[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61284-61285]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-24-000]

Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC; Notice of Application for Section 3
Authorization and Presidential Permit

    Take notice that on December 8, 2017, Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC
(Steel Reef), Suite 500, 407 8th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 1E5
Canada, filed in the above referenced docket an application, pursuant
to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Subpart B of Section 153
of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to site,
construct, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline border
crossing facilities to export natural gas from the United States to
Canada (Border Crossing Facilities). The Border Crossing Facilities
consist of a segment of 10.75-inch outside diameter pipe that extends
from an interconnection with upstream gathering facilities for 250 feet
to the International Boundary. The Border Crossing Facilities are a
part of the proposed approximately 2.2-mile pipeline that further
extends to an existing natural gas processing plant in Canada.
Additionally, Steel Reef requests a Presidential Permit for the Border
Crossing Facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
This filing may be also viewed on the web 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Chris Anderson, Steel Reef Infrastructure Corp. Suite 500--407, 8th
Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 1E5 Canada, or call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record

for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    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 commenters 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 commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters 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.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's website under the e-Filing link.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 10, 2018.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27919 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6417]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Schedule 13E-4F; OMB Control No. 3235-0375; SEC File No. 270-
340.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Schedule 13E-4F (17 CFR 240.13e-102) may be used by an issuer that
is incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada to make a cash
tender or exchange offer for the issuer's own securities and less than
40 percent of the securities are held by U.S. holders. The information
collected must be filed with the Commission and is publicly available.
We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare
Schedule 13E-4F and that the information is filed by approximately 3
respondents annually for a total annual reporting burden of 6 hours (2
hours per response x 3 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2738 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 52842-52843]
[DOCID:fr07se06-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54387; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program Concerning Option Position
Limits

August 30, 2006.
    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 August 16, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Exchange has
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to extend, for a period of six months, through
March 1, 2007, a pilot program applicable to Exchange Rule 1001,
Position Limits, which increases the standard position and exercise
limits for equity option contracts and options on the Nasdaq-100 Index
Tracking Stock \5\ (``QQQQ'') (``Pilot Program''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Phlx's Web site (http://www.phlx.com
), at the Phlx's principal office, 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 Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program, which is scheduled to expire September 1, 2006,\6\ for an
additional six-month period, through March 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Nasdaq-100[supreg], Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg],
Nasdaq[supreg], The Nasdaq Stock Market[supreg], Nasdaq-100
SharesSM, Nasdaq-100 TrustSM, Nasdaq-100 Index
Tracking StockSM, and QQQSM are trademarks or
service marks of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') and have
been licensed for use for certain purposes by the Phlx pursuant to a
License Agreement (``License'') with Nasdaq. The Nasdaq-100
Index[supreg] (``Index'') is determined, composed, and calculated by
Nasdaq without regard to the Licensee, the Nasdaq-100
TrustSM, or the beneficial owners of Nasdaq-100
SharesSM. Nasdaq has complete control and sole discretion
in determining, comprising, or calculating the Index or in modifying
in any way its method for determining, comprising, or calculating
the Index in the future.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51322 (March 4,
2005), 70 FR 12260 (March 11, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2005-17); 52261 (August 15, 2005),
70 FR 49004 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2005-51, which extended the Pilot
Program); and 53388 (February 28, 2006), 71 FR 11458 (March 7, 2006)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-
2006-13, which extended the Pilot Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position limits impose a ceiling on the number of option contracts
in each class on the same side of the market relating to the same
underlying security that can be held or written by an investor or group
of investors acting in concert. Exchange Rule 1002 (not proposed to be
amended herein) establishes corresponding exercise limits. Exercise
limits prohibit an investor or group of investors acting in concert
from exercising more than a specified number of puts or calls in a
particular class within five consecutive business days.
    Exchange Rule 1001 subjects equity options to one of five different
position limits depending on the trading volume and outstanding