[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 66957]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23541]

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

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: EC16-151-000.
    Applicants: Raven Power Holdings LLC, C/R Energy Jade, LLC,
Sapphire Power Holdings LLC, Talen Energy Corporation.
    Description: Supplement to July 15, 2016 Joint Application of Talen
Energy Corporation, et al., for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 9/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160922-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-186-000.
    Applicants: Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, for Expedited Consideration and Confidential
Treatment of Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160922-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2645-000.
    Applicants: Dan's Mountain Solar, LLC.
    Description: Request for one-time, limited waiver, shortened
comment period and expedited approval of Dan's Mountain Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160922-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2651-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AltaGas GSFA and GIA Name
Change Filing (SA 24 and 46) to be effective 11/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160922-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2652-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Large
Generator Interconnection Agreements, Part 1 of 2 to be effective 9/29/
2010.
    Filed Date: 9/22/16.
    Accession Number: 20160922-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: RR16-6-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Supplemental Clarification Filing of the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation Concerning Proposed 2017
Business Plans and Budgets of Northeast Power Coordinating Council,
Inc. and ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
    Filed Date: 9/23/16.
    Accession Number: 20160923-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/16.

    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 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: September 23, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23541 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Year State Species Metric TonsPounds $ 1980 Maryland CRAB, BLU11,477.80 25,304,000 6,030,052 1980 Maryland CRAB, BLU 520.5 1,147,600 1,357,799 1980 Virginia CRAB, BLU17,096.90 37,691,800 6,794,452 1980 Virginia CRAB, BLU 138.2 304,600 200,902 1980 Virginia CRAB, BLU 148.8 328,100 466,272 1981 Maryland CRAB, BLU26,016.90 57,356,900 15,570,252 1981 Maryland CRAB, BLU 1,060.60 2,338,300 2,823,668 1981 Virginia CRAB, BLU19,071.00 42,044,000 8,064,175 1981 Virginia CRAB, BLU 78.6 173,300 166,763 1981 Virginia CRAB, BLU 185.7 409,500 624,558 1982 Maryland CRAB, BLU18,695.10 41,215,200 12,743,253 1982 Maryland CRAB, BLU 1,110.20 2,447,500 3,107,455 1982 Virginia CRAB, BLU19,970.80 44,027,700 9,047,196 1982 Virginia CRAB, BLU 219 482,800 390,523 1982 Virginia CRAB, BLU 1.9 4,100 6,905 1982 Virginia CRAB, BLU 150.8 332,400 515,735 1983 Maryland CRAB, BLU22,049.40 48,610,000 17,104,638 1983 Maryland CRAB, BLU 1,750.90 3,860,100 5,461,686 1983 Virginia CRAB, BLU20,912.70 46,104,200 11,042,861 1983 Virginia CRAB, BLU 283.7 625,400 785,146 1983 Virginia CRAB, BLU 14.5 31,900 61,586 1983 Virginia CRAB, BLU 37.5 82,700 76,421 1984 Maryland CRAB, BLU21,229.20 46,801,800 16,023,444 1984 Maryland CRAB, BLU 893 1,968,700 4,053,624 1984 Virginia CRAB, BLU22,436.70 49,464,000 11,135,400 1984 Virginia CRAB, BLU 401.3 884,700 1,012,418 1984 Virginia CRAB, BLU 17.8 39,300 53,019 1984 Virginia CRAB, BLU 21 46,200 42,071 1985 Maryland CRAB, BLU25,163.90 55,476,400 17,957,943 1985 Maryland CRAB, BLU 1,339.60 2,953,300 6,054,064 1985 Virginia CRAB, BLU18,476.40 40,733,180 8,434,209 1985 Virginia CRAB, BLU 474.4 1,045,800 1,081,267 1985 Virginia CRAB, BLU 24 52,900 63,557 1985 Virginia CRAB, BLU 33.3 73,500 74,094 1986 Maryland CRAB, BLU21,821.60 48,107,900 18,192,796 1986 Maryland CRAB, BLU 954.5 2,104,300 3,715,593 1986 Virginia CRAB, BLU17,022.30 37,527,300 9,090,401 1986 Virginia CRAB, BLU 303.5 669,000 686,300 1986 Virginia CRAB, BLU 18.7 41,300 78,003 1986 Virginia CRAB, BLU 17.5 38,600 38,381 1987 Maryland CRAB, BLU20,063.40 44,231,800 20,055,018 1987 Maryland CRAB, BLU 864.9 1,906,700 4,800,367 1987 Virginia CRAB, BLU14,536.20 32,046,500 9,063,908 1987 Virginia CRAB, BLU 192.5 424,400 522,222 1987 Virginia CRAB, BLU 22.4 49,400 145,354 1987 Virginia CRAB, BLU 18.3 40,300 65,930 1988 Maryland CRAB, BLU20,052.10 44,206,900 20,249,286 1988 Maryland CRAB, BLU 525.4 1,158,400 2,256,984 1988 Virginia CRAB, BLU16,432.00 36,225,900 11,750,455 1988 Virginia CRAB, BLU 83.8 184,700 188,695 1988 Virginia CRAB, BLU 3.8 8,300 31,723 1988 Virginia CRAB, BLU 