several substantive issues that will require some
additional time for the Coast Guard to review and to properly address
in a final rule, several comments pointed to the need for early rate
adjustment, and there is no question that a rate adjustment at least as
large as that proposed in the NPRM is fully justified. Therefore, to
delay implementation of a rate adjustment that is unquestionably
justified, and that Congress intended the Coast Guard to make in time
for the annual resumption of Great Lakes shipping is both unnecessary
and contrary to the public interest, and the Coast Guard finds good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this interim rule to take effect upon
its publication in the Federal Register.

III. Background and Purpose

    The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, codified in Title 46, Chapter
93, of the United States Code (U.S.C.), requires foreign-flag vessels
and U.S.-flag vessels in foreign trade to use Federal Great Lakes
registered pilots while transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the
Great Lakes system. 46 U.S.C. 9302, 9308. The Coast Guard is
responsible for administering this pilotage program, which includes
setting rates for pilotage service. 46 U.S.C. 9303.
    The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of
pilotage rates and the creation of a new rate at least once every five
years, or sooner, if annual reviews show a need. 46 CFR part 404.
Annual reviews ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to cover
the annual projected allowable expenses, target pilot compensation, and
returns on investment of the pilot associations. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f)
requires that we conduct these reviews and make appropriate rate
adjustments by March 1 of every shipping season.
    To assist in calculating pilotage rates, the three Great Lakes
pilotage associations are required to submit to the Coast Guard annual
financial statements prepared by certified public accounting firms. In
addition, every fifth year, in connection with the full ratemaking, the
Coast Guard contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct
audits of the accounts and records of the pilotage associations and to
submit financial reports relevant to the ratemaking process. In those
years when a full ratemaking is conducted, the Coast Guard generates
the pilotage rates using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. Between the
five-year full ratemaking intervals, the Coast Guard annually reviews
the pilotage rates using Appendix C to 46 CFR Part 404, and adjusts
rates as appropriate.
    The last ratemaking was completed by publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register on September 18, 2007 (72 FR 53158). The annual
review following the 2007 ratemaking showed a need to adjust rates for
the 2008 Great Lakes shipping season. That adjustment was the subject
of the NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2008.

IV. Discussion of Comments

    The Coast Guard received six comments in response to the NPRM. The
comments raised several issues that we considered substantive and which
will require the Coast Guard to conduct additional review to properly
address.
    Public comments on the NPRM suggested that:
     We should revise our monthly multiplier from 49.5 to 54.5
days;
     We should apply the AMO wage rate and health insurance
adjustments that are in effect on August 1, 2008;
     The projected bridge hours for Areas 2, 4, and 5 are too
high when compared to their 2007 actual bridge hours experience;
     We need to address the Riker Report on Great Lakes
pilotage ratemaking and revise the bridge hours standards;
     We should increase our calculations for the length of the
navigation season from 270 days to 284 days;
     We should raise our weighting factor for smaller vessels
from 1.0 to 1.15 in order to align with the Canadians current system of
weighting factors;
     We should further justify our proposal for clarifying the
duty of compliance with lawful orders; and
     We should place supporting financial and contract
documents in the public docket.
    At the same time, commenters also commended the Coast Guard for
acting to put new rates in place early in the 2008 shipping season and
urged us to implement the rate adjustment as soon as possible. We agree
that action as close to the beginning of the shipping season as
possible is very important, and we acknowledge that Congress has set a
March 1 deadline for taking that action.
    Although the comments on the NPRM indicate a possible need for
further rate adjustments in 2008, there is no question that a rate
increase at least as large as that proposed in the NPRM is fully
justified. Therefore, we are issuing this interim rule in order to make
the presently justified rate adjustments as close as possible to the
beginning of the 2008 Great Lakes navigation season. Other issues
raised by the public in their comments will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule which we hope to issue by this summer.

V. Discussion of the Interim Rule

    This interim rule puts into place, without modification, the rate
changes that were proposed in the NPRM. Because we are implementing
this portion of the NPRM proposals without modification, we will not
repeat the extended discussion of these changes that appears in the
NPRM. We are increasing pilotage rates in accordance with the
methodology outlined in Appendix C to 46 CFR Part 404. The rate changes
for each individual pilotage Area are shown in Table 1. They average
8.17% across all Areas. For a full discussion of how rate changes were
calculated, see pages 6087 through 6094 of the NPRM.
    Based upon comments received, we are withholding implementation of
the amendments proposed to 46 CFR Sec. Sec.  401.700 and 401.710 to
clarify the obligation imposed on Great Lakes registered pilots and
authorized pilotage pools to fully and professionally cooperate in the
course of performing their duties with U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard
units and personnel, vessel traffic service personnel, and other lawful
authority. Upon final review, we will determine whether these
amendments should be implemented.

