May 21, 2007

NOTE

SUBJECT:	Potential Approach to Establish Firing Rate Limits on
Emission-Comparable Fuel

FROM:	Bob Holloway, OSW, USEPA

TO:		Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0017

We are proposing to expand the comparable fuel exclusion for fuels that
are produced from hazardous waste but which generate emissions that are
comparable to emissions from burning fuel oil when such fuels are burned
in an industrial boiler.  Such fuel would be called emission-comparable
fuel (ECF).  ECF would be subject to the same specifications that
currently apply to comparable fuels, except that the specifications for
benzene, toluene, and the oxygenates listed in Table 1 to §261.38 would
not apply.  This paper describes a potential approach to establish
firing rate limits on emission-comparable fuel (ECF) that may be
necessary to ensure that ECF emissions are either:  (1) comparable to
emissions from oil-fired industrial boilers; (2) at de minimis levels;
or (3) are protective of human health and the environment.

Under the approach, we would identify a target emission level for each
compound of concern, estimate a destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
for the compound, and calculate a maximum ECF firing rate as a function
of the concentration of the compound in the ECF.

Target Emission Levels

The target emission levels would be identified as:

For compounds of concern for which we have emissions data from oil-fired
industrial boilers, the target level would be the highest test condition
average or a de minimis level, whichever is higher;

For compounds of concern for which we have only hazardous waste boiler
emissions data, the target level would be the highest test condition
average or a de minimis level, whichever is higher; and

For compounds of concern for which we have neither oil-fired boiler nor
hazardous waste boiler emissions data, the target level would be a de
minimis level.

See Table 1 which presents the recommended target emission levels,
corrected to 7% oxygen.

We believe that it is reasonable to consider an emission level of 20
ug/dscm to be de minimis.  This emission level is comparable to
approximately 0.01 ppmv propane equivalents for the high molecular
weight compounds of concern, and is 3 orders of magnitude lower than the
10 ppmv total hydrocarbon emission limit the Agency has established for
liquid fuel boilers that burn hazardous waste.  See §63.1217(a)(5)(ii).

We also believe it is reasonable to use the highest test condition
average emission level for oil-fired boilers as the target emission
level rather than the average test condition average or the high end
(e.g., 95th percentile) test condition average.  Using the average test
condition average would be inappropriate because the principal rationale
for the exclusion is to ensure that emissions are comparable to oil
emissions.  Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the range of oil
emissions rather than the average emission.  In addition, we are
recommending using the highest test condition average rather than the
95th percentile test condition average because the data base is not
robust.  If additional data were available, both the 95th percentile and
the highest test condition average would likely increase.  Consequently,
using the highest test condition average is a reasonable approach to
represent the high end of the range of emissions.

We believe it is reasonable to use the highest test condition average
emission level for hazardous waste boilers as the target emission level
(i.e., absent oil emissions data and provided that the test condition
average is not de minimis) because we have determined that emissions
from hazardous waste combustors are generally protective of human health
and the environment.  See 70 FR at 59535.  Ensuring that ECF emissions
are protective is another primary rationale for the proposed exclusion.

Destruction and Removal Efficiency

As a default, we believe it is reasonable to estimate a DRE of 99.99%
for compounds of concern that have a Thermal Stability ranking of Class
I or Class 2 (i.e., benzene, toluene, and methyl methacrylate) and a DRE
of 99.995% for the other compounds.  The Thermal Stability ranking is a
principal tool for selecting difficult to destroy compounds for DRE
testing required to establish operating requirements for hazard waste
combustors.  We note that, while we have several DRE data from hazardous
waste boilers for Class 1 and Class 2 compounds showing DREs below
99.995% at relatively low feedrates of principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCs), our (albeit limited) DRE data for Class 3-7
compounds are all greater than 99.995%.  See Figure 1.  Of the nine
compounds plotted in the figure, carbon tetrachloride, acetophenone, and
1,2 dichloropropane are ranked in Thermal Stability Class 3 or below.
All of the other compounds that are plotted are ranked in Class 1 or 2.

