[Federal Register: March 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 12233-12234]
[DOCID:fr06mr08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57401; File No. SR-Amex-2008-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Relating to the Exchange's
Options Fee Cap Pilot Program for Dividend Strategies, Merger Spreads,
and Short Stock Interest Spreads

February 29, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 20, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On
February 21, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.
The Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 on February 22, 2008, and
submitted Amendment No. 2 on February 27, 2008.\3\ Amex has designated
this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A),\4\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 deleted the references in the original
filing to the retroactive application of the Fee Cap Pilot Program
from February 1, 2008 through February 19, 2008.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex proposes to extend the Fee Cap Pilot Program for dividend
strategies, merger spreads, and short stock interest spreads (the ``Fee
Cap Program'') until February 1, 2009. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.amex.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
Fee Cap Program from February 19, 2008 through February 1, 2009. The
current Fee Cap Program expired on February 1, 2008.
    The Fee Cap Program provides that specialists, registered options
traders, non-member market makers, firms, and member and non-member
broker-dealers option transaction, comparison and floor brokerage fees
are limited to an aggregate fee of $100 for all dividend strategies,
merger spreads, and short stock interest spreads executed on the same
trading day in the same option class.\6\ Additionally, such fees are
also limited to $12,500 per month per initiating firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These fees are charged only to Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Exchange believes that the current Fee Cap Program has
been beneficial, and submits that an extension through February 1, 2009
is warranted. The Exchange asserts that the Fee Cap Program may
increase the trading opportunities for members and provide additional
business opportunities for the Exchange.
    Accordingly, the proposal seeks to extend the pilot through
February 1, 2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange submits that the proposed fee change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ regarding the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among exchange members and
other persons using exchange facilities. The Exchange believes that the
proposed extension of the current Fee Cap Program is beneficial to
market participants by providing additional trading opportunities at an
efficient cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\9\ since it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \10\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on February 27, 2008, the date on which Amex filed
Amendment No. 2. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Amex-2008-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-12. 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 Amex. 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 No. SR-Amex-2008-12 and should be
submitted on or before March 27, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4312 Filed 3-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18669-18672]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0184]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Newport River; Morehead City, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the establishment a safety zone on
the waters of the Newport River under the main span US 70/Morehead
City--Newport River high rise bridge in Carteret County, NC. This
safety zone is necessary to provide for safety of life on navigable
waters during the establishment of staging for bridge maintenance. This
rule will enhance the safety of the contractors performing maintenance
as well as the safety vessels that plan to transit this area.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0184 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail BOSN3 Joseph M. Edge, Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0184), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu

select ``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0184'' in the
``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in
the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
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
comments 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
and may change the rule based on your comments.

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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0184'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting 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.

Basis and Purpose

    The State of North Carolina Department of Transportation awarded a
contract to Astron General Contracting Company of Jacksonville, NC to
perform bridge maintenance on the US Highway 70 Fixed bridge crossing
Newport River at Morehead City, North Carolina. The contract provides
for cleaning, painting, and steel repair to begin on June 1, 2011 and
will be completed by July 31, 2011. The contractor requires the main
channel in the vicinity of the bridge to remain closed during
mobilization on June 30, 2011 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Coast Guard
will temporarily restrict access to this section of Newport River
during the mobilization of the bridge maintenance equipment.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters of the Newport
River directly under, latitude 34[deg]43'15'' North, longitude
076[deg]41'39'' West, and 100 yards on either side of the US Highway 70
Fixed bridge. All vessels are prohibited from transiting this section
of the waterway while the safety zone is in effect. Entry into the
safety zone will not be permitted except as specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. To seek
permission to transit the area, mariners may contact Sector North
Carolina at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This zone will be enforced from 10 a.m. to
4 p.m. on June 30, 2011.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 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.
    Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the
effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety
zone will be in effect for a limited time, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., on
June 30, 2011, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and
(iii) although the safety zone will apply to the section of the Newport
River in the immediate vicinity of the US Highway 70 Fixed bridge,
vessel traffic may use alternate waterways to transit safely around the
safety zone. All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can
be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of recreational and fishing
vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Newport River
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 30, 2011.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will only be in effect for six hours from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Although the safety zone will apply to the section of the Newport River
in the vicinity of the bridge, vessel traffic may use alternate
waterways to transit safely around the safety zone. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely
available to the users of the waterway.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact CWO3 Joseph Edge, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector North Carolina, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that