                    Table 1.--2008 Area Rate Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Then the
                                                            percentage
           If pilotage service is required in:            increases over
                                                            the current
                                                             rate is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1 (Designated waters)..............................            7.78
Area 2 (Undesignated waters)............................            8.41
Area 4 (Undesignated waters)............................            8.50
Area 5 (Designated waters)..............................            7.98
Area 6 (Undesignated waters)............................            8.37
Area 7 (Designated waters)..............................            7.83
Area 8 (Undesignated waters)............................            8.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Evaluation

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

A. Regulatory Analysis

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The changes proposed in the February 1, 2008 NPRM have not been
modified for this interim rule. The cost and population data contained
in the NPRM analysis is also unchanged for this interim rule.
Consequently, we adopt the analysis from the NPRM for this interim
rule. This rule puts into place the 8.17 percent average rate
adjustment for the Great Lakes system over the rate adjustment found in
the 2007 final rule. The annual cost of the rate adjustment in this
rule to shippers is approximately $1.0 million (non-discounted). The
total five-year present value cost estimate (2008-2012) of this rule to
shippers is $4.4 million discounted at a seven percent discount rate
and $4.7 million discounted at a three percent discount rate. We use a
five-year cost estimate because the Coast Guard is required to
determine and, if necessary, perform a full adjustment of Great Lakes
pilotage rates every five years.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The analysis of the impact to small entities in the NPRM resulted
in a finding that the proposed changes would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since we received no
comments pertaining to small entities and the analysis has not changed,
we adopt the NPRM's analysis for this interim rule. Therefore, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of U.S.
small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call Paul Wasserman, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch,
(CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or send him e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520),
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that
contains a collection of information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection of information requirements include
reporting, record keeping, notification, and other similar
requirements.
    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not change the burden in the
collection currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism because there are no similar State regulations, and the
States do not have the authority to regulate and adjust rates for
pilotage services in the Great Lakes system.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

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

require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

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

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have
concluded that this action is not likely to have a significant effect
on the human environment and that there are no factors in this case
that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2
of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph 34(a)
pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural
in nature. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable
statutory and regulatory mandates. A final ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR part 401 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 46 CFR 401.105
also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

0
2. In Sec.  401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (a), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405  Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and
Lake Ontario.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Service                         St. Lawrence River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pilotage.......................  $14 per Kilometer or $25 per
                                        mile.\1\
Each Lock Transited..................  $310.\1\
Harbor Movage........................  $1,016.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
  River is $678, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
  $2,976.

    (b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Service                           Lake Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................................            $517
Docking or Undocking....................................             493
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  401.407 revise paragraphs (a) and (b), including the
footnote to Table (b), to read as follows:

Sec.  401.407  Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable
waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Lake Erie
                                             (East of
                 Service                     Southeast        Buffalo
                                              Shoal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................            $695            $695
Docking or Undocking....................             536             536
Any Point on the Niagara River below the             N/A           1,368
 Black Rock Lock........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toledo or
                                                               any point
                                                                on Lake
               Any point on or in                 Southeast    Erie west     Detroit      Detroit     St. Clair
                                                    Shoal          of         River      Pilot Boat     River
                                                               Southeast
                                                                 Shoal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of               $1,835       $1,084       $2,382       $1,835          N/A
 Southeast Shoal...............................
Port Huron Change Point........................    \1\ 3,195        3,702        2,400        1,867        1,327
St. Clair River................................    \1\ 3,195          N/A        2,400        2,400        1,084
Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River........        1,835        2,382        1,084          N/A        2,400
Detroit Pilot Boat.............................        1,327        1,835          N/A          N/A       2,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.

0
4. In Sec.  401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  401.410  Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior, and the St Mary's River.

* * * * *
    (a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Lakes Huron
                         Service                           and Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................................            $519
Docking or Undocking....................................             493
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Area                                    De Tour        Gros Cap       Any Harbor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap........................................................          $1,853             N/A             N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario......           1,853            $698             N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel            1,553             698             N/A
 Corporation Wharf..............................................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI............................................           1,553             698             N/A
Harbor Movage...................................................             N/A             N/A            $698
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Service                           Lake Superior
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period.........................................            $503
Docking or Undocking....................................             478
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  401.420  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  401.420--
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the number ``$86'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$93''; and remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$1,459''.
0
b. In paragraph (b), remove the number ``$86'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$93''; and remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$1,459''.
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number ``$510'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$552''; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number
``$86'' and add, in its place, the number ``$93''; and, also in
paragraph (c)(3), remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$1,459''.

Sec.  401.428  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  401.428, remove the number ``$520'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$562''.

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
James Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine
Safety, Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. 08-1063 Filed 3-18-08; 4:02 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47620-47621]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PJM):

PJM Regional Transmission Planning Task Force/PJM Interconnection
Process Senior Task Force

August 10, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
September 7, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
September 17, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
October 8, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
October 29, 2012, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
The above-referenced meeting will be held over conference call or at:
The PJM Conference & Training Center, Norristown, PA.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4070, RITELine Indiana et. al.
Docket No. ER11-2875 and EL11-20, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1589, FirstEnergy Service Company
Docket No. ER10-549, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company
Docket No. EL12-38, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2140, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-2622, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-3106, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER11-4379, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-445, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-773, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-718, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1177, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1693, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1700, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-1901, GenOn Power Midwest, LP
Docket No. ER12-2080, GenOn Power Midwest, LP
Docket No. ER12-2085, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2260, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2880, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For more information, contact Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6604 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19527 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P