We also believe that it is reasonable to conclude that DRE increases
with an increase in feedrate of the target compound.  It is common
knowledge that feedrates of POHCs must be high enough to avoid DRE
failures attributable to stack method or analytical method imprecision
and the baseline level of products of incomplete combustion.  A recent
paper by Brukh, et al, appears to support this view.  Moreover, a plot
of hazardous waste boiler DRE run data versus feedrate MTEC indicates a
general trend toward higher DREs as feedrates increase for those
compounds for which we have DRE data over a range of feedrates.  See
Figure 2.

It appears from these figures that, when MTECs exceed 1.0E+07 ug/dscm,
DRE exceeds 99.999% for all compounds.  And, it appears that, for MTECs
in the range of 5.0E+06 to 1.0E+07, DRE exceeds 99.995% for all
compounds, except for two DRE runs for hydrogen cyanide.  We believe our
conclusion is nonetheless valid because hydrogen cyanide has atypical
thermal stability, even for a Class 1 compound, and is much more
difficult to destroy than benzene, which has the highest thermal
stability of the compounds of concern.  Consequently, it may be
appropriate to consider this feedrate/DRE relationship to identify
potential ECF firing rate restrictions.

Potential ECF Firing Rate Limits

We have reviewed the ACC survey to determine the concentrations of the
compounds of concern that may be present in ECF.  Toluene may be present
in ECF at concentrations ranging from 5% to nearly 100%, and benzene may
be present at concentrations up to 25%.  Other compounds appear be
present at lower concentrations; some appear to be present only at very
low concentrations (but levels that nonetheless exceed the
specifications in Table 1 to §261.38).  See Table 2.  Although ECF may
often be blended (after meeting the specifications) with other fuels
before burning, we assumed a worst-case scenario where these waste fuels
were burned without blending.  We considered these potential
concentrations to calculate potential ECF firing rate limits considering
the estimated DREs and target emission levels discussed above.

As expected, at low compound concentrations in the ECF, the ECF firing
rate would not be restricted (i.e., other than the restrictions that
would apply as a basic condition of the exclusion—25% maximum firing
rate if the benzene or acrolein concentration exceeds 2%, and 50%
maximum firing rate for all other ECF).  See Table 3.

We noted an anomalous situation for most compounds, however, where the
firing rate limit first decreased as feedrate increased, and then at
higher feedrates, the firing rate began to increase.  This was caused by
our assumption that DRE increases in a step-wise function rather than,
as likely, in a smooth progression as feedrate increases.  For example,
we estimated DRE at 99.995% when the MTEC is 9.9E+06, and at 99.999%
when the MTEC is 10E+06 (1.0E+07).

Clearly, this is not a realistic representation of how DRE relates to
MTEC.  To address this concern, we could, for example, consider whether
it is appropriate to use a best-fit curve of the benzene data to develop
a relationship between DRE and MTEC.  Benzene may be an appropriate
compound to select to define the relationship because it ranks the
highest on the thermal stability index of the compounds for which we
have DREs over a range of feedrates, it has the highest ranking for the
compounds of concern, and it is the third highest ranking compound in
the Thermal Stability index, ranking higher than 341 other compounds.

Table 1

TARGET EMISSION LEVELS FOR FEEDRATE RESTRICTIONS

Table 2

ACC SURVEY:  CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, TOLUENE, AND OXYGENATES IN WASTE
FUELS THAT MAY BE CANDIDATES FOR EXCLUSION BUT THAT EXCEED THE
SPECIFICATIONS IN TABLE 1 TO 261.38

Table 3

EXAMPLE RESTRICTIONS ON COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS AND ECF FIRING RATES TO
ENSURE THAT TARGET EMISSION LEVELS ARE ACHIEVED

Figure 1

DRE VERSUS POHC FEEDRATE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE BOILER TEST RUNS

Figure 2

DRE VERSUS FEEDRATE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE BOILER TEST RUNS:  BEST FIT
LINES FOR COMPOUNDS WITH SUBSTANTIAL RANGE IN FEEDRATE

--DRE TENDS TO INCREASE AS POHC FEEDRATE INCREASES--

 	The compounds of concern are benzene, toluene, and the oxygenates
listed in Table 1 to §261.38.

