[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 239 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64055-64056]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26923]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; FRL-9987-74-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Michigan Minor New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the rescission of Michigan rule 221 from the Michigan state
implementation plan (SIP). Rule 221 exempted sources that had
significant net emission increases of sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, and carbon monoxide from offset requirements. Michigan
rescinded this rule effective November 14, 1990.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1092 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP
include a program to provide for the ``regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved.'' This includes a program for permitting
construction and modification of both major and minor sources that the
State deems necessary to protect air quality. The State of Michigan's
minor source permit to install rules are contained in Part 2 (Air Use
Approval) of the Michigan Administrative Code. Changes to the Part 2
rules were submitted on November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April 3, 1998;
September 2, 2003; March 24, 2009; and February 28, 2017. EPA approved
changes to the Part 2 rules most recently in a final approval dated
August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485).

    Rule 336.1221 (Construction of sources of particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, or carbon monoxide in or near nonattainment areas;
conditions for approval).
    EPA published a proposed disapproval of the 1993, 1996, and 1996
submittals on November 9, 1999 (64 FR 61046), but never published a
final disapproval. As part of that proposed disapproval, EPA conducted
an evaluation of the State submittal and found that as one of the
items, the State failed to rescind Michigan rule 336.1221. In that
action, EPA stated, ``Michigan rule 336.1221 impermissibly exempts
sources that have significant net emissions increases of sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide from offset
requirements. MDEQ rescinded Michigan rule 336.1221 effective November
14, 1990. However, the State never submitted the rule to USEPA for
rescission. Because Michigan did not submit the rescission to the USEPA
for removal of the rule from the SIP, the Michigan NSR rules are not
approvable at this time.''
    On September 24, 2003, the State of Michigan submitted a SIP
revision to EPA requesting full approval of Michigan's Clean Air Act
New Source Review SIP. As part of that submittal requesting revisions
to Parts 1 (General Provisions) and 2, Michigan specifically requested
to rescind rule 336.1221. As part of its technical support document,
Michigan stated that rule 336.1221 was rescinded from the State rules
in 1990, and requests that EPA remove it from the SIP.
    At the time of the 1999 proposed disapproval, the Part 2 rules also
included the state's major nonattainment PTI permitting program. The
major nonattainment provisions have been removed from Part 2, and are
now covered by the Part 19 (New Source Review for Major Sources
Impacting Nonattainment Areas) rules. The Part 19 rules were fully
approved by EPA into the Michigan SIP on December 16, 2013, (78 FR
76064). The Federal nonattainment air quality permitting regulations
are found in 40 CFR 51.165(a) and (b). The Federal rules found at 40
CFR 51.165(a) and (b) specify the elements necessary for approval of a
State permit program for preconstruction review for nonattainment
purposes under Part D of the Clean Air Act. A major source or major
modification that would be located in an area designated as
nonattainment and subject to the nonattainment area permitting rules
must meet stringent conditions designed to ensure that the new source's
emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree possible; that more
than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will be obtained from
existing sources; and that there will be progress toward achieving the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has found that the rules as
submitted by Michigan for inclusion into its SIP are at least as
stringent as the Federal rules. By rescinding rule 221 from the
Michigan SIP, the Michigan SIP is meeting the Federal statutory
requirements for an approvable Part 2 and Part 19 air permitting
program.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of Michigan rule
336.1221 from the Michigan SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 27, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-26923 Filed 12-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 69614]
[DOCID:fr16no05-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 52753/November 9, 2005]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Order Regarding Alternative Net
Capital Computation for Lehman Brothers Inc., Which Has Elected To Be
Supervised on a Consolidated Basis

    Lehman Brothers Inc. (``LB''), a broker-dealer registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), and its ultimate
holding company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (``LBHI''), have
indicated their desire to be supervised by the Commission as a
consolidated supervised entity (``CSE''). LB, therefore, has submitted
an application to the Commission for authorization to use the
alternative method of computing net capital contained in Appendix E to
Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1e) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'').
    Based on a review of the application that LB submitted, the
Commission has determined that the application meets the requirements
of Appendix E. The Commission also has determined that LBHI is in
compliance with the terms of its undertakings, as provided to the
Commission under Appendix E. The Commission, therefore, finds that
approval of the application is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.
    Accordingly,
    It is ordered, under paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR
240.15c3-1) to the Exchange Act, that LB may calculate net capital
using the market risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction
for market risk on some or all of its positions, instead of the
provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) and (c)(2)(vii) of Rule 15c3-1, and
using the credit risk standards of Appendix E to compute a deduction
for credit risk on certain credit exposures arising from transactions
in derivatives instruments, instead of the provision of paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) of Rule 15c3-1.