question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
this instruction. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a
temporary safety zone to protect the public from bridge maintenance
operations. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0184 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0184  Safety Zone: Newport River, Morehead City, North
Carolina.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: This zone
includes the waters of Newport River directly under, latitude
34[deg]43'15'' North, longitude 076[deg]41'39'' West, and 100 yards on
either side of the U.S. Highway 70 Fixed bridge at Morehead City, North
Carolina.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 of this part apply to the area described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through any
portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port, or a designated representative, unless the Captain
of the Port previously announced via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on
VHF Marine Band Radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz) that this regulation will
not be enforced in that portion of the safety zone. The Captain of the
Port can be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by radio on

VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10 a.m.
to 4 p.m. on June 30, 2011 unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of
the Port.

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
A. Popiel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2011-8005 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 75427-75428]
[DOCID:fr11de08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000]

AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC; Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C.; Notice
of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Proposed Sparrows Point LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project

December 5, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by
AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, L.L.C.
(collectively referred to as AES) in the above-referenced dockets. The
Project facilities would be located in Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil
Counties, Maryland, and in Lancaster and Chester Counties,
Pennsylvania.
    The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), the U.S. Coast Guard, (Coast Guard), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are cooperating agencies for the
development of this EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis.
    Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes
that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations, and with implementation of AES's
proposed mitigation measures, and the additional mitigation measures
recommended by staff, it would have mostly limited adverse
environmental impacts.
    AES proposes to construct and operate an LNG import terminal in an
industrial port setting on Sparrows Point, in Baltimore County,
Maryland. The LNG terminal would consist of facilities capable of
unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cubic meters (m\3\) of LNG
(10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the
LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion
cubic feet per day (Bcfd). The maximum potential gas sendout capacity
without expansion is 1.595 Bcfd. Mid-Atlantic Express proposes to
interconnect its pipeline with three existing interstate natural gas
pipelines by construction of a single, approximate 88-mile-long
pipeline north, to the vicinity of Eagle, Pennsylvania.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following LNG terminal and natural
gas pipeline facilities.
     A ship unloading facility, with two berths, capable of
receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 m\3\;
     Three 160,000 m\3\ (net capacity) full-containment LNG
storage tank, comprised of 9 percent nickel inner tank, pre-stressed
concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof;
     A closed-loop shell and tube heat exchanger vaporization
system;
     Various ancillary facilities including administrative
offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and a
platform control room;
     Meter and regulation station within the LNG Terminal site;
     Dredging an approximate 118 acre area in the Patapsco
River to -45 feet

below mean lower low water to accommodate the LNG vessels; and
     Approximately 88 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (approximately 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in
Pennsylvania), a pig launcher and receiver facility at the beginning
and ending of the pipeline, 10 mainline valves, and three meter and
regulation stations, one at each of three interconnection sites at the
end of the pipeline.
    The Project would also include the vessel transit from the LNG
vessel's entrance into U.S. territorial waters, through its transit to
and from the LNG terminal at Sparrows Point.
    The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Only volume 1 of the final EIS, containing text of the analysis,
was printed in hard copy. Volume 2, containing additional appendices,
was produced as .pdf files on a compact disk (CD) that can be read by a
computer with a CD-ROM drive. A limited number of hard copies and CDs
of the final EIS are available from the FERC's Public Reference Room,
identified above. This final EIS is also available for public viewing
on the FERC's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, via the
eLibrary link.
    Copies of this final EIS have been mailed to Federal, State, and
local agencies; elected officials; Indian tribes and Native American
organizations with an interest in the project area; interveners;
regional environmental organizations and public interest groups;
affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; and other
interested parties. Hard copies of volume 1 were mailed to those who
specifically requested them, while all others on the mailing list were
sent both volumes of the EIS on CDs.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372). The
administrative public record for this proceeding to date is on the FERC
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Go to Documents & Filings and
choose the eLibrary link. Under eLibrary, click on ``General Search,''
and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
Docket Number field (e.g., CP07-62). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet
Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription
link on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29361 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59030-59031]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 15, 2016, starting at 1:00
p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Arrange oral presentations by
September 08, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Conference Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikeita Johnson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on September 15, 2016, at the Federal
Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    The Agenda includes:

1. Recommendation Report
    a. Aircraft Systems Information Security/Protection Working Group
2. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. ARAC
    i. Air Traffic Controller Training Working Group
    ii. Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group
    iii. Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group
    iv. Load Master Certification Working Group
    v. Airman Certification Systems Working Group
    b. Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
    i. Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group--Transport Airplane Damage--Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation
    ii. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group--Phase 2 Tasking
    iii. Transport Airplane Crashworthiness and Ditching Evaluation
Working Group
    iv. Engine Harmonization Working Group--Engine Endurance Testing
Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
    v. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group
3. Status Report From the FAA

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than September
08, 2016. Please provide the following information: Full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen,
please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers are
responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by September 08, 2016 to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to
the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-20433 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42141-42143]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18796]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81502; File No. SR-IEX-2017-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees Pursuant to Rule 15.110

August 30, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is
hereby given that, on August 16, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC
(``IEX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant
to IEX Rule 15.110(a) to adopt pricing for orders that execute pursuant
to Rule 11.231 (Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-IEX-
Listed Securities). Changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, and will be operative once the
Exchange begins conducting the Regular Market Session Opening Process
for Non-IEX-Listed Securities (the ``Opening Process'').\6\ The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ See, IEX Trader Alert #2017-027 available at https://www.iextrading.com/trading/alerts/2017/027/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange Exchange recently filed and the Commission approved a
proposed rule change to Rule 11.231, which modified the Opening Process
for non-IEX-listed securities.\7\ The Exchange proposes to update its
Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to add a new Fee
Code ``X'' to identify the fee applicable to certain orders that
execute in the Opening Process. More specifically, orders that execute
in the Opening Process will receive the new Fee Code X on execution
reports as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81195 (July 24,
2017), 82 FR 35250 (July 28, 2017) (SR-IEX-2017-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Execution reports for non-displayed orders resting on the
Continuous Order Book that execute in the Opening Process will receive
new Fee Code X rather than Fee Code I.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that orders taking or adding non-
displayed liquidity prior to or after the Opening Process, will
continue to receive Fee Close I, either alone or in conjunction with
other applicable Fee Codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Execution reports for displayed orders resting on the
Continuous Order Book that execute in the Opening Process will continue
to receive Fee Code L and will also receive new Fee Code X.
     Execution reports for all orders on the Cross Book \9\
that execute in the Opening Process will receive new Fee Code X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 11.231(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to charge fees that are analogous to
existing fees for orders that execute in the Opening Process.
Accordingly, non-displayed orders on the Continuous Order Book and
orders on the Cross Book that are executed in the Opening Process will
receive Fee Code X on their execution reports and will be subject to a
fee of $0.0009 per share (or 0.30% of total dollar value of the
transaction calculated as the execution price multiplied by the number
of shares executed in the transaction for shares executed below $1.00).
Further, orders that were displayed on the Continuous Order Book during
the Pre-Market Session \10\ that are executed in the Opening Process
will receive new Fee Code X and existing Fee Code L, and will not be
charged a fee because, pursuant to the IEX Fee Schedule, to the extent
a Member receives multiple Fee Codes on an execution, the lower fee
shall apply.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 1.160(z).
    \11\ See IEX Fee Schedule, Transaction Fees, bullet three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Internalization Fee, Displayed Match
Fee for non-displayed orders that remove displayed liquidity, and the
exception to the Non-Displayed Match Fee for displayable orders that
remove non-displayed resting interest upon entry are not applicable to
the Opening