 	For background support for these analyses, see the memorandum from
Lucky Benedict, EERGC, to Bob Holloway, USEPA, entitled “Background
Information and Sample Calculations for Potential Approach to Establish
DRE based Firing Rate Restrictions for ECF,” dated May 21, 2007.

 	Please note, however, that high statistical outliers were not
considered.  See See USEPA, “Draft Technical Support Document for
Expansion of the Comparable Fuel Exclusion,” May 2007, Appendix C.

 	See USEPA, “Draft Technical Support Document for Expansion of the
Comparable Fuel Exclusion,” May 2007, Section 5.1.

 	The Thermal Stability ranking classifies (generally) hazardous
compounds according to their gas-phase thermal stability under
oxygen-starved conditions.  Compounds are ranked according to the
temperature required to destroy 99% of the compound in 2 seconds under
oxygen-starved conditions.  `See USEPA, “Guidance on Setting Permit
Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn Results, Volume II of the Hazardous
Waste Incineration Guidance Series,” January 1989, Table D-1.

 	Note that methanol has been used as a POHC for DRE testing and is
plotted in the figure even though its thermal stability has not been
classified.

 	See USEPA, Operational Parameters for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Devices,” October 1993. Section <IP_ADDRESS>.

 	See R. Brukh, R. Baret, and S. Mitra, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, “The Effect of Waste Concentration on Destruction
Efficiency During Incineration,” Environmental Engineering Science,
Vol. 23, No. 2, 2006.  The authors conducted experiments in a small,
well-stirred reactor involving the combustion of methylene chloride
(CH2Cl2) with ethylene (C2H4) as the primary fuel at residence times of
5-12 ms and temperatures of 1400- 1750 K (2050 -2700 °F).  Experiments
were done at both fuel rich and fuel lean conditions.  CH2Cl2
concentrations were low (2- 1350 ppm by volume in the main feed.).  The
authors modeled the combustion of methylene chloride, methyl chloride
(CH3Cl), and benzene.  They show limited experimental data for CH3Cl and
C6H6 from previous work.  The authors’ hypothesis is that higher
concentrations of POHC contribute additional radical fractions and the
overall result is a higher destruction efficiency.  This work would
support higher DREs at higher feedrates if the results can be
extrapolated to the higher POHC concentrations of concern to us and the
higher residence times for hazardous waste combustors.

 	MTEC means maximum theoretical emission concentration (ug/dscm) and is
an approach to normalize feedrate for various size boilers.  It is
calculated as the mass feedrate divided by the stack gas flowrate.

 	The temperature required to destroy 99% of hydrogen cyanide at
substoichemetric conditions in 2 seconds  is more than 1500 C, while
the temperature required to destroy 99% of benzene is 1150 C.  The
compound of concern with the next highest thermal stability, toluene,
needs a temperature of 895 C for 99% destruction.

 	Letter from American Chemistry Council (Carter Lee Kelly, Leader,
Waste Issues Team, and Robert A. Elam, Director, Regulatory Affairs,
Waste Issues Team) to Robert Springer and Matt Hale, USEPA, dated
November 24, 2003

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22081-22083]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1565]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Request for Samples and Protocols

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements
relating to the regulations which state that protocols for samples of
biological products must be submitted to the Agency.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before July 10, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 10, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-N-1565 for ``Request for Samples

and Protocols.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy
of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Request for Samples and Protocols