    By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6327 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 76335]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30946]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
December 10, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30946 Filed 12-4-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34867]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0477]
RIN 1625-AA-09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Intracoastal Waterway (ICW);
Beach Thorofare, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Margate Bridge, at ICW mile 74, across Beach Thorofare at Margate, New
Jersey. The deviation is necessary to sandblast, paint and make repairs
to the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to provide partial
vessel openings.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on October 1, 2008, to
11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0477 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st
Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra S. Elliott, Bridge
Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subcontractor on behalf of the Margate
Bridge Company, who owns and operates this double-leaf bascule
drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5 that requires the bridge
to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to
open is given.
    Margate Bridge, located at ICW mile 74, across Beach Thorofare at
Margate, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to
vessels of 14 feet above mean high water (MHW).
    The Coast Guard reviewed the 2007 bridge logs provided by the
Margate Bridge Company. The logs recorded approximately 79 vessel
openings granted in October, 34 vessel openings granted in November and
4 vessel openings granted in December of last year.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will provide partial
openings of the lift spans for vessels. The maintenance and repairs
require immobilizing half of the draw span to single-leaf operation
each day, beginning 7 a.m. on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, until and
including 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, December 31, 2008, with a work barge
occupying one-half of the 58-foot wide channel under the bridge, so
passage through the bridge will be limited to a 29-foot width for the
duration of the project. The opposite connecting span while not under
repair will continue to open for vessels if at least a half-hour
advance notice is given to the bridge tender at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
marine radio on channel 13 VHF. Mariners requiring the full opening of
the lift spans or the full width of the channel under the bridge will
be directed to use the Atlantic Ocean as the alternate route between
Absecon and Great Egg Harbor Inlets.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the partial openings of the
draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 11, 2008.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-13879 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 70995-70996]
[DOCID:fr24no08-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-9-000]

Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. Complainant v. Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Respondent; Notice of
Complaint

November 18, 2008.
    Take notice that on November 12, 2008, Wabash Valley Power
Association, Inc. (Complainant) filed, pursuant to sections 206 and 212
of the Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212, a
second complaint and motion for consolidation, or alternatively, motion
for extension of refund period against Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc. (Respondent) alleging that the Revenue
Sufficiency Guarantee charge allocation provisions of the Respondent's
tariff are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory, and should
be revised. Complainant also requests that the Commission establish the
earliest possible refund-effective date with respect to the requested
revisions.
    The Complainant states that copies of the complaint were served
upon the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27818 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63226-63227]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1137]

GlaxoSmithKline LLC; Withdrawal of Approval of the Indication for
Treatment of Patients With Relapsed or Refractory, Low Grade,
Follicular, or Transformed CD20 Positive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Who
Have Not Received Prior Rituximab; BEXXAR

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of the indication for treatment of patients with relapsed or
refractory, low grade, follicular, or transformed CD20 positive non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma who have not received prior rituximab, for BEXXAR
(tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab) Injection held by
GlaxoSmithKline LLP, P.O. Box 5089, 1250 South Collegeville Rd.,
Collegeville, PA 19426 (Glaxo). Glaxo has voluntarily requested that
approval of this indication be withdrawn and has waived its opportunity
for a hearing.

DATES: Effective October 23, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA approved BEXXAR on June 27, 2003, for
the treatment of patients with CD20 positive, relapsed or refractory,
low-grade, follicular, or transformed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who have
progressed during or after rituximab therapy. On December 22, 2004, FDA
approved a new indication to include patients who have not received
prior rituximab (the rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication) under the
Agency's accelerated approval regulations for biological products, 21
CFR part 601, subpart E.
    On December 13, 2011, FDA requested that Glaxo voluntarily withdraw
the rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication for BEXXAR (tositumomab and iodine
I 131 tositumomab) Injection because the postmarketing study intended
to verify clinical benefit and required as a condition of approval
under part 601, subpart E was not completed. Withdrawal of approval of
the rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication does not otherwise affect the
approved indication for BEXXAR.

