[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81469-81471]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1082]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Allegheny River, Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone
extending the entire width of the river between mile markers 0.6 and
0.8 on the Allegheny River. The safety zone is needed to protect the
public from the hazards associated with the First Night Pittsburgh
fireworks display. Entry into, movement within, and departure from this
Coast Guard safety zone, while it is activated and enforced, is
prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5:30 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. on
December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1082 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1082 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Ensign Robyn Hoskins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Publishing a NPRM would be impracticable
because immediate action is needed to protect the public due to the
First Night Pittsburgh fireworks display that will occur in the city of
Pittsburgh, PA.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Publishing an NPRM and delaying
its effective date would be impracticable based on the short notice
received for the event and the short period that the safety zone will
be in place. Immediate action is needed to provide safety and
protection during the First Night Pittsburgh fireworks display that
will occur in the city of Pittsburgh, PA.

Background and Purpose

    The First Night Pittsburgh fireworks display is scheduled to take
place on December 31, 2010, on the Allegheny River. A safety zone is
needed to protect the public from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone extending
the entire width of the river between mile markers 0.6 and 0.8 on the
Allegheny River. Vessels shall not enter into, depart from, or move
within this safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or his authorized representative. Persons or vessels
requiring entry into or passage through a safety zone must request
permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh, or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or
through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This rule
will be effective from 5:30 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. on December 31, 2010. The
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule will be in effect for a short period of time and
notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast
notices to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to
be minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
that portion of the waterways between mile markers 0.6 and 0.8 on the
Allegheny River, extending the entire width of the river.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced for a short period of time, on a weekend day, and
during a time when vessel traffic is low.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or
safety zones.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-1082 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1082  Safety Zone; Allegheny River, Pittsburgh, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Allegheny

River, extending the entire width of the river between mile markers 0.6
and 0.8 on the Allegheny River. These markings are based on the USACE's
Allegheny River Navigation Charts (Chart 1, January 2004).
    (b) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will only be enforced from
5:30 p.m. through 6:45 p.m. on December 31, 2010. The Captain of the
Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative will inform the public
through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through a
safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at
1-800-253-7465.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh and designated on-scene U.S. Coast
Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel
includes Commissioned, Warrant, and Petty Officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard.

    Dated: December 6, 2010.
R.V. Timme,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2010-32511 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57195-57198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70370; File No. SR-C2-2013-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the Fees Schedule

September 11, 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 August 30, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a set of fees for the Russell 2000 Index
(``RUT''), both for simple and complex orders (and to specify that the
current fees that apply to multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options
classes do not apply to RUT). For simple, non-complex RUT orders, the
Exchange proposes to assess the following per-contract fees structure
(rebates in parentheses):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maker         Taker fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer.........................         ($.75)*            $.80
C2 Market-Maker.........................             .00             .80
All Other Origins (Professional                      .50             .80
 Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2
 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.)...............
Trades on the Open......................             .00             .00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with simple, non-complex orders in other multiply-listed index,
ETF and ETN options classes, rebates do not apply to orders that trade
with Public Customer complex orders. In such a circumstance, there will
be no fee or rebate (since Public Customer complex orders also receive
rebates pursuant to the proposed changes). The Exchange believes that
providing a rebate for Public Customer Maker orders, and assessing no
fee for Market-Maker Maker orders, will incentivize the entry of such
orders (which will provide more trading opportunities for all market
participants wishing to Take such orders). Further, market participants
often prefer to trade against Public Customer orders, and providing a
rebate for Public Customer Maker orders will encourage Public Customers
to enter such orders, giving other market participants more
opportunities to Take these preferable orders. The Exchange's proposed
Taker fee is intended to be competitive with other exchanges, which
assess higher Taker fees for RUT,\3\ and which also assess a higher RUT
License Surcharge fee than the amount the Exchange proposes to assess
herein.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Fee Schedule, Section titled
``Trade-Related Charges for Standard Options'', Transaction Fee
table describing Electronic Executions in Non Penny Pilot Issues.
    \4\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Royalty Fees table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For complex orders in RUT, the Exchange proposes to assess the
following per-contract fees structure (rebates in parentheses):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maker fee/      Taker fee/
                                             (Rebate)        (Rebate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer.........................         ($.75)*         ($.75)*
C2 Market-Maker.........................             .85             .85
All Other Origins (Professional                      .85             .85
 Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2
 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.)...............
Trades on the Open......................             .00             .00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with complex orders in other multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes, a rebate will only apply to Public Customer complex
orders that trade with non-Public Customer complex orders. In other
circumstances, there will be no Maker or Taker fee or rebate. The
Exchange believes that providing a rebate for Public Customer orders
will incentivize Public Customers to execute such orders (which will
provide more trading opportunities for all market participants wishing
to trade with such orders). Further, market participants often prefer
to trade against Public Customer orders, and providing a rebate for
Public Customer orders will encourage Public