OMB Control Number 0910-0206--Extension

    Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262),
FDA has the responsibility to issue regulations that prescribe
standards designed to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of
biological products and to ensure that the biologics licenses for such
products are only issued when a product meets the prescribed standards.
Under Sec.  610.2 (21 CFR 610.2), the Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (CBER) or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research may
at any time require manufacturers of licensed biological products to
submit to FDA samples of any lot along with the protocols showing the
results of applicable tests prior to distributing the lot of the
product. In addition to Sec.  610.2, there are other regulations that
require the submission of samples and protocols for specific licensed
biological products: 21 CFR 660.6 (Antibody to Hepatitis B Surface
Antigen); 21 CFR 660.36 (Reagent Red Blood Cells); 21 CFR 660.46)
(Hepatitis B Surface Antigen).
    Section 660.6(a) provides requirements for the frequency of
submission of samples from each lot of Antibody to Hepatitis B Surface
Antigen product, and Sec.  660.6(b) provides the requirements for the
submission of a protocol containing specific information along with
each required sample. For Sec.  660.6 products subject to official
release by CBER, one sample from each filling of each lot is required
to be submitted along with a protocol consisting of a summary of the
history of manufacture of the product, including all results of each
test for which test results are requested by CBER. After official
release is no longer required, one sample along with a protocol is
required to be submitted at 90-day intervals. In addition, samples,
which must be accompanied by a protocol, may at any time be required to
be submitted to CBER if continued evaluation is deemed necessary.
    Section 660.36(a) requires, after each routine establishment
inspection by FDA, the submission of samples from a lot of final
Reagent Red Blood Cell product along with a protocol containing
specific information. Section 660.36(a)(2) requires that a protocol
contain information including, but not limited to, manufacturing
records, certain test records, and identity test results. Section
660.36(b) requires a copy of the antigenic constitution matrix
specifying the antigens present or absent to be submitted to the CBER
Director at the time of initial distribution of each lot.
    Section 660.46(a) contains requirements as to the frequency of
submission of samples from each lot of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen
product, and Sec.  660.46(b) contains the requirements as to the
submission of a protocol containing specific information along with
each required sample. For Sec.  660.46 products subject to official
release by CBER, one sample from each filling of each lot is required
to be submitted along with a protocol consisting of a summary of the
history or manufacture of the product, including all results of each
test for which test results are requested by CBER. After notification
of official release is received, one sample along with a protocol is
required to be submitted at 90-day intervals. In addition, samples,
which must be accompanied by a protocol, may at any time be required to
be submitted to CBER if continued evaluation is deemed necessary.
    Samples and protocols are required by FDA to help ensure the
safety, purity, or potency of the product because of the potential lot-
to-lot variability of a

product produced from living organisms. In cases of certain biological
products (e.g., Albumin, Plasma Protein Fraction, and therapeutic
biological products) that are known to have lot-to-lot consistency,
official lot release is not normally required. However, submissions of
samples and protocols of these products may still be required for
surveillance, licensing, and export purposes, or in the event that FDA
obtains information that the manufacturing process may not result in
consistent quality of the product.
    The following burden estimate is for the protocols required to be
submitted with each sample. The collection of samples is not a
collection of information under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(2). Respondents to the
collection of information under Sec.  610.2 are manufacturers of
licensed biological products. Respondents to the collection of
information under Sec. Sec.  660.6(b), 660.36(a)(2) and (b), and
660.46(b) are manufacturers of the specific products referenced
previously in this document. The estimated number of respondents for
each regulation is based on the annual number of manufacturers that
submitted samples and protocols for biological products including
submissions for lot release, surveillance, licensing, or export. Based
on information obtained from FDA's database system, approximately 79
manufacturers submitted samples and protocols in fiscal year (FY) 2017,
under the regulations cited previously in this document. FDA estimates
that approximately 75 manufacturers submitted protocols under Sec.
610.2 and two manufacturers submitted protocols under the regulation
(Sec.  660.6) for the other specific product. FDA received no
submissions under Sec. Sec.  660.36 or 660.46, however FDA is using the
estimate of one protocol submission under each regulation in the event
that protocols are submitted in the future.
    The estimated total annual responses are based on FDA's final
actions completed in FY 2017 for the various submission requirements of
samples and protocols for the licensed biological products. The average
burden per response is based on information provided by industry. The
burden estimates provided by industry ranged from 1 to 5.5 hours. Under
Sec.  610.2, the hours per response are based on the average of these
estimates and rounded to 3 hours. Under the remaining regulations, the
average burden per response is based on the higher end of the estimate
(rounded to 5 or 6 hours) since more information is generally required
to be submitted in the other protocols than under Sec.  610.2. FDA
estimates the burden of this information collection as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
     21 CFR section/activity         Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
610.2--Requests for Samples and               75          86.267           6,470               3          19,410
 Protocols; Official Release....
660.6(b)--Protocols.............               2             3.5               7               5              35
660.36(a)(2) and (b)--Samples                  1               1               1               6               6
 and Protocols..................
660.46(b)--Protocols............               1               1               1               5               5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              79  ..............           6,479  ..............          19,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an
overall increase of 764 hours and a corresponding increase of 262
responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of
submissions we received over the last few years.