    On April 23, 2012, Glaxo submitted a prior approval labeling
supplement requesting removal of the rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication
for BEXXAR (tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab) Injection from
the package insert. In the cover letter accompanying the supplement,
Glaxo requested that FDA withdraw the rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication
for BEXXAR (tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab) Injection from
the market and waived its opportunity for a hearing. In a letter dated
May 11, 2012, FDA acknowledged receipt of the prior approval labeling
supplement and Glaxo's request to withdraw the rituximab-na[iuml]ve
indication for BEXXAR (tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab)
Injection. Glaxo's labeling supplement was approved by FDA in a letter
dated August 15, 2012. Therefore, under section 506 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 356) and Sec.
601.43, and under authority delegated by the Commissioner to the
Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, approval of the
rituximab-na[iuml]ve indication for BEXXAR (tositumomab and iodine I
131 tositumomab) Injection is withdrawn as of October 23, 2013.

    Dated: October 18, 2013.
Janet Woodcock,
Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2013-24840 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46536-46538]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0668; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-017-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks found in the bottom
wing skin stringers at rib 14 during full-scale fatigue testing and in
service. This proposed AD would require modifying the profile of
stringer run-outs at rib 14 of both wings, including a high frequency
eddy current inspection of the fastener holes for defects and repair if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking in the bottom
wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the wings.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 16,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0668;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-017-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0008R1, dated January 22, 2013 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During full-scale fatigue testing, cracks were detected in the
bottom wing skin stringers at rib 14. In addition, A300 aeroplane
operators have also reported finding cracks in the same area.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could impair the
structural integrity of the wings.
    Additional analysis results showed that the improved design of
the stringer run-out is necessary for aeroplanes operating beyond
the ESG 1 [extended service goal 1: 42,500 flight cycles].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
removal of the stringer end run-out plate at stringer 19 on the
bottom wing skin and the re-profiling modification of the stringers
10, 11, 12, 17 and 19.
* * * * *
    The modification also includes doing a high frequency eddy current
inspection of the fastener holes for defects and repair if necessary.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision
01, dated April 18, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    Although Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision
01, dated April 18, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would
require repairing those conditions using a method approved by either
the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA (or its delegated agent).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per        Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost           product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of the profile of     60 work-hours x $85   None...............            $5,100          $147,900
 stringer run-outs.                 per hour = $5,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need this repair.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0668; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
017-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 16, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and
B4-622 airplanes; and Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R
airplanes; certificated in any category, except airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 10324 or 10325 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found in the bottom
wing skin stringers at rib 14 during full-scale fatigue testing and
in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the bottom
wing skin stringers, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification of Rib 14

    Before the accumulation of 42,500 total flight cycles, or within
2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, modify the profile of stringer run-outs at rib 14 of
both wings, including a high frequency eddy current inspection of
the fastener holes for defects and all applicable repairs, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision 01, dated April 18, 2011,
except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, Revision
01, dated April 18, 2011, specifies to report defects to Airbus,
this AD requires contacting the Manager, ANM-116, International
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent) for repair
instructions and doing those repairs before further flight.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6046, dated
January 18, 1994 (which is not incorporated by reference).

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2013-0008R1, dated January 22, 2013, for related
information.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may review copies of this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-18556 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42992-42994]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17195]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69981; File No. SR-CME-2013-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Existing CDS Credit Limits

July 12, 2013.
    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 June 28, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by CME. CME filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \4\
thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed change is below. Italicized text indicates
additions; bracketed text indicates deletions.
* * * * *
TO: Clearing Member Firms; Back Office Managers
FROM: CME Clearing
DATE: June ----, 2013
ADVISORY : 13-XXX
SUBJECT: CDS Clearing Member Risk Limits

    Effective July 15, 2013, CME Clearing will use technology
automation to impose risk limits on Clearing Members for Credit Default
Swap (CDS) Products. Pre-trade credit limits for CDS trade submission
at the Clearing Member Firm level will now be automated. As you know,
Clearing Member Firms currently have the ability to set CME-hosted
credit limits for CDS on a customer account by customer account basis.
With this change, CME Group will automate CDS credit limits on a
Clearing Member Firm level, in addition to continuing to allow clearing
member firms to maintain customer account by customer account credit
limits. This is similar to the process that CME Clearing has in place
for its interest rate swap offering, except this limit is based on
margin.
    CME Clearing will determine one maintenance margin limit for each
Clearing Member Firm's customer and house origins. The utilization of
this limit will be based on the same margin methodology that CME
Clearing currently uses on a daily basis to calculate margin for each
clearing member firm.
    Please note that this limit will be a daily limit and will be based
on trades executed for the current trade date only. In other words, the
calculation is reset daily, and it does not reflect the exposure of any
open trades prior to the current trade date.
    Three hypothetical examples of the calculation of the utilization
are outlined below:
    Trade 1: Customer A executes a buy-protection $100M notional
CDXHY20 5yr trade with Clearing Member Firm B equivalent to $5M in
margin for the current trade date.
    Trade 2: Customer C then executes a sell-protection $100M notional
CDXHY20 5yr trade with Clearing Member Firm B for the current trade
date.
    Example 1: Credit Utilization--Same Trade Dates