Customers to effect such orders, giving other market participants more
opportunities to trade with these preferable orders. The Exchange's
proposed Taker fee is intended to be competitive with other exchanges,
which assess higher similar fees for RUT,\5\ and which also assess a
higher RUT License Surcharge fee than the amount the Exchange proposes
to assess herein.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Section titled ``Electronic Complex
Order Executions''. Note that RUT is a Non-Penny Pilot Issue.
    \6\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Royalty Fees table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with both simple and complex orders in other multiply-listed
index, ETF and ETN options classes, the Exchange proposes to not assess
any fee for RUT Trades on the Open (either simple or complex).
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt a $0.30 per contract RUT Index
License Surcharge Fee that will apply to all non-Public Customer
transactions. The RUT Index License Surcharge Fee charged by the
Exchange reflects the pass-through charges associated with the
licensing of RUT. The proposed amount of the Index License Surcharge
Fee for RUT of $0.30 per contract is a reflection of the cost the
Exchange has incurred in securing a license agreement from the index
provider. Absent the license agreement, the Exchange and its
participants would be unable to trade RUT options and would lose the
ability to hedge small cap securities with a large notional value,
European-style cash-settled index option. Other exchanges assess a
higher RUT surcharge fee than the Exchange.\7\ The Exchange proposes to
exempt Public Customers from this fee because the Exchange believes
that this will incentivize Public Customers to send RUT orders to the
Exchange, and because other market participants prefer to trade with
Public Customers. Therefore, this should provide increased volume and
greater liquidity (benefitting all market participants), and more
trading opportunities for these other market participants to trade with
these Public Customer orders with which they prefer trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-65, which increased the NYSE MKT LLC
(``AMEX'') Royalty Fee for RUT from $0.15 per contract to $0.40 per
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are to take effect on September 3, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Maker fees for RUT simple
orders are reasonable because Public Customers will be able to receive
a rebate instead of paying a fee, C2 Market-Makers will be able to
avoid paying a fee, and orders from all other origins will be assessed
a fee amount that is within the Exchange's normal range of fees, and is
the same as the amount assessed by other exchanges.\10\ The Exchange
believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide a
rebate to Public Customers because the Exchange believes that this will
incentivize Public Customers to send RUT orders to the Exchange, and
because other market participants prefer to trade with Public
Customers. Therefore, this should provide increased volume and greater
liquidity (benefitting all market participants), and more trading
opportunities for these other market participants to trade with these
Public Customer orders with which they prefer trading. Further, there
is a history within the options industry of providing preferential
pricing for Public Customers, and this fact is evidenced in the fee
schedules of many options exchanges, (including C2). The Exchange
believes that assessing no fee for C2 Market-Maker RUT Maker orders is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this will incentivize
C2 Market-Makers to execute RUT orders on the Exchange, thereby
providing increased volume and greater liquidity, which benefits all
market participants. Further, C2 Market-Makers undertake certain
obligations, such as quoting obligations, that other market
participants do not have. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply to simple Public
Customer Maker RUT orders the clause that states that ``rebates do not
apply to orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders. In such
a circumstance, there will be no fee or rebate'' because these Public
Customer orders will still not be assessed a fee, and because it would
not be economically viable to provide a rebate on both sides of an
order when no fee is being collected. Further, this clause applies to
simple Public Customer Maker orders in all other multiply-listed index,
ETF and ETN options classes. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Taker fees for RUT simple orders are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they are lower than those assessed by
other exchanges \11\ and because they are equivalent for all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Section titled ``Trade-Related
Charges for Standard Options'', Transaction Fee table describing
Electronic Executions in Non Penny Pilot Issues, which shows that
Firms and Broker-Dealers are assessed a $0.50 Maker fee for RUT
transactions.
    \11\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Section titled ``Trade-Related
Charges for Standard Options'', Transaction Fee table describing
Electronic Executions in Non Penny Pilot Issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposed rebates for Public Customer
complex RUT orders are reasonable because they will allow Public
Customer to receive a rebate for such orders instead of paying a fee.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to apply to complex Public Customer RUT orders the
clause that states that ``a rebate will only apply to Public Customer
complex orders that trade with non-Public Customer complex orders. In
other circumstances, there will be no Maker or Taker fee or rebate''
because these Public Customer orders will still not be assessed a fee,
and this would prevent a situation in which a rebate would be given on
both sides of an order when a fee is not assessed (such situations not
being economically viable). Further, this clause applies to complex
Public Customer orders in all other multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN
options classes. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees for
complex RUT orders originating from all other origins (including C2
Market-Makers) are reasonable because they are the same amount of the
fees assessed for complex RUT transactions to similar market
participants at other exchanges.\12\ The Exchange believes that these
fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be
applied equally to all market participants who qualify for such fees.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to provide rebates for complex Public Customer RUT
orders because the Exchange believes that this will incentivize Public
Customers to execute RUT orders to the Exchange, and because other
market participants prefer to trade with Public Customers. Therefore,
this should provide increased volume and greater liquidity (benefitting