423.8 934,300 1,411,874 1989 Maryland CRAB, BLU20,598.80 45,412,100 22,732,461 1989 Maryland CRAB, BLU 568.6 1,253,500 4,128,589 1989 Virginia CRAB, BLU19,615.60 43,244,500 12,316,589 1989 Virginia CRAB, BLU 428.2 943,900 1,451,559 1989 Virginia CRAB, BLU 108.5 239,200 882,295 1989 Virginia CRAB, BLU 57.3 126,400 211,407 1990 Maryland CRAB, BLU23,036.50 50,786,161 21,570,207 1990 Maryland CRAB, BLU 8.2 18,159 19,744 1990 Maryland CRAB, BLU 715.2 1,576,660 4,399,070 1990 Virginia CRAB, BLU22,229.30 49,006,688 15,633,916 1990 Virginia CRAB, BLU 431.2 950,641 1,220,103 1990 Virginia CRAB, BLU 69.4 152,940 571,392 1990 Virginia CRAB, BLU 3.7 8,256 12,122 1991 Maryland CRAB, BLU22,569.30 49,756,236 18,912,550 1991 Maryland CRAB, BLU 9.2 20,242 17,293 1991 Maryland CRAB, BLU 822.1 1,812,299 4,314,992 1991 Virginia CRAB, BLU19,768.10 43,580,734 10,266,191 1991 Virginia CRAB, BLU 355.6 784,033 842,366 1991 Virginia CRAB, BLU 56.1 123,661 479,269 1991 Virginia CRAB, BLU 197.5 435,426 403,212 1992 Maryland CRAB, BLU13,233.30 29,174,069 14,930,465 1992 Maryland CRAB, BLU 13.8 30,533 51,292 1992 Maryland CRAB, BLU 455.8 1,004,940 2,624,107 1992 Virginia CRAB, BLU10,573.10 23,309,460 9,058,840 1992 Virginia CRAB, BLU 131.8 290,505 539,359 1992 Virginia CRAB, BLU 103.6 228,324 855,074 1993 Maryland CRAB, BLU27,108.70 59,763,788 32,250,221 1993 Maryland CRAB, BLU 16.9 37,254 64,013 1993 Maryland CRAB, BLU 839.4 1,850,517 5,099,309 1993 Virginia CRAB, BLU23,316.80 51,404,223 30,759,678 1993 Virginia CRAB, BLU 671.3 1,480,000 2,537,104 1993 Virginia CRAB, BLU 122.5 270,041 1,278,253 1994 Maryland CRAB, BLU20,383.60 44,937,722 36,595,329 1994 Maryland CRAB, BLU 11.2 24,794 46,271 1994 Maryland CRAB, BLU 746.5 1,645,658 5,431,313 1994 Virginia CRAB, BLU15,431.40 34,020,062 19,874,278 1994 Virginia CRAB, BLU 570.6 1,257,974 2,330,897 1994 Virginia CRAB, BLU 66.6 146,934 607,470 1995 Maryland CRAB, BLU19,288.80 42,523,992 36,849,840 1995 Maryland CRAB, BLU 16.1 35,428 80,341 1995 Maryland CRAB, BLU 776 1,710,847 4,859,595 1995 Virginia CRAB, BLU13,971.00 30,800,424 20,185,974 1995 Virginia CRAB, BLU 729.3 1,607,723 3,632,008 1995 Virginia CRAB, BLU 73 160,856 768,831 1996 Maryland CRAB, BLU16,862.30 37,174,668 26,170,445 1996 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.1 262 568 1996 Maryland CRAB, BLU 808.6 1,782,582 7,634,490 1996 Virginia CRAB, BLU14,750.20 32,518,256 19,718,691 1996 Virginia CRAB, BLU 741.1 1,633,792 3,384,431 1996 Virginia CRAB, BLU 29.3 64,683 316,314 1997 Maryland CRAB, BLU19,948.60 43,978,676 36,379,289 1997 Maryland CRAB, BLU 17.5 38,603 70,378 1997 Maryland CRAB, BLU 706.7 1,557,882 7,129,716 1997 Virginia CRAB, BLU16,782.20 36,998,000 24,516,428 1997 Virginia CRAB, BLU 906.1 1,997,506 3,617,863 1997 Virginia CRAB, BLU 31.3 69,035 269,888 1998 Maryland CRAB, BLU13,402.20 29,546,458 28,294,910 1998 Maryland CRAB, BLU 23.3 51,316 93,035 1998 Maryland CRAB, BLU 577.3 1,272,673 5,881,549 1998 Virginia CRAB, BLU14,581.60 32,146,616 21,249,195 1998 Virginia CRAB, BLU 1,084.60 2,391,209 5,641,837 1998 Virginia CRAB, BLU 27.9 61,459 304,454 1999 Maryland CRAB, BLU15,340.90 33,820,654 30,862,082 1999 Maryland CRAB, BLU 15.6 34,381 90,686 1999 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.9 1,982 9,377 1999 Maryland CRAB, BLU 686.8 1,514,013 7,896,529 1999 Virginia CRAB, BLU13,306.90 29,336,320 21,315,957 1999 Virginia CRAB, BLU 930.3 2,050,989 4,937,459 1999 Virginia CRAB, BLU 22.6 49,768 271,690 2000 Maryland CRAB, BLU 9,715.80 21,419,470 23,607,074 2000 Maryland CRAB, BLU 15.2 33,483 54,160 2000 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.6 1,418 6,015 2000 Maryland CRAB, BLU 631.7 1,392,648 7,175,351 2000 Virginia CRAB, BLU12,142.60 26,769,521 18,616,481 2000 Virginia CRAB, BLU 925.7 2,040,865 5,421,344 2000 Virginia CRAB, BLU 16.2 35,787 76,698 2001 Maryland CRAB, BLU10,987.00 24,222,045 24,964,595 2001 Maryland CRAB, BLU 3.8 8,367 36,543 2001 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.3 601 2,142 2001 Maryland CRAB, BLU 772.1 1,702,131 9,677,413 2001 Virginia CRAB, BLU10,291.30 22,688,171 17,295,178 2001 Virginia CRAB, BLU 1,054.70 2,325,135 8,125,852 2001 Virginia CRAB, BLU 20 44,089 179,196 2002 Maryland CRAB, BLU11,447.80 25,237,841 23,949,838 2002 Maryland CRAB, BLU 2.9 6,401 12,232 2002 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.2 420 1,268 2002 Maryland CRAB, BLU 560.6 1,235,891 6,375,046 2002 Virginia CRAB, BLU11,418.00 25,172,221 16,370,701 2002 Virginia CRAB, BLU 951.2 2,097,112 4,596,825 2002 Virginia CRAB, BLU 14.2 31,196 115,601 2003 Maryland CRAB, BLU11,893.50 26,220,305 25,896,295 2003 Maryland CRAB, BLU 1.7 3,751 5,993 2003 Maryland CRAB, BLU 0.2 447 1,706 2003 Maryland CRAB, BLU 722 1,591,712 8,628,415 2003 Virginia CRAB, BLU 9,012.80 19,869,714 14,967,365 2003 Virginia CRAB, BLU 710.5 1,566,339 4,029,425 2003 Virginia CRAB, BLU 12.8 28,326 132,897