Process. As discussed below in the Statutory Basis section, the Opening
Process is a bulk execution without explicit counterparties.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) \13\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX believes that its proposed pricing for the Opening Process is
reasonable and equitable because the Exchange is proposing to charge
fees analogous to those already in place for orders executed on the
Exchange during continuous trading,\14\ while also accounting for
orders on the Cross Book executed in the Opening Process. Specifically,
non-displayed orders resting on the Continuous Order Book during the
Pre-Market Session that are executed in the Opening Process, as well as
orders on the Cross Book that are executed in the Opening Process, will
be charged the Opening Match Fee (which is equal to the existing Non-
Displayed Match Fee), while displayed orders on the Continuous Order
Book in the Pre-Market Session executed in the Opening Process will be
subject to the existing Displayed Match Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78550 (August 11,
2016), 81 FR 54873 (August 17, 2016) (SR-IEX-2016-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and
consistent with the Act to charge the Opening Match Fee (which is equal
to the existing Non-Displayed Match Fee) to orders on the Cross Book
that are executed in the Opening Process, because such orders
(regardless of display instruction) are queued and not displayed prior
to or during the Opening Process.\15\ Furthermore, as noted above, such
fee is consistent with the fee currently charged by the Exchange for
taking and providing non-displayed liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange notes that to the extent such orders are
unexecuted after the Opening Process, the Exchange would display
such orders consistent with their display instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Displayed Match Fee applicable to executions during
continuous trading also applies to a non-displayed order that removes
liquidity from a displayed resting order as counterparty, in the
context of the Opening Process (which is a bulk execution of multiple
buy and sell orders at a single price), the Exchange does not believe
that it is appropriate to provide the Displayed Match Fee to non-
displayed orders that execute in the Opening Process because there are
no explicit counterparties in a bulk execution. Similarly, the Exchange
does not believe that the exception to the Non-Displayed Match Fee for
displayable orders that take resting interest upon entry is applicable
in the context of the Opening Process since such orders are not able to
remove resting interest on entry in the Opening Process, because they
are either queued on the Cross Book and not displayed, or resting
displayed on the Continuous Order Book.\16\ Furthermore, as noted above
the Opening Process is a bulk execution of multiple buy and sell orders
at a single price, and thus there are no counterparties to distinguish
between liquidity provider and liquidity takers, or their respective
display status.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that it is possible for a displayed
order to remove non-displayed liquidity in the Pre-Market Session;
however, such execution would not be part of the Opening Process,
and would be subject to the exchanges existing fee schedule.
    \17\ See Rule 11.231(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable, and
consistent with the Act not to charge a fee for the execution of an
order that was displayed on the Continuous Order Book during the Pre-
Market Session prior to the Opening Process. As with the existing fee
structure for execution of transactions including displayed liquidity,
this fee structure is designed to incentivize Members to send IEX
aggressively priced displayable orders, thereby contributing to price
discovery, and consistent with the overall goal of enhancing market
quality. IEX believes that, as with the existing Displayed Match Fee,
not charging a fee for such a previously displayed order is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to facilitate
execution of, and enhance trading opportunities for, displayable
orders, thereby further incentivizing entry of displayed orders.
    Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed fees are
nondiscriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members and
all Members have the opportunity to submit both displayed and non-
displayed orders for execution in the Opening Process. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the Opening Process are
appropriate, reasonable, and consistent with the Act, because such fees
are within the range of transaction charged by other exchanges for the
opening process for non-listed securities.\18\ Further, although orders
that execute in the Opening Process may be subject to different fees,
for the reasons discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange notes
that other exchanges also charge differential pricing for orders that
execute in their opening process.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, the Nasdaq Stock Market charges fees ranging
from $0.0015-$0.00085 for orders executed in the Nasdaq Opening
Cross, including capping such fees at $35,000 per month for certain
members, which includes crosses for listed and non-listed securities
(see, https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2). Similarly, Bats EDGX Exchange
charges $0.0010 for orders executed in the EDGX opening or re-
opening process for non-listed securities priced above $1.00 (see,
http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed Fee Code X,
to be provided on execution reports, will provide transparency and
predictability to Members as to the applicable transaction fees,
because Members can determine which Fee Code is applicable to the
execution of a particular order in the Opening Process.
    In conclusion, the Exchange also submits that its proposed fee
structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act for the reasons discussed above in that it does not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers,
and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and in general to protect investors
and the public interest. Further, IEX believes that its proposal does
not raise any new or novel issues that have not previously been
considered by the Commission in connection with the existing IEX fees
or the fees of other national securities exchanges.