all market participants), and more trading opportunities for these
other market participants to trade with these Public Customer orders
with which they prefer trading. Further, there is a history within the
options industry of providing preferential pricing for Public
Customers, and this fact is evidenced in the fee schedules of many
options exchanges, (including C2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Arca Fee Schedule, Section titled ``Electronic Complex
Order Executions''. Note that RUT is a Non-Penny Pilot Issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess no fees for
RUT Trades on the Open because this will allow all market participants
to avoid paying fees for such trades. The Exchange believes that this
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to
all market participants, and because the Exchange currently does not
assess fees for Trades on the Open for other multiply-listed index, ETF
and ETN options.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed RUT Index License Surcharge
Fee is reasonable because Surcharge Fees charged by the Exchange
reflect the pass-through charges associated with the licensing of
certain products, including RUT. The proposed amount is therefore a
direct result of the amount of the licensing fee charged to the
Exchange by the index provider and the owner of the intellectual
property associated with the index. This amount is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will be assessed to all market
participants to whom the RUT Surcharge Fee applies. Also, other
exchanges have recently increased their RUT surcharge fees to an even
greater amount than the Exchange's proposed amount.\13\ The Exchange
believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to exempt
Public Customers from this fee because the Exchange believes that this
will incentivize Public Customers to send RUT orders to the Exchange,
and because other market participants prefer to trade with Public
Customers. Therefore, this should provide increased volume and greater
liquidity (benefitting all market participants), and more trading
opportunities for these other market participants to trade with these
Public Customer orders with which they prefer trading. Further, there
is a history within the options industry of providing preferential
pricing for Public Customers, and this fact is evidenced in the fee
schedules of many options exchanges, (including C2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-65, which increased the AMEX Royalty
Fee for RUT from $0.15 per contract to $0.40 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed fees structure for RUT will
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While there are
circumstances wherein a Public Customer receives a rebate (or, in the
case of the Index License Surcharge Fee, is exempt from such fee), the
Exchange believes that this will incentivize Public Customers to
execute RUT orders to the Exchange, and other market participants
prefer to trade with Public Customers. Therefore, these rebates should
provide increased volume and greater liquidity (benefitting all market
participants), and more trading opportunities for these other market
participants to trade with these Public Customer orders with which they
prefer trading. Further, there is a history within the options industry
of providing preferential pricing for Public Customers, and this fact
is evidenced in the fee schedules of many options exchanges, (including
C2). While there is also a place within the proposed RUT fees structure
in which C2 Market-Makers are not assessed a fee while other market
participants are, C2 Market-Makers must undertake certain obligations,
such as quoting obligations, that other market participants may not
have. Further, the Exchange believes that this will incentivize C2
Market-Makers to execute RUT orders on the Exchange, thereby providing
increased volume and greater liquidity, which benefits all market
participants.
    C2 does not believe that the proposed fees structure for RUT will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Indeed, the
Exchange's proposed fees structure for RUT is intended to increase
competition in RUT. The Exchange believes that its pricing structure is
competitive with, and better than, the pricing structure for RUT at
other exchanges. For example, when factoring in the lower Index License
Surcharge Fee at C2 (and indeed even when not factoring in this
difference in some circumstances), the Exchange believes that its RUT
pricing is preferable for market participants to that offered at Arca.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2013-033 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-C2-2013-033. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-033, and should be
submitted on or before October 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22510 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35327-35330]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0853; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-116-AD;
Amendment 39-16720; AD 2011-12-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER 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 repetitive testing of the
stabilizer takeoff warning switches, and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD was prompted by reports that the warning horn did
not sound during the takeoff warning system test of the S132 ``nose up
stab takeoff warning switch.'' We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct a takeoff warning system switch failure, which could reduce the
ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 22, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 22,
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: Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 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
September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55691). That NPRM proposed to require
repetitive testing of the stabilizer takeoff warning switches, and
corrective actions if necessary.