[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31794-31795]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0406]

Information Sheet Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical Investigators,
and IRBs; Frequently Asked Questions--Statement of Investigator (Form
FDA 1572); Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of an information sheet guidance entitled, ``Information
Sheet Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical Investigators, and IRBs;
Frequently Asked Questions--Statement of Investigator (Form FDA
1572).'' This guidance is intended to assist sponsors, clinical
investigators, and institutional review boards (IRBs) involved in
clinical investigations of investigational drugs and biologics in
completing the Statement of Investigator form (Form FDA 1572). FDA
developed this information sheet guidance in response to numerous
questions from the research community regarding Form FDA 1572. This
information sheet guidance provides FDA's responses to the most
frequently asked questions.

DATES: Submit either written or electronic comments on agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993 or to the Office of Communication, Training,
and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist the office in processing your requests. Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the information sheet
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Salewski, Division of
Scientific Investigations, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of an information sheet guidance
entitled, ``Information Sheet Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical
Investigators, and IRBs; Frequently Asked Questions--Statement of
Investigator (Form FDA 1572).'' This guidance is intended to assist
sponsors, clinical investigators, and IRBs involved in clinical
investigations of investigational drugs and biologics in complying with
the requirement that each investigator complete and sign a Form FDA
1572 before participating in an investigation. This guidance describes
how to complete the Statement of Investigator form (Form FDA 1572).
    FDA developed this information sheet guidance in response to
numerous questions from the research community regarding the Form FDA
1572. In this guidance, we provide answers to frequently asked
questions concerning the purpose of this form, when this form needs to
be completed and signed by the investigator, how to best complete the
various blocks within the form, and when the form might need to be
updated. In addition, we clarify questions related to the use of Form
FDA 1572 by clinical investigators participating in studies conducted
outside the United States that may or may not be under an
investigational new drug application.
    This information sheet guidance is part of the Information Sheet
Guidance Initiative, announced on February 3, 2006, in the Federal
Register (71 FR 5861), which describes FDA's intention to update the
process for developing, issuing, and making available guidances
intended for IRBs, clinical investigators, and sponsors. Known as
``Information Sheets,'' these guidances have provided recommendations
to IRBs, clinical investigators, and sponsors to help them fulfill
their responsibilities to protect human subjects who participate in
research regulated by the FDA since the early 1980s. The Information
Sheet Guidance Initiative is intended to ensure that the Information
Sheets are consistent with the FDA's good guidance practices (GGPs). As
part of the initiative, which will be ongoing, the agency plans to
rescind Information Sheets that are obsolete, revise and reissue
Information Sheet Guidances that address current issues, and develop

new Information Sheet Guidances as needed.
    In the Federal Register of July 29, 2008 (73 FR 43940), FDA
announced the availability of a draft version of the guidance entitled,
``Draft Information Sheet Guidance for Sponsors, Clinical
Investigators, and IRBs; Frequently Asked Questions--Statement of
Investigator (Form FDA 1572).'' The July 2008 guidance gave interested
persons an opportunity to submit comments through September 29, 2008.
All comments received during the comment period have been carefully
reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated in the guidance. As a
result of the public comments and editorial changes, the guidance is
clearer than the draft version.
    This information sheet guidance is being issued consistent with
FDA's GGPs regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The information sheet guidance
represents the agency's current thinking on completing the Form FDA
1572. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may
be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information for Form FDA 1572 have been approved under
OMB Control No. 0910-0014.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
Guidance7ComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13420 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26193-26194]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-41-000]