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

    IEX 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. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing
structure will increase competition and hopefully draw additional
volume to the Exchange for the Opening Process. The Exchange operates
in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as
more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited, and does not believe that such fees would burden competition
of Members or competing venues in a manner that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while
different fees are assessed in some circumstances, these different fees
are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that execute in
the Opening Process but on the type of order entered and all Members
can submit any type of order. Further, the proposed fees are intended
to encourage market participants to bring increased volume to the
Exchange, which benefits all market participants.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \20\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2017-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2017-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2017-28, and should be
submitted on or before September 27, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18796 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 69204]
[DOCID:fr07de07-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2686-054]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

November 30, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879) the Office of Energy Projects has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for an application filed by
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee) on January 16, 2007, requesting
Commission approval of a non-project use of project lands. The licensee
requests permission to grant to The Point at Lake Glenville (The Point)
a lease for 0.55 acre of project land and permission to install a
private cluster dock with a capacity of 10 watercraft at the Westfork
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2686). The project is located on the
West Fork of the Tuckasegee River near the town of Cashiers in Jackson
County, North Carolina. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
    The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from
approving the licensee's proposal to grant The Point a lease and
permission to replace an existing 5-slip private cluster dock with the
proposed 10-slip private cluster dock. The EA finds that approval of
the application would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http: //http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number (P-2686) 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed by January 2, 2008 and should be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the
project name and project number (P-2686) on all comments. Comments may
be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling''
link. For further information, contact Chris Yeakel at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23781 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57170-57171]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3563-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Rhode Island; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-3563-EM), dated August
21, 2021, and related determinations.

DATE: The declaration was issued August 21, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 21, 2021, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Rhode Island resulting from Hurricane Henri
beginning on August 20, 2021, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of Rhode Island.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance and reimbursement
for mass care including evacuation and shelter support.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benjamin
Abbott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Rhode Island have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Bristol, Kent, Newport, Providence, and Washington Counties and
the Narragansett Indian Tribe located within Washington County for
emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct
Federal assistance and reimbursement for mass care including
evacuation and shelter support.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22343 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


May 7, 2003 MEMORANDUM Subject: Consideration of non target ecological effects for Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis expressing the Cry34/ 35Ab1 binary insect control protein as expressed in corn as a part of Dow AgroSciences application for an Experimental Use Permit ( EUP); EPA Reg. No. 68467 EUP I.

To: Mike Mendelsohn, Regulatory Action Leader Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511C From: Robyn Rose, Entomologist Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511C Thru: Zigfridas Vaituzis, Ph. D., Microbiologist Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, 7511C Background Mycogen seeds c/ o Dow AgroSciences has requested an experimental use permit ( EUP) for the plant incorporated protectant ( PIP) Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis expressing the Cry34/ 35Ab1 Construct PHP17662 in field corn ( hereafter referred to as Cry34/ 35) to be planted from March 2003 to March 2004. According to Dow AgroSciences EUP request, 393.5 acres of Cry34/ 35 corn will be planted among 16 states in a total of 124 locations with no more than 104 acres planted in a state ( Table 1). No non target organism trials will be planted under this EUP.

Table 1. States and acreage of Cry34/ 35 corn to be planted under 68467 EUP I State Total Acres/ State Total Locations/ State MN 31 13 IA 46.5 20 SD 9 6 ND 6 2 WI 26 11 NE 27 13 IL 53 19 2 Table 1. Continued State Total Acres/ State Total Locations/ State IN 43 20 PR 14 3 HI 104 3 KS 6 3 MO 12 5 MI 5 1 OH 6 4 CO 5 1 TX 1 2 Totals 393.5 124 All test plants will be isolated from other parties' sexually receptive corn in accordance with USDA APHIS Performance Standards. Isolation will be achieved by planting Cry34/ 35 test plots at least 660 feet from other parties' sexually receptive corn, bagging or removing tassels prior to pollen shed, or temporal isolation.

Studies Submitted The non target organism studies submitted in support of a Section 3 registration are listed in Table 2. These studies were not reviewed for the EUP, but will be reviewed prior to granted a full commercial registration.

Table 2. Non target ecological effects studies submitted for Section 3 registration Title MRID PS149B1 Binary Insecticidal Crystal Protein: An 8 Day Dietary Study with the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum 457904 03 PS149B1 Binary Insecticidal Crystal Protein: An Acute Toxicity Study with the Daphnid, Daphnia magna Straus 457904 04 PS149B1 Binary Insecticidal Crystal Protein: Dietary Toxicity to Parasitic Hymenoptera ( Nasonia vitripennis) 457904 05 Assessment of Chronic Toxicity of Diet Containing Bacillus thuringiensis PS149B1 Insecticidal Crystal Protein to Collembola ( Folsomia candida) 457904 06 PS149B1 Insecticidal Crystal Protein: Dietary Toxicity of Green Lacewing larvae ( Chrysoperla carnea) 457904 07 Degradation of Microbial Lbinary PS149B1 Delta Endotoxin in a Representative Soil from the Mid Western USA Maize Growoing Region 452422 14 3 A lady beetle dietary toxicity study ( MRID 45242210), and tritrophic interaction study of PS149B1 corn, lady beetles and corn leaf aphids ( MRID 45242211) were submitted to the Agency and reviewed in a memorandum from Robyn Rose to Mike Mendelsohn May 15, 2001. The May 15, 2001 review also includes a non target species hazard assessment.