    Dated: May 7, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-10052 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63163-63167]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1312; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-220-AD;
Amendment 39-16826; AD 2011-21-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -
200LR, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires installing foreign object
debris (FOD) rubber shields over the primary and secondary external
power connectors for certain airplanes, and wrapping silicone tape
around the hydraulic tube for certain other airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of a fire in the main equipment center due to
failure of an external power connector, which

caused high-temperature arcing and subsequent splatter of molten copper
on an adjacent hydraulic tube, creating a hole in the tube and spraying
hydraulic fluid into the power connector, resulting in a fire. In
addition there were several reports of overheating or arcing of
external power connectors, and one report of a fire due to arcing
caused by FOD. We are issuing this AD to prevent FOD from entering the
primary and secondary external power connectors, which could result in
overheating or arcing and consequent fire in the main equipment center.

DATES: This AD is effective November 16, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 16,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on
January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2846). That NPRM proposed to require installing
foreign object debris (FOD) rubber shields over the primary and
secondary external power connectors for certain airplanes, and wrapping
fire-resistant silicone tape around the hydraulic tube for certain
other airplanes.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    American Airlines has accomplished the modifications on the
majority of its fleet, and has no objection to the actions and
compliance times in the NPRM (76 FR 2846, January 18, 2011). The
National Transportation Safety Board supports the NPRM.

Request To Use Latest Production Hydraulic Tube

    Japan Airlines (JAL), Continental Airlines, and All Nippon Airways
(ANA) asked that operators be allowed to use the latest production
hydraulic tube having part number (P/N) 272W4190-192, which already has
the silicone tape pre-wrapped, in lieu of modifying the existing
hydraulic tube assembly by installing the silicone tape in accordance
with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated
August 9, 2007. JAL also noted a concern about procuring the hydraulic
tube.
    We do not agree with the request to use the latest production
hydraulic tube as an acceptable alternative to installing the silicone
tape. Based on the latest information received from Boeing engineering,
the following applies to any possible hydraulic tube replacement: Any
hydraulic tube having P/N 272W4190-192 (as specified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007), cannot
be a direct replacement for the existing part. Hydraulic tubes having
P/Ns 272W4190-93, -168, and -192 for production installation require
the use of permaswage fittings on either side of the tube. Removal of
the tube for its replacement requires that the tube be physically cut
past the permaswage fitting, thus making it longer than the original
production part. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Include Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

    Continental and ANA also noted that the service information does
not contain proper instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs) to
install the tape on the new line, or inclusion of the equivalent
production part number in the Boeing 777 illustrated parts catalog
(IPC). Continental added that a pre- and post-service bulletin
configuration should be included to provide instructions to use a newer
part or to accomplish the actions specified in the service information
again.
    We acknowledge the commenters' concern, but we do not agree. The
Boeing ICAs do include a statement indicating that the production tubes
are reworked by using the procedures in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007. Since there is not
direct replacement with a production tube, we are working with Boeing
to identify additional information necessary in support of replacing
the hydraulic tube. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Include Information Notices

    United Airlines asked that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 2846, January
18, 2011) to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notices 777-
29-0032 IN 01, dated November 29, 2007, and 777-29-0032 IN 02, dated
December 11, 2008, which include clarifications to the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032,
dated August 9, 2007.
    We acknowledge that these information notices may be useful to
operators to clarify certain instructions specified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007. However,
Boeing has provided these notices to operators. We do not reference
information notices in ADs because those documents are not FAA-
reviewed. In addition, the information notices do not contain technical
information and are not necessary to accomplish the actions required by
the AD. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Change the Applicability

    Boeing requested that the applicability section in the NPRM (76 FR
2846, January 18, 2011) be changed. Boeing stated that the
applicability should be limited to the airplanes identified in the
referenced service information, which include only those airplanes on
which the modifications required by the AD have not been accomplished
in production.