Cameron LNG, LLC; Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment for the Cameron LNG Amended Expansion Project

    On January 18, 2022, Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron LNG) filed an
application in Docket No. CP22-41-000 requesting to amend its
authorization under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act for the Cameron
Expansion Project issued on May 5, 2016 (Docket No. CP15-560-000). The
proposed project is known as the Cameron LNG Amended Expansion Project
(Project Amendment), and would reduce the overall production capacity
of Cameron LNG's liquefaction terminal from 9.97 to 6.75 million tons
of liquefied natural gas per annum.
    On January 28, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project
Amendment. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing
federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's environmental document for the Project Amendment.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Project Amendment and the planned
schedule for the completion of the environmental review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1501.10 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--December 2, 2022
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \2\--March 2, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project
Amendment's progress.

Project Description

    Cameron LNG proposes to no longer construct the authorized Train 5;
modify the approved Train 4 and perform associated design enhancements;
and perform an additional design enhancement to allow simultaneous
loading of two liquefied natural gas vessels at a rate of 12,000 cubic
meters/hour at both the North and South Jetties. The Project Amendment
facilities would be within the existing footprint authorized by the
Commission for the Expansion Project (Docket No. CP15-560-000) in
Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana.

Background

    On March 31, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Cameron
LNG Amended Expansion Project and Notice of Public Scoping Session
(Notice of Scoping). The Notice of Scoping was sent to affected
landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
In response to the Notice of Scoping, the Commission received comments
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stating they had no comments
on the Project Amendment. All substantive comments will be addressed in
the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the
Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service
provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets,

document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP22-41-000), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 27, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09450 Filed 5-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90402-90403]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29940]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79510; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Amendments to
NYSE MKT Rules 1600 et seq. and the Listing Rules Applicable to the
Shares of the Nuveen Diversified Commodity Fund and the Nuveen Long/
Short Commodity Total Return Fund

December 8, 2016.
    On May 24, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to among other
things, amend NYSE MKT Rules 1600 et seq. and to amend the listing
rules applicable to the shares of the Nuveen Diversified Commodity Fund
and the Nuveen Long/Short Commodity Total Return Fund, which the
Exchange currently lists and trades. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 13, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78000 (June 7,
2016), 81 FR 38232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On September 2, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed
rule change as originally filed.\6\ On September 9, 2016, the
Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act,\7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change, as modified by

Amendment No. 1.\8\ On November 10, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the
proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto its
entirety.\9\ The Commission has received two comments on the
proposal.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78432, 81 FR 51248
(August 3, 2016). The Commission designated September 9, 2016, as
the date by which the Commission would either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-201658/nysemkt201658-2.pdf.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78804 (September 9,
2016), 81 FR 63543 (September 15, 2016) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings'').
    \9\ Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2016-58/nysemkt201658-4.pdf.
    \10\ See letter dated July 4, 2016, to Division of Trading and
Markets, Commission (``Anonymous Letter''); and letter from Michael
Szkodzinski, Associate General Counsel, Weiss Asset Management LP,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated October 6, 2016.
The comments regarding the proposed rule change are available at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2016-58/nysemkt201658.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act\11\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. December
10, 2016, and February 8, 2017, are 180 days and 240 days,
respectively, from June 13, 2016, the date that the proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, thereto, and the
comments received.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ designates February 8, 2017, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, thereto (File Number SR-NYSEMKT-
2016-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29940 Filed 12-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68931-68932]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27309]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73586; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Implementation of the New Options Floor Broker Management System
Until November 3, 2015