Conclusions Based on the limited total acreage, small individual plots and isolation requirements, adverse effects to non target invertebrate and vertebrate organisms are not expected from planting Cry34/ 35 corn under this EUP. However, additional studies to those listed in Table 1 should be conducted and submitted to the Agency for review prior to a full commercial registration.

Avian A six week chicken broiler study with the chickens fed starter diets to day 17, grower diets to day 31 and finisher diets to day 42 ( 50 60 % transgenic corn) should be conducted and submitted for EPA to review. A control study with non transgenic corn in the standard diets should be run concurrently.

Mammalian Wildlife Acute oral toxicity ( MRID Nos. 452422 07, 452422 08, 452422 09), in vitro digestibility ( MRID No. 452422 12), in vitro simulated gastric fluid digestibility ( MRID No. 455845 02) and a SDSPAGE sensitivity analysis in support of the simulated gastric fluid digestion study ( MRID No. 457904 08) studies have been submitted to the Agency in support of registering Cry34/ 35 field corn. These submissions will be considered as part of the risk assessment for mammalian wildlife toxicity.

Non target Plants Since the active ingredient in this product is an insect toxin that has never shown any toxicity to plants, these studies have been waived for this product. In addition, there is no evidence of transfer of any gene, including introduced genes, to organisms other than those with which corn is sexually compatible. In addition, there are no weedy relatives of corn in the U. S.

Non target invertebrates Honey Bees: Honey bee larval acute toxicity studies should be conducted and submitted to the Agency for review prior to a full commercial registration. This study should be conducted through adult emergence.

Lady Beetles: Lady beetle studies were submitted ( MRID Nos. 452422 10 and 452422 11) and reviewed in the May 15, 2001 memo. Although the adult lady beetle studies are acceptable, the 4 lady beetle larvae acute toxicity test should be repeated with purified protein. The test previously submitted to the Agency included feeding aphids that had fed on Cry34/ 35 corn to lady beetles. However, it has been shown that aphids do not ingest Bt protein from plants because they are phloem feeders and the Bt protein is not expressed in the phloem. Therefore, lady beetle larvae were not exposed to Bt protein in the submitted study ( MRID No. 452422 11). Since Cry35 is not expressed in pollen of Cry34/ 35 field corn, lady beetle larvae tests should be conducted with purified protein. According to the August 2002 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP), Coleomegilla maculata is the most likely lady beetle to be affected by coleopteran active Bt proteins. Therefore, Tier 1 lady beetle dietary toxicity studies should be conducted with C. maculata.

Green Lacewing: The Tier 1 green lacewing dietary toxicity study was conducted by feeding lacewing larvae moth egg diet coated with Bt Cry34/ 35 protein ( MRID No. 457904 07). However, the August 2002 SAP concluded that this protocol is an inappropriate and/ or inadequate method to test the potential impact of Cry proteins on the green lacewing. The SAP also recommended, and the Agency agrees, that the minute pirate bug ( Orius insidiosus) is a more appropriate test organism than the green lacewing. Therefore, a Tier 1 dietary toxicity test should be conducted with the minute pirate bug prior to full commercial registration of Cry34/ 35.

Parasitic Hymenoptera: The August 2002 SAP stated that "[ t] he relevancy of the hymenopteran parasitoid Nasonia vitripennis is questionable because it is a gregarious pupal endoparasitoid of dipteran hosts and it rarely, if ever, occurs in corn. A different species of hymenopteran might have been appropriate." Since the parasitic Hymenoptera Tier 1 dietary toxicity study submitted to the Agency for review utilized Nasonia vitripennis ( MRID No. 457904 05), and additional non target insect study should be conducted prior to full commercial registration. A more appropriate hymenopteran should be considered such as Macrocentrus grandii or Trichogramma sp. In lieu of, or in addition to, conducting an additional Tier 1 dietary toxicity study with an additional parasitic Hymenoptera, a test could be conducted with a carabid ground beetle. A carabid would be an appropriate indicator organism for a coleopteran active Bt corn such as Cry34/ 35.