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

    Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and the Air Line Pilots
Association (ALPA), International, support the NPRM.

Requests To Revise Costs of Compliance Section of the NPRM

    American Airlines (AA) requested that we revise the Cost of
Compliance section of the NPRM to show a more accurate cost to
operators. Delta Air Lines noted that the actual cost to operators will
be more than what is described in the Costs of Compliance section given
in the NPRM.
    AA explained that the Costs of Compliance estimate provided in the
NPRM specifies 1 work-hour per product at an average labor rate of $85
per hour. However, AA stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010, estimates 4.25 hours to accomplish the test of the
switches and an additional 2.25 hours each to replace the switches. AA
asserted that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7, 2010,
estimates a cost to operators of $361.25 to $743.75 per product.
    We agree to provide clarification of the Costs of Compliance
section in this final rule. Since the issuance of the NPRM, Boeing has
issued Service Bulletin Information Notice 737-27-1289 IN 02, dated
September 27, 2010, which provides revised work-hours for testing (1
work-hour) and the on-condition replacement (2 work-hours) of the
switches. We have revised the Costs of Compliance section of this final
rule to reflect the latest cost information provided by the
manufacturer.

Request To Add Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

    ALPA requested that we revise the NPRM to include a terminating
action for the repetitive inspections proposed by the NPRM. AA stated
that the lack of a terminating action for the repetitive inspections
proposed by the NPRM places pressure on the operator because it is
required to continue the repetitive inspections at intervals of 750
flight cycles for the affected airplanes.
    We disagree to include a terminating action in the final rule. The
manufacturer has advised that extensive modifications would be required
to eliminate the repetitive inspections. No terminating action is
currently available. However, if a modification that addresses the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD is developed, approved, and
available, operators could request approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) to this AD for doing that modification. No change has
been made to the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Allow Repair of Switch Before Replacing

    AA questioned why operators could not attempt to repair a failed
switch before being required to replace the failed switch. AA explained
that the NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7,
2010, require the switch to be replaced if it fails the test. AA
reasoned that the switches are adjustable per ``AMM 31-51-02--
Stabilizer Takeoff Warning Switches--Adjustment/Test.''
    From these statements, we infer that AA is requesting that we
revise the NPRM to allow operators to repair a failed switch. We
disagree. The intent of the test specified in paragraph (g) of the
final rule is to find and, if necessary, replace switches that fail to
electrically open or close properly regardless of adjustment [within
the switch's allowable range of adjustment], not switches that are
simply out of adjustment. For switches that are out of adjustment, it
is acceptable to attempt to adjust a switch that fails the test, prior
to replacing the switch. However, the allowable range of adjustment is
limited. If the switch continues to fail the test within the switch's
allowable range of adjustment, it must be replaced. To preclude test
failures due to an out-of-adjustment switch, the manufacturer
recommends doing the test with stabilizer trim set at least one unit
outside the green band. Doing the test according to the manufacturer's
recommendation will ensure that any test failures are due to a
malfunctioning switch, not due to a switch that is simply out of
adjustment. No change has been made to the final rule in regard to this
issue.