    We agree with the commenter for the reason provided and have
limited the applicability section in this AD accordingly, in lieu of
specifying ``all'' airplanes of the affected model.

Request To Clarify Tape Qualities

    Boeing asked that we delete the term ``fire-resistant,'' which
describes ``silicone tape,'' as specified in the Summary section,
Relevant Service Information section, and paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM
(76 FR 2846, January 18, 2011). Boeing stated that the product data
sheet identifies the tape as ``high temperature arc- and track-
resistant tape,'' but not ``fire-resistant.''
    We agree with the commenter for the reason provided. However, the
term ``fire-resistant'' was used in the NPRM (76 FR 2846, January 18,
2011) because it is specified as such in the referenced service
information. We have removed it from the Summary section and paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD. The Relevant Service Information section of the
preamble does not reappear in the final rule.

Request To Clarify Terminology of Tape Dimensions

    Boeing asked that we change the language in the ``Exception to
Service Information'' section in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 2846,
January 18, 2011) as follows: ``Figure 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032,
dated August 9, 2007, does not identify the units of the dimensions of
the silicone tape installed on the hydraulic tube; those dimensions are
identified in inches.'' Boeing noted that the dimensions of the tape
are identified, but the units of the dimensions are missing. Boeing
added that, although the tape can be used as ``electrical'' tape, for
this application it is more appropriate to identify it as ``silicone''
tape.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. The word
``electrical'' was used in the NPRM (76 FR 2846, January 18, 2011)
because it is specified as such in the referenced service information.
We have changed paragraph (h) of this AD to reiterate the commenter's
suggested language.

Request To Provide Additional Credit

    Boeing asked that the service information specified in paragraph
(i) of the NPRM (76 FR 2846, January 18, 2011) under ``Credit for
Actions Accomplished in Accordance with Previous Service Information''
be changed to include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-
0032, dated August 9, 2007 (referred to in the NPRM as the service
information to use for installing the silicone tape). Boeing stated
that the modification accomplished by this service bulletin before the
effective date of the AD is identical to the modification accomplished
by this service bulletin after the effective date of the AD.
    We do not agree that the subject service bulletin should be added
to paragraph (i) of this AD. Operators are already given credit for
previously accomplished actions as allowed by the phrase in paragraph
(f) of this AD which states the following: ``Comply with this AD within
the compliance times specified, unless already done.'' We have made no
change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Exclude Certain Proposed Actions

    Delta Airlines asked that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007, be excluded from the NPRM (76 FR
2846, January 18, 2011). Delta stated that since the root cause of the
external power connector fires and overheating was related to foreign
object debris (FOD) shorting out the external power connector inside
the airplane, once the FOD shields are installed per Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010, the protective
tape identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-
0032, dated August 9, 2007, serves no purpose. Delta added that if
damage to the hydraulic tubing is still a concern even after
accomplishment of this service bulletin, a routing change to the
hydraulic tubing would be a better solution to protecting the tubing
from a fire/overheat condition. Delta noted that the tape being
installed is not fireproof, only fire-resistant. Delta also stated that
the instructions for installing the tape specified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007, would be
difficult to comply with. Subsequent inspections of the tape
installation to ensure compliance with the NPRM would also be difficult
when judging the overlap and number of tape wraps, since the tape
installation is based on the amount of stretch and a percentage of
overlap.
    We do not agree to remove Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007, from this AD. Installation of the
FOD shields is not the only action necessary to address the identified
unsafe condition. FOD shields alone do not resolve the potential for
overheating and arcing of the electrical connectors. Based on our
evaluation, we have determined that the connector design, lack of
proper connector maintenance actions, and the proximity of the
hydraulic tubing to the connectors can result in a fire; therefore,
accomplishing the actions required by this AD will minimize the threat
of fire on the airplane.
    Additionally, although the silicone tape is not fireproof,
installing the tape provides an acceptable level of protection to the
hydraulic tubing in the event of overheating or arcing of the
connectors. The procedures for installing the tape are not difficult
for compliance and include easy access and liberal application of the
tape; several operators have already done this modification and did not
encounter any problems. Further, it is the responsibility of operators
to maintain the AD-mandated configuration, and this can be done using
the procedures specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007. In light of these factors, we have
made no change to the AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator
nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 126 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
               Action                       Labor cost         Parts cost    Cost per    airplanes    Fleet cost
                                                                             product      affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install FOD rubber shields..........  6 work-hour x $85 per          $134         $644          124      $79,856
                                       hour = $510.