Field Studies: In addition to conducting additional Tier 1 laboratory tests with appropriate indicator organisms such as Orius insidiosus, Macrocentrus grandii, Trichogramma sp. and/ or a Carabid ( e. g., Pterostichus sp.), field studies should be conducted that evaluate the potential adverse effects of growing Cry34/ 35 corn at a commercial scale. Field studies should evaluate potential effects at varying trophic levels ( e. g., plant feeders, predators, parasitoids, decomposers). In addition, an appropriate non target coleopteran ( e. g., Tetraopes milkweed beetle) that may be unintentionally exposed to Cry34/ 35 should be evaluated.

Earthworm and Collembola Although an earthworm study is not required for full commercial registration, the Agency recognizes their importance as decomposers living in the soil. Therefore, conducting an 5 earthworm dietary toxicity study is recommended prior to commercialization of Cry34/ 35. A collembola study has been submitted to the Agency for review ( MRID No. 457904 06).

Fish The requirement for a static renewal toxicity study for freshwater fish is normally waived based on a lack of exposure of fish to Bt proteins produced in corn. Exposure from corn pollen, if it does take place, will be of a very short duration and quantity and is not expected to have any detectable effect on freshwater fish. An 8 Day Dietary Study with the Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) has been submitted to the Agency for review ( MRID No. 457904 03)

Aquatic Invertebrates Published and in house data for Bt crystal protein containing corn show that Bt crystal proteins have no measurable deleterious effects on Daphnia magna, a sensitive aquatic invertebrate species. An Acute Toxicity Study with the Cledoceran Daphnia magna has been submitted tot he Agency for review ( MRID No. 457904 04).

Estuarine and Marine Animals The estuarine fish and shrimp studies are not required for this product because of very low potential for exposure.

Endangered Species Based on the previously submitted Cry protein toxicity and exposure data there will not be a " may effect" situation for endangered mammals, birds, plants and aquatic species. All endangered/ threatened insect species that are susceptible to Cry34/ 35 ( e. g., coleopterans) may be adversely affected if exposed. In the case of Cry34/ 35 protein, the test plots for the proposed EUP program must not be near the habitats of endangered beetle ( coleopteran) species since these may be adversely affected if exposed to the Bt protein in the soil or through pollen consumption. An assessment of potential impacts on endangered species should be conducted and submitted to the Agency for review prior to full commercial registration.

Soil Fate The potential accumulation and/ or persistence of Cry34/ 35 in soil should be evaluated prior to full commercial registration. This should be done by determining the DT 50 or time to 50% degradation of Cry34/ 35 protein in varying soil types. In particular the DT 50 in a " worst case scenario" should be determined. Since Cry proteins have been shown to readily bind to clay soils and persist longer at low pH, the DT 50 of Cry34/ 35 should be determined in soils with a high clay content. Studies should include insect bioassays with a sensitive species such as the Colorado potato beetle as well as an ELISA for comparative purposes. 6 Additional field studies should be conducted after full commercial registration. Field studies should be conducted in a variety of soil types and should utilize fields that have had Cry34/ 35 corn grown for three consecutive years. Persistence of Cry34/ 35 in the soil should be monitored close to the soil surface ( e. g., 12  18 inches deep) as well as deep in the soil ( e. g., several feet below surface level) where microbial activity is reduced. Sampling should occur immediately after anthesis as well as post harvest and should continue until no Bt protein is detected.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59314]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25434]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG- 2018-1022]

Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95 Above
Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks
display located between mile marker (MM) 94 and (MM) 95, above Head of
Passes. This action is needed to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 will be enforced from 8:15
p.m. through 9:15 p.m. on December 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin
Morgan, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
located in 33 CFR 165.845 for the fireworks display from 8:15 p.m.
through 9:15 p.m. on December 29, 2018. This action is being taken to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this
event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard
District, Sec.  165.845, specifies the location of the regulated area
between mile markers 94 and 95 above Head of Passes on the Lower
Mississippi River. If you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated
area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any
Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the local notice to mariners and marine information
broadcasts.