November 13, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 extend the implementation rollout of its
new Options Floor Broker Management System.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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
    Currently, the Exchange operates two Floor Broker Management
Systems concurrently on the options trading floor: The original Floor
Broker Management System operating since 2005 (``old FBMS''); and the
enhanced Floor Broker Management System (``new FBMS''). The purpose of
the proposal is to continue the concurrent operation of old FBMS and
new FBMS for a temporary period ending November 3, 2015 for the reasons
stated below.
    Old FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or their employees to enter,
route, and report transactions stemming from options orders received on
the Exchange. Old FBMS also establishes an electronic audit trail for
options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange. Floor
Brokers can also use old FBMS to submit orders to Phlx XL, rather than
executing the orders in the trading crowd.
    New FBMS was launched in March 2014. With the new FBMS, all options
transactions on the Exchange involving at least one Floor Broker are
required to be executed by the new FBMS. In connection with order
execution, the Exchange allows the new FBMS to execute two-sided orders
entered by Floor Brokers, including multi-leg orders up to 15 legs,
after the Floor Broker has represented the orders in the trading crowd.
New FBMS also provides Floor Brokers with an enhanced functionality
called the complex calculator that calculates and displays a suggested
price of each individual component of a multi-leg order, up to 15 legs,
submitted on a net debit or credit basis.
    The Exchange received approval to implement the new FBMS as of June
1, 2013,\3\ and delayed implementation until July 2013,\4\ until
September 2013,\5\ until December 2013,\6\ and until March 2014.\7\
Implementation began on March 7, 2014, with the new FBMS operating
concurrently with the old FBMS. The Exchange intended to retire the old
FBMS after a specified implementation period. The new FBMS has been
fully rolled out to all Floor Brokers and in all options. Nevertheless,
the Exchange delayed the retirement of the old FBMS until September 1,
2014 \8\ and, most recently, until November 3, 2014,\9\ for reasons of
the performance of the new FBMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69471 (April 29, 2013),
78 FR 26096 (May 3, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-09).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69811 (June 20, 2013),
78 FR 38422 (June 26, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-67).
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70141 (August 8, 2013),
78 FR 49565 (August 14, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-83).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70629 (October 8, 2013),
78 FR 62852 (October 22, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-100).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71212 (December 31,
2013), 79 FR 888 (January 7, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2013-129).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72135 (May 9, 2014), 79
FR 27966 (May 15, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-33).
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73246 (September 29,
2014), 79 FR 59874 (October 3, 2014) (SR-Phlx-2014-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has been making improvements intended to improve the
performance of the new system. However, the Floor Brokers have
experienced, among other things, some latency in order processing as
well as some occasional difficulty accessing certain order entry
screens in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe
that the old FBMS should be retired on November 3, 2014. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to continue operation of the old FBMS and new FBMS
concurrently for a one year period ending November 3, 2015.
    During this time period, the Exchange intends to identify an
alternative system to the new FBMS to ultimately replace both old FBMS
and new FBMS.
    If an alternative to the new FBMS could be implemented sooner than
this date, the Exchange will seek to implement it sooner. In addition,
the Exchange will notify the Floor Brokers and file a proposed rule
change addressing any changes to its rules before implementing any new
system.
    During this additional time period, the Exchange will continue to
permit Floor Brokers to use both the old and the new FBMS based on
their business needs and Floor Brokers can choose whether to use one or
both. Both old FBMS and new FBMS will continue to be available in all
options and to all Floor Brokers. For example, a Floor Broker will be
able to use the old FBMS for one order and the new FBMS for the next
order. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the performance issues
with the new FBMS are less likely and should decrease because the Floor
Broker can choose the old FBMS.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\

in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest, by
providing options Floor Brokers with two different FBMS offerings for
order entry and processing. Despite its performance issues, the new
FBMS offers many beneficial features to the Floor Brokers that the old
FBMS does not, such as the complex calculator and increased automation
described above, such that the Exchange has determined not to shut down
the new FBMS. This should enable Floor Brokers to operate their
businesses and comply with the relevant rules, which is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Continuing to
operate both old FBMS and new FBMS concurrently for a temporary period
should also promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing
Floor Brokers with the tools to enter and process their orders
efficiently. The proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because all
Floor Brokers will be able to use both the old and the new FBMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
permitting Floor Brokers to use both the old FBMS and new FBMS for an
additional period of time while the Exchange considers an alternative
approach to address the efficient operation of the Exchange's trading
floor should allow it to compete with other floor-based exchanges and
help the Exchange's Floor Brokers compete with floor brokers on other
options exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\ A proposed rule
change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative
for 30 days after the date of filing.\14\ However, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such
action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission notes that the full implementation of
the new FBMS was scheduled to occur on November 3, 2014. The Exchange
has indicated that it has experienced performance issues with the new
FBMS and that it needs additional time to identify an alternative
system to the new FBMS. While it seeks this alternative, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to operate the old FBMS and new FMBS
concurrently and that all Floor Brokers may use either the old FBMS or
the new FBMS. Based on the foregoing, the Commission has determined to
waive the 30-day operative date so that the proposal may take effect
upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.\17\ If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2014-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-71. 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 offices 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-Phlx 2014-71,
and should be submitted on or before December 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27309 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 169 (Friday, September 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49548-49549]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4844]

``Ruby Chocolate'' Deviating From Identity Standard; Temporary
Permit for Market Testing

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
extension of a temporary permit issued to Barry Callebaut U.S.A. LLC
(the applicant) to market test products (designated as ``ruby
chocolate'') that deviate from the U.S. standards of identity for cacao
products. The extension allows the applicant to continue to evaluate
commercial viability of the product and to collect data on consumer
acceptance of the product in support of a petition to establish a
standard of identity for ``ruby chocolate.'' We also invite other
interested parties to participate in the market test.