Request To Allow Additional Replacement Switch

    Delta Air Lines (the commenter) requested that we revise the NPRM
to allow switch part number (P/N) 35EN27-4 to be an additional
acceptable replacement switch for failed switches. The commenter
explained that paragraph (h) of the NPRM specifies that a stabilizer
takeoff warning switch which fails the required test must be replaced
with a new switch prior to further flight, in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7, 2010. The commenter
further explained that ``Section 3.B `Work Instructions' '' of this
service information does not specify replacement switches by part
number. The commenter also explained that replacement switch part
numbers are found in ``Section 2.C.2 `Parts and Materials Supplied by
the Operator' of the SB,'' and that this section lists only three part
numbers. The commenter expressed that it is aware of an additional
switch, which is not listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010.
    We do not agree to allow switch P/N 35EN27-4 to be an additional
acceptable replacement switch. This part has not been validated as an
acceptable replacement part at this time. The manufacturer is currently
assessing the acceptability of this part as a replacement part and
might revise the service information at a later time to include this
part number. If this part number is found to be acceptable at a later
date, its use might be approved as an AMOC to this AD. No change has
been made to the final rule in regard to this issue.

Effect of This AD on AD 88-22-09

    Paragraph (b) (``Affected ADs'') of this AD has been revised to
note that this AD affects AD 88-22-09, Amendment 39-6054 (Docket No.
88-NM-132-AD; 53 FR 41313, October 21, 1988). In addition, we have
revised paragraph (g) of this AD to state that accomplishment of the
repetitive tests required by this

AD terminates the operational and functional checks of the takeoff
configuration warning system required by paragraph A., required item 3
(``Elevator out of Green Band switches'') of AD 88-22-09 for the
airplanes affected by this new AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 963 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $81,855, or $85 per product, per inspection cycle.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170............  Replacement.....................              $0            $170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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):

2011-12-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16720; Docket No. FAA-
2010-0853; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-116-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective July 22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD affects AD 88-22-09, Amendment 39-6054 (Docket No.
88-NM-132-AD). This AD does not supersede the requirements of AD 88-
22-09.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports that the warning horn did
not sound during the takeoff warning system test of the S132 ``nose
up stab takeoff warning switch.'' The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct a takeoff
warning system switch failure, which could reduce the ability of the
flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Test

    (g) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, test
the stabilizer takeoff warning switches, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 750 flight hours. Accomplishment of the repetitive tests
required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the operational and
functional checks of the takeoff configuration warning system
required by paragraph A., required item 3 (``Elevator out of Green
Band switches'') of AD 88-22-09.

Replacement and Re-test

    (h) If any stabilizer takeoff warning switch fails the test
required in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, replace the stabilizer
takeoff warning switch with a new switch and test the new switch
before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7,
2010. Within 750 flight hours after replacement of any switch, test
the replaced switch, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7,
2010; and repeat this test on the replaced

switch thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 flight hours.