    Dated: November 16, 2018.
K.M. Luttrell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2018-25434 Filed 11-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to ask you to extend the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. Please take serious consideration to extend the comment period to a total of 180 days.

Seventy-Five days is not enough time for me personally to formulate and address all the issues that need to be tackled.

As a former tobacco user, vaping has allowed me to immediately stop using cigarettes and gradually wean myself off the use of nicotine. I work in a hospital emergency room and have seen hundreds of smokers suffering from the effects of smoking. I have not seen one patient suffering the effects of vaping or use of e-cigarettes.

This letter is to implore you to extend the time frame so advocates of vaping can get the word out.

Thank you for your attention.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14310-14312]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0222; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-007-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Eurocopter France Model AS350 helicopters. This proposed AD is
prompted by an in-flight fire caused by ignition of hydraulic fluid
leaking from a damaged forward (pitch) servo-control hydraulic hose.
The proposed actions are intended to prevent the forward servo-control
hydraulic hoses from becoming damaged and leaking hydraulic fluid that
could ignite in flight, which can result in loss of main rotor control,
power loss, structural damage, propagation of fire, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.
2011-0033, dated March 1, 2011 (AD 2011-0033) to correct an unsafe
condition for the Eurocopter AS350 B, BA, BB, D, B1, B2, and B3
helicopters with a single hydraulic power system and forward (pitch)
servo-control hydraulic hoses part number (P/N) 704A34-412-033 (other
reference manufacturer's part number (MP/N) 675-102-05-01) and P/N
704A34-412-035 (other reference MP/N 675-102-06-01) installed. EASA

advises that an in-flight fire in the main gearbox compartment occurred
on an AS350B2 helicopter, ``caused by ignition of hydraulic fluid
leaking from a hydraulic hose that had been damaged following an
electrical fault in a circuit located in the compartment, which is not
fire protected. An in-flight fire in the main gearbox compartment
during a continued flight, when undetected or where a landing could not
be performed immediately, could result in loss of hydraulics, shutdown
of the engine because of fire effects, and damage to the Main Rotor (M/
R) control system.'' This condition, if not prevented, could lead to
loss of M/R control, power loss, structural damage, propagation of fire
into the cabin or other compartments, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter. For these reasons, AD 2011-0033 requires installation
of protection sleeves on the affected hydraulic hoses.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
their AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 29.00.13, dated
July 26, 2010 (ASB 29.00.13), which specifies installing two siliconed
glass wool sleeves over both forward main rotor servo-control hydraulic
hoses. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2011-0033 to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 30 days, installing
protection sleeves over the forward (pitch) servo-control hydraulic
hoses in accordance with paragraph 2.B.2 of ASB 29.00.13.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to the Eurocopter Model AS350 BB. The proposed
AD does not, as this model is not type certificated in the U.S.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 695 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Disconnecting the servo control hoses,
installing the protective sleeves, reconnecting the hoses, and testing
for interference requires one work hour at an average labor rate of $85
per hour. Required parts cost $212, for a total cost of $297 for each
helicopter. Based upon these costs, we estimate a total cost to the
U.S. operator fleet of $206,415.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Eurocopter France Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2012-0222; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-007-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350D, AS350B1, AS350B2, and AS350B3 helicopters, certificated in
any category, with a single hydraulic power system and either of the
following forward (pitch) servo-control hydraulic hoses installed:
Part number (P/N) 704A34-412-033 (other reference manufacturer's
part number (MP/N) 675-102-05-01), or P/N 704A34-412-035 (other
reference MP/N 675-102-06-01); excluding those helicopters that have
been modified in accordance with modification 074238.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as unprotected forward
(pitch) servo-control hydraulic hoses, which could become damaged
and leak hydraulic fluid that could ignite in flight. This condition
could result in loss of main rotor control, power loss, structural
damage, propagation of fire into the cabin or other compartments,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 days, install sleeve P/N 706A34-402-225 over
hydraulic hose P/N 704A34-412-033 and sleeve P/N 706A34-402-224 over
hydraulic hose P/N 704A34-412-035 in accordance with Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 2.B.2, of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin
No. 29.00.13, dated July 26, 2010.
    (2) Do not install an affected hydraulic hose on any helicopter
without a sleeve in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this AD.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this

AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency AD No. 2011-0033, dated March 15, 2011.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900: Hydraulic
Power System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 24, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-5620 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P