DATES: The new expiration date of the permit will be either the
effective date of a final rule establishing a standard of identity for
``ruby chocolate'' that may result from the petition or 30 days after
denial of the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjan Morravej, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Carrol
Bascus, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of
Regulations and Policy (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Sec.  130.17 (21 CFR
130.17), we issued a temporary permit to Barry Callebaut U.S.A. LLC,
600 West Chicago Ave, Suite 860, Chicago, IL 60654, to market test
products identified as ``ruby chocolate'' that deviate from the
requirements of the standards of identity for cacao products in part
163 (21 CFR part 163) (84 FR 64541, November 22, 2019). We issued the
permit to facilitate market testing of products that deviate from the
requirements of the standard of identity for cacao products issued
under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 341). The permit covers limited interstate marketing tests of
products identified as ``ruby chocolate.'' These test products deviate
from the U.S. standards of identity for cacao products (Sec. Sec.
163.111, 163.123, 163.124, 163.130, 163.135, 163.140, and 163.145).
    For the purpose of this permit, ``ruby chocolate'' is the solid or
semi-plastic food prepared by mixing and grinding cacao fat with one or
more of the cacao ingredients (namely, chocolate liquor, breakfast
cocoa, cocoa, and low-fat cocoa), citric acid, one or more of optional
nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. ``Ruby chocolate'' contains not less
than 1.5 percent nonfat cacao solids, not less than 2.5 percent by
weight of milk fat, not less than 12 percent by weight of total milk
solids, not more than 1.5 percent of emulsifying agents, and not more
than 5 percent of whey or whey products. It may also contain other
ingredients such as antioxidants approved for food use, spices, natural
and artificial flavorings, and other seasonings. However, these other
ingredients cannot imitate the flavor of chocolate, milk, butter,
berry, or another fruit. Additionally, ``ruby chocolate'' contains no
added coloring. The test product ``ruby chocolate'' contains the
principal ingredients used in most of the current standards for cacao
products under part 163; however, it deviates from the current standard
of identify for chocolate products in terms of its final composition,
taste, and color.
    On February 19, 2021, the applicant asked us to extend the
temporary permit so the applicant could have more time to market test
the ``ruby chocolate'' and gain additional consumer acceptance in
support of the petition to establish a standard for ``ruby chocolate.''
We find that it is in the interest of consumers to extend the permit
for continued market testing of ``ruby chocolate'' to gain additional
information on consumer expectations and acceptance. Therefore, under
Sec.  130.17(i), we are extending the temporary permit granted to Barry
Callebaut U.S.A. LLC for temporary marketing of approximately 60
million pounds (27,215,540 kilograms) of ``ruby chocolate'' to provide
continued market testing of the specified amount of product for the
applicant on an annual basis. The test products will bear the name
``ruby chocolate.'' The new expiration date of the permit will be
either the effective date of a final rule establishing a standard of
identity for ``ruby chocolate'' that may result from the petition or 30
days after denial of the petition. All other conditions and terms of
this permit remain the same.
    In addition, we invite interested persons to participate in the
market test under the conditions of the permit, except for the
designated area of distribution. Any person who wishes to participate
in the extended market test should notify, in writing, the Branch
Chief, Product Evaluation Labeling Branch, Division of Food Labeling
and Standards, Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration,
5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. The notification must describe
the amount to be distributed, the area of distribution, and include the
labeling that will be used for the test product (see Sec.  130.17(i)).
For information on what to include in the notification to FDA, see
Sec.  130.17(c). Test products must be labeled in accordance with 21
CFR part 101.

    Dated: August 20, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy
[FR Doc. 2021-19096 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79823-79826]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 61, 101, 107

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1067; Amdt. Nos. 1-73, 61-148, 101-10, 107-6]
RIN 2120-AL43

Removal of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes regulations codifying the Special Rule for
Model Aircraft because of a change in applicable law. This action also
makes conforming updates to FAA regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 11, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan W. Cross, Regulations
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-
7173; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012, Public Law 112-95 (February 14, 2012) (FMRA) included a number of
provisions related to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operating in the
National Airspace System (NAS). Section 336 of the Act, titled
``Special Rule for Model Aircraft,'' defined ``model aircraft'' and
specifically prohibited FAA from promulgating a rule or regulation
regarding model aircraft that were operated under certain
circumstances. That prohibition notwithstanding,

section 336 preserved the right of FAA to pursue enforcement action
against operators of model aircraft that endanger the NAS. On June 28,
2016, FAA issued a final rule to allow the operation of small unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS), Operation
and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 FR 42064. That
rule also included a new subpart E to 14 CFR part 101, implementing
section 336.
    On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) (FAARA 2018). Section 349
of that act repealed the ``Special Rule for Model Aircraft'' in section
336 of FMRA, and replaced it with the ``Exception for limited
recreational operations of unmanned aircraft,'' creating a new
framework for allowing certain small unmanned aircraft operations. As a
result, 14 CFR part 101, subpart E, no longer reflects current
statutory law.
    This final rule removes 14 CFR part 101, subpart E, to remove the
inconsistency between FAA's regulations and current statutory law. It
also makes conforming amendments to remove references to part 101,
subpart E, in both 14 CFR 61.8 (Inapplicability of unmanned aircraft
operations) and 14 CFR 107.1(b)(2) (Applicability of part 107). Lastly,
the final rule removes the obsolete definition of ``model aircraft''
from 14 CFR part 1.