Special Flight Permit

    (i) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

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 appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Jeffrey W.
Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated
April 7, 2010, 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 Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 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 June 3, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-14344 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25479-25480]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC22-57-000.
    Applicants: Northern Wind Energy Redevelopment, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Northern Wind Energy Redevelopment, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 4/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220422-5296.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: EC22-58-000.
    Applicants: Vandolah Power Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Vandolah Power Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1697-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., AEP
Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: 2022-04-25_AEP Compliance
on Order 864 for ADIT to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5355.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1740-002.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: American Transmission Systems,
Incorporated submits tariff filing per 35: ATSI submits compliance
filing in ER20-1740 revising Att. H-21A and Att. II to be effective 12/
1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1957-002.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Supplement to Amended Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5325.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2577-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., American Electric Power
Service Corporation
    Description: Compliance filing: American Electric Power Service
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing in Response
to Order Issued in ER20-2577 (AEP West Transcos) to be effective 1/27/
2020.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5341.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1807-004.
    Applicants: Hill Top Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing Under
Docket Nos. ER21-1807 and EL21-81 to be effective 7/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-109-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplemental Information to
Jurisdictional Agreement Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/15/22.
    Accession Number: 20220415-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-709-001.
    Applicants: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric
Utility Commission submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): Deficiency
Response--Missouri Joint Municipal Utility Commission Formula Rate to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-709-002.
    Applicants: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.17(b): Supplemental to Deficiency Response of
MJMEUC to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5297.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1679-000.
    Applicants: Google Energy LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Google Energy Market Based
Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 4/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220422-5258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1680-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Termination of First
Revised SA No. 3226--PJM and VEPCO dba Dominion to be effective 4/12/
2022.
    Filed Date: 4/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220422-5272.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1681-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3938 AEP Renewables
Development Surplus Interconnection GIA to be effective 6/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1682-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service
Agreement No. 6421; Queue No. AE1-155 to be effective 3/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1683-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2482R3 Evergy Metro & Evergy
KS Central Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1684-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation,
Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky
Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling
Power Company, AEP Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Indiana
Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., AEP Kentucky Transmission Company,
Inc., AEP Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., AEP West Virginia
Transmission Company, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: American Electric Power Service
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35: AEP East Operating and
Transmission Companies Order 864 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/
27/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220425-5316.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09283 Filed 4-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 55556-55557]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0511]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Medicated Feed Mill License Application

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of a collection of information and to
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on the medicated feed mill licensing applications.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by December 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 these topics: (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.

Medicated Feed Mill License Application--21 CFR Part 515 (OMB Control
Number 0910-0337)--Extension

    The Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) of October 9, 1996, amended
section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21
U.S.C. 360b) to replace the system for the approval of specific
medicated feed with a general licensing system for feed mills. Before
passage of the ADAA, medicated feed manufacturers were required to
obtain approval of Medicated Feed Applications (MFAs), in order to
manufacture certain types of medicated feeds. An individual approved
MFA was required for each and every applicable medicated feed. The ADAA
streamlined the paperwork process for gaining approval to manufacture
medicated feeds by replacing the MFA system with a facility license for
each medicated feed manufacturing facility.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annual Frequency        Total Annual
              21 CFR Section                 No. of  Respondents      per Response            Responses        Hours per  Response       Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
515.10(b)                                                     20                     1                    20                  0.25                     5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
515.11(b)                                                     75                     1                    75                  0.25                 18.75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
515.23                                                        40                     1                    40                  0.25                    10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
515.30(c)                                                   0.15                     1                  0.15                    24                   3.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden Hours                                                                                37.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                                                   Table 2.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   No. of           Annual Frequency        Total Annual
              21 CFR Section                    Recordkeepers       per Recordkeeping          Records          Hours per  Record        Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
510.305                                                    1,070                     1                 1,070                  0.03                 32.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The estimated annual reporting burden on industry is 37.35 hours as
shown in table 1 of this document. Industry estimates it takes about 1/
4 hour to submit the application. We estimate 135 original and
supplemental applications, and voluntary revocations for a total of
33.75 hours (135 submissions x 1/4 hour). An additional 3.6 hours is
added for the rare notice of opportunity for a hearing to not approve
or revoke an application. Finally, we estimate 30 hours for maintaining
and retrieving labels as required by 21 CFR 510.305 and shown in table
2 of this document. We estimated 0.03 hours for each of the
approximately 1,000 licensees. Thus, the total annual burden for
reporting and recordkeeping requirements is estimated to be 67.35
hours.

    Dated: October 20, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25915 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 49974]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1101-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non Conforming Negotiated Rate
Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160721-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1102-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Rate Schedule FTP
to be effective 8/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160722-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17995 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P