Wrap silicone tape..................  2 work-hour x $85 per             0          170          126       21,420
                                       hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-21-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16826; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1312; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-220-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective November 16, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, and -300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated
June 17, 2010; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-
0032, dated August 9, 2007.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Codes 29: Hydraulic power; and 24:
Electrical power.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report of a fire in the main
equipment center due to failure of an external power connector,
which caused high-temperature arcing and subsequent splatter of
molten copper on an adjacent hydraulic tube, creating a hole in the
tube and spraying hydraulic fluid into the power connector,
resulting in a fire. In addition there were several reports of
overheating or arcing of external power connectors, and one report
of a fire due to arcing caused by foreign object debris (FOD). We
are issuing this AD to prevent FOD from entering the primary and
secondary external power connectors, which could result in
overheating or arcing and consequent fire in the main equipment
center.

Compliance

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

Modification

    (g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-
0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010: Install FOD rubber shields
over the primary and secondary external power connectors, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision 1, dated June 17, 2010.
    (2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007: Wrap silicone tape
around the hydraulic tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-
0032, dated August 9, 2007.

Exception to Service Information

    (h) Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-29-0032, dated August 9,
2007, does not identify the units of the dimensions of the silicone
tape installed on the hydraulic tube; those dimensions are
identified in inches.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, dated July 12,
2007, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Georgios
Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (425)
917-6590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (l) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC
2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 777-24-0102, Revision
1, dated June 17, 2010; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-29-0032, dated August 9, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet  https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 27, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25754 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9975-9977]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03188]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68854; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Individual Stock Trading Pause Pilot Program