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   After trade 1                     After trade 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing Member Firm B House Origin.........                      $5M  $0M (offsetting).
Clearing Member Firm B Customer Origin......                       5M  0M (offsetting).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, if the 2nd trade was executed on the following trade date:
    Example 2: Credit Utilization--Different Trade Dates

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   After trade 1                    After trade 2 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing Member Firm B House Origin.........                      $5M  $5M (not offsetting).
Clearing Member Firm B Customer Origin......                       5M  5M (not offsetting).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assuming the margin on the buy-protection trade and sell-protection trade are equivalent.

    Further, using the original 2 trades above as the base case, if the
2nd trade was now buy-protection (instead of sell-protection):
    Example 3: Credit Utilization--Same Trade Dates--Directional

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     After trade 1           After trade 2 **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing Member Firm B House Origin...........................                      $5M                     $10M
Clearing Member Firm B Customer Origin........................                       5M                      10M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Assuming the portfolio margin of trades 1 and 2 combined is 10M.

    A consequence of pre-trade credit limit automation is that CDS
transactions that exceed the daily limit will be rejected for clearing.
We will continue to communicate via email and telephone to work with
your firm if your utilizations are approaching their limits. In the
future, we will provide firms with access to a separate view in RAV
Manager with the ability to view your Clearing Member Firm and Origin
level limits and utilizations.
    If you have questions about the calculation or the specific limit
in place for your Clearing Member Firm, please contact the CME Clearing
Risk at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For all other questions, please contact the CME Client Services
Team at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
* * * * *

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 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    On May 7, 2012, CME implemented risk limits that apply to clearing
members clearing credit default swaps in compliance with CFTC
Regulation 39(h)(1).\5\ CME has been enforcing those limits manually
since that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission believes, and CME has confirmed, that CME
intended to reference CFTC Regulation 39.13(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CME now proposes to issue a notice announcing CME's intention to
begin enforcing these same limits through automated means. More
specifically, the CME Clearing Advisory Notice would inform clearing
members and market participants that CME Clearing will, beginning on
July 15, 2013, automate the manner in which it imposes clearing member
risk limits for credit default swap transactions, a process that is
intended to result in a more effective and efficient imposition of
clearing member risk limits for credit default swap transactions. Thus,
CDS transactions that exceed the limits will now be automatically
rejected for clearing based on the new pre-trade credit limit
automation.
    The proposed rule changes that are the subject of this filing will
become immediately effective. CME notes that it has also certified the
proposed rule changes that are the subject of this filing to its
primary regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. The proposed rule changes are designed to result in a more
effective and efficient imposition of clearing member risk limits for
credit default swap transactions, and as such are designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts and transactions,
and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency and, in general, help to
protect investors and the public interest. Furthermore, the proposed
change does not announce new credit limits but rather new automated
means of enforcing existing credit limits. As such, the proposed
amendments constitute a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
CME rule. Therefore, the proposed rule change is therefore properly
filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder.

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed change
informs market participants that CDS transactions that exceed the
currently applicable credit limits will now be automatically rejected
for clearing. Imposing automated means of enforcing an existing rule
should not be seen to have any competitive impact.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has been filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 \7\
thereunder and will become effective on filing. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Supra note 3.
    \7\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CME-2013-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2013-08. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of CME and on CME's
Web site (http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/files/sec_19b-4_13-08.pdf).
    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-CME-2013-08
and should be submitted on or before August 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17195 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55323]
[DOCID:fr10se10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12492-001]

Ha-Best, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

August 31, 2010.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed Ha-Best's application for license for the Miner Shoal
Waterpower Project (FERC Project No. 12492-001), located on the Soque
River, near the town of Demorest, Habersham County, Georgia. The
project does not occupy federal lands.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
202-502-8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/dcos-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of the your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please affix Project No. 12492-001 to all comments.
    For further information, contact Jennifer Adams by phone at 202-
502-8087, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22272 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P