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking. Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay
in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and
published with the rule.
    In this instance, FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment.
Section 349 of FAARA 2018 repealed the statutory basis for Subpart E of
part 101, putting the regulation into conflict with statutory law.
Furthermore, FAA has no discretion to keep subpart E, irrespective of
notice and comment. For these reasons, and the potential for public
confusion resulting from regulations that are inconsistent with
existing statutory law, notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary
to the public interest.
    In addition, FAA finds good cause to make the rule effective upon
publication. FAARA 2018 superseded subpart E when the President signed
the Act into law on October 5, 2018, repealing FMRA section 336.
Subpart E has been ineffective since that date, eliminating any
justification to delay the effective date of this final rule.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title
49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44809, which
repealed section 336 of Public Law 112-95.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, this statute requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes FAA's
analysis of the impacts of this rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not
required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses
described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities
are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    As previously discussed, Section 349 of Public Law 115-254 repealed
section 336 of Public Law 112-95 and thus subpart E of part 101 titled,
Special Rule for Model Aircraft is no longer consistent with statutory
law. As a result, this rule removes subpart E of part 101 and revises
certain other provisions in 14 CFR to conform them to the removal of
subpart E. This action will eliminate a conflict between FAA
regulations and applicable statutory authority and reduce confusion for
regulated entities. This rule does not convey additional regulations
and does not result in additional regulatory costs.
    Furthermore, in the 2016 final rule that added regulations to allow
the operation of small UAS in the National Airspace System, 81 FR
42064, FAA found subpart E of part 101 would not result in any costs or
benefits since it would simply codify FAA's enforcement authority.
Therefore, the removal of subpart E of part 101 will not result in a
revision of the previous regulatory analysis of its implementing rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an
agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C.
553 to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed
rule. Similarly, section 604 of the RFA requires an agency to prepare a
final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final
rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after being required to publish a general
notice of proposed rulemaking. RFA analysis requirements are limited to
rulemakings for which the agency ``is required by section 553 or any
other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any
proposed rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a). FAA has found good cause for
implementing an immediate effective date in this case. As prior notice
and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required to be provided in this
situation, the analyses in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 likewise are similarly
not required.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
relates to domestic operation of certain unmanned aircraft systems and
is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' FAA currently uses
an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.
This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements
of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
FAA has determined that there are no information collections associated
with this rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to this rule.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. FAA has determined
this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion
identified in paragraph 5-6.6 of this Order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
Agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, and,
therefore, would not have federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed
this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect
on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Recreation and recreation areas,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 101

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 107

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

Sec.  1.1   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1.1, remove the definition of ``Model aircraft''.

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
3. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307
Public Law 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).

0
4. Revise Sec.  61.8 to read as follows:

Sec.  61.8   Inapplicability of unmanned aircraft operations.

    Any action conducted pursuant to part 107 of this chapter cannot be
used to meet the requirements of this part.

PART 101--MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS, AND UNMANNED
FREE BALLOONS

0
5. The authority citation for part 101 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101 note, 40103, 40113-
40114, 45302, 44502, 44514, 44701-44702, 44721, 46308.

0
6. The heading for part 101 is revised to read as set forth above.

Sec.  101.1   [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  101.1 by removing paragraph (a)(5).

Subpart E--[Removed]

0
8. Remove subpart E.

PART 107--SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

0
9. The authority citation for part 107 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101 note, 40103(b), 44701(a)(5),
44807.

Sec.  107.1   [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  107.1 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by adding ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(2).

    Issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44809, in
Washington, DC, on November 23, 2020.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-26726 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 206)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60591-60593]
[DOCID:fr25oc07-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the
trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) have been found and
reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin
(SB) A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223.
    These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the
THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full
engagement.

    Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent
(undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load
path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal
stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The proposed AD would
require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0081;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0178, dated June 22, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the
trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) have been found and
reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin
(SB) A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223.
    These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the
THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full
engagement.

    This AD therefore mandates a one-time detailed visual inspection
of specific parts of the THSA attachments.

    Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent
(undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load
path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal
stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The corrective actions
include doing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the lower and
the upper THSA attachments for correct installation and the presence of
metallic particles, contacting Airbus for repair instructions if any
installation deviations or metallic particles are found, and doing
repairs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12,
2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 721 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $173,040, or $240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

AIRBUS: Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
186-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 26, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all
manufactured serial numbers (MSN) up to and including MSN 2860.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the
trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) have been found and
reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin
(SB) A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223.
    These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the
THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full
engagement.
    This AD therefore mandates a one-time detailed visual inspection
of specific parts of the THSA attachments.

Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent
(undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load
path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal
stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The corrective
actions include doing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the
lower and the upper THSA attachments for correct installation and
the presence of metallic particles, contacting Airbus for repair
instructions if any installation deviations or metallic particles
are found, and doing repairs.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 600 flight hours or 750 flight cycles or 100 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect
the lower and the upper THSA attachments for installation deviations
and metallic particles,

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated
January 12, 2007; and, if any installation deviations or metallic
particles are found, before further flight, contact Airbus for
repair instructions and repair.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No Difference.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2141; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0178, dated
June 22, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated
January 12, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-21006 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81306-81307]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32698]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10254-026]

Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC; Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC;
Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and
Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural
Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Minor New License.
    b. Project No.: P-10254-026.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC and Consolidated Hydro
Southeast, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Saluda River, in Anderson and Greenville
Counties, South Carolina. The project does not occupy lands of the
United States.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations
Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson St.,
Piedmont, SC 29674;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Sean Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: January 29, 2016.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). 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-10254-026.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project consists of: (a) A
granite masonry dam composed of a 150-foot-long non-overflow section, a
280-foot-long overflow spillway section

surmounted by 4-foot-high flashboards, and a 75-foot-long gated intake
section; (b) a reservoir with a surface area of 25 acres and a storage
capacity of 200 acre-feet at water surface elevation 718.7 feet msl;
(c) a 260-foot-long by 50-foot-wide forebay; (d) a concrete powerhouse
containing two generating units rated at 750 kW each for a total of
1,500 kW; (e) a mill building containing one generating unit rated at
450 kW; (f) a tailrace extending from the powerhouse and a tailrace
extending from the mill building; (g) 3.3-kV generator leads; and (h)
appurtenant facilities.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing
Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Notice of Acceptance............  August 2016.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.  October 2016.
Comments on Scoping Document 1due.....  December 2016.
Issue Scoping Document 2..............  February 2017.
Issue notice of ready for               March 2017.
 environmental analysis.
Commission issues EA..................  October 2017.
Comments on EA due....................  November 2017.
Commission issues final EA............  January 2018.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32698 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 46585]
[DOCID:fr10se09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-29-001]

Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Revised Petition for Rate
Approval

September 2, 2009
    Take notice that on August 28, 2009, Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC
(Cypress) filed a revised Statement of Rates pursuant to section
284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations. Cypress filed to lower its
rate for section 311 transportation service initially submitted in
Docket No. PR09-29-000 to reflect changes to its rate calculations. The
revised transportation rate is effective August 1, 2009.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 15, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21731 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-81-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on February 21, 2013, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (Columbia Gas), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056,
filed in Docket No. CP13-81-000, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.210, and 157.216(b) of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authorization to
abandon and construct compressor units at its Rockport Compressor
Station in Wood County, West Virginia, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open for
public inspection.
    Specifically, Columbia Gas proposes to abandon three 1,000
horsepower (hp) compressor units and replace them with two 1,775 hp
compressor units at its Rockport Compressor Station as part of its
modernization project. Each new unit will be derated to produce 1,686
hp of compression. The estimated cost of the proposed facilities is
$22,000,000.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to
Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O.
Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: March 7, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05943 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42432]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0601]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Niantic River, Niantic, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Amtrak Railroad Bridge across the Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic,
Connecticut. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed
position for a 48 hour period and for periodic overnight closures to
facilitate pier alignment and completion of work on machinery and the
lift span.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 15, 2012 through
6 a.m. on August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0601 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0601 in the ``Keyword'' 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 rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the
Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.215(a).
    The waterway users are recreational vessels and seasonal fishing
boats.
    The operator of the bridge, National Passenger Railroad Corporation
(Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to
facilitate pier alignment and completion of machinery installation at
the new Niantic River RR Bridge.
    The Coast Guard previously issued a temporary deviation to Amtrak
dated May 2, 2012, USCG-2012-0305, to allow the bridge to remain in the
closed position during the hours of 11 p.m. until 6 a.m., Monday
through Thursday, beginning May 15, 2012 until August 15, 2012 in order
to facilitate completion of machinery installation and lift span work
at the new railroad bridge. However, in May 2012, the contractor
discovered a minor shift in the bascule pier, causing a misalignment of
the new bridge.
    Until the pier alignment problem is resolved, the work anticipated
to be completed during the closures authorized under the May 2, 2012
temporary deviation cannot be done.
    In order to complete all the remaining work and correct the pier
alignment problem a 48 hour bridge closure from 9 p.m. July 15 to 9
p.m. July 17, 2012 was determined to be necessary and the best time to
conduct work in order to bring the bridge into proper alignment. Once
the alignment is completed machinery installation and lift span work
may continue.
    This scenario was presented to the Amtrak Annual Boaters Meeting on
June 7, 2012. The waterway users and Sector Long Island Sound have all
concurred with the bridge closure period as the optimal time for the
closure so that completion of the bridge replacement project is not
impacted. Additionally, periodic overnight closures with the
possibility of two openings after advance notice was agreed upon.
    Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak Railroad Bridge may
remain in the closed position from 9 p.m. on July 15, 2012 through 9
p.m. on July 17, 2012. In addition, the bridge may remain in the closed
position during the hours of 10 p.m. until 6 a.m., Sunday through
Wednesday, each week beginning July 22, 2012 until August 22, 2012
except that openings will be granted at midnight and 4:30 a.m. with a 2
hour advance notice. This schedule will be published in the Local
Notice to Mariners, and via broadcast notice to mariners as necessary.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at all times.
    The waterway users were advised of the requested bridge closure and
offered no objection.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time periods. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 9, 2012.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-17579 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P