February 6, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 28, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the individual stock trading pause
pilot program pertaining to the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX,'' the
CBOE's stock trading facility). This rule change simply seeks to extend
the pilot. No other changes to the pilot are being proposed.
(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *
    1. Rule 6.3C--Individual Stock Trading Pause Due to Extraordinary
Market Volatility
    2.
* * * * *
* * * Interpretations and Policies:
* * * * *
    .03 The provisions of this Rule shall be in effect for eligible NMS
stocks during a pilot period ending on the earlier of the initial date
of operations of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility or February 4, 2014[3]. The term ``eligible NMS
stocks'' shall mean NMS stocks, other than rights and warrants. Trading
in an eligible NMS stock will pause between the hours of 8:45 a.m. and
2:35 p.m. (all times are CT), or in the case of an early scheduled
close, 25 minutes before the close of trading, if the price of the
stock moved by a percentage specified below within a five-minute period
(``Threshold Move''), as calculated by the primary listing market as
follows:
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 6.3C, Individual Stock Trading Pauses Due to Extraordinary
Market Volatility, was approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') on June 10, 2010 on a pilot basis. The
pilot is currently set to expire on February 4, 2013.\3\ The rule was
developed in consultation with U.S. listing markets to provide for
uniform market-wide trading pause standards for certain individual
stocks that experience rapid price movement.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010)(SR-CBOE-2010-047)(approval order
establishing pilot through December 10, 2010); 63502 (December 9,
2010), 75 FR 78306 (December 15, 2010)(SR-CBOE-2010-112)(extension
of pilot through April 11, 2011); 64194 (April 5, 2011), 76 FR 2-389
(April 12, 2011)(SR-CBOE-2011-031)(extension of pilot through the
earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on which a limit up-limit
down mechanism to address extraordinary market volatility, if
adopted, applies to the Circuit Breaker Stocks); 65070 (August 9,
2011), 76 FR 50516 (August 15, 2011)(SR-CBOE-2011-076)(extension of
pilot through January 31, 2012); 66166 (January 17, 2012), 77 FR
3311 (January 23, 2012)(SR-CBOE-2012-01)(extension of pilot through
July 31, 2012); and 67574 (August 2, 2012), 77 FR 49848 (August 17,
2012)(SR-CBOE-2012-069)(extension of pilot through February 4,
2012).
    \4\ The pilot list of stocks originally included all stocks in
the S&P 500 Index, but it has been expanded over time to include all
NMS stocks, other than rights and warrants. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 62884 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September
16, 2010)(SR-CBOE-2010-065)(order approving expansion of the
individual stock trading pause pilot to include all stocks in the
Russell 1000 index and a pilot list of Exchange Traded Products);
64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)(SR-CBOE-2011-
049)(order approving further expansion of the individual stock
trading pause pilot to include all NMS stocks effective August 8,
2011); and 65824 (November 23, 2011), 76 FR 74111 (November 30,
2011)(SR-CBOE-2011-111)(immediately effective rule change to amend
the individual stock trading pause pilot to exclude all rights and
warrants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the duration of the pilot expires on February 4, 2013, the
Exchange is proposing to extend the effectiveness of Rule 6.3C until
the earlier of the initial date of operations of the Regulation NMS
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility or February 4, 2014.
The pilot will continue to operate as to individual securities until
such security is subject to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility. Extending the extension date would
allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption until
implementation of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility.\5\ The Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility will not begin initial operations on February 4, 2013
as initially planned, but has an amended anticipated implementation
date of April 8, 2013.\6\ If the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility has an initial date of operations
before February 4, 2014, the proposed pilot for trading pauses will
expire at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving,
on a Pilot Basis, the National Market System Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange,
Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, National
Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and
NYSE Arca, Inc).
    \6\ See Letter from Janet M. McGinness, Executive Vice President
and Corporate Secretary, General Counsel, NYSE Markets, to Elizabeth
M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section

6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitation transactions
in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the change proposed
herein meets these requirements in that it promotes uniformity across
markets concerning decisions to pause trading in a security when there
are significant price movements, which promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and removes impediments to, and perfects the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
Additionally, extension of the pilot until the earlier of the initial
date of operations of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility or February 4, 2014 would allow the pilot to continue
to operate without interruption while the Exchange and the Commission
further assess the effect of the pilot on the marketplace or whether
other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot, which
contributes to the protection of investors and the public interest.

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

    CBOE 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. The proposed changes are being
made to extend the operation of the trading pause pilot until the
earlier of the initial date of operations of the Regulation NMS Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility or February 4, 2014 would allow
the pilot to continue to operate without interruption until
implementation of the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility, which contributes to the protection of investors and
the public interest. Other competing equity exchanges are subject to
the same trading pause requirements specified in the Plan. Thus, the
proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition while
providing trading pause requirements specified in the Plan.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-CBOE-2013-010 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-CBOE-2013-010. 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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-010 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03188 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40512]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2189-000]

Sanford Energy Associates, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Sanford Energy Associates, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 29, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 9, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17543 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48098-48099]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2242-078]

Eugene Water & Electric Board; Notice Soliciting Comments on
Request for Stay of Licensing Decision

    On July 27, 2015, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB),
licensee for the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project (P-2242) located on
the McKenzie River in Lane and Line Counties, Oregon, requested that
the Commission: (1) Delay acting on its license application until at
least January 31, 2016, while it completes additional economic analysis
of implementing the 2008 settlement agreement on the project; (2) hold
a technical conference to discuss EWEB's economic analysis; and (3)
designate a non-decisional separated staff to advise EWEB about
alternatives to the settlement agreement as it relates to project
economics. This request can be viewed at http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/doc_info.asp?document_id=14360392.
    The Commission is soliciting comments on this request. Any comments
should be filed within 15 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/efiling.asp.

Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2242-078.
    For further information, contact David Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19692 Filed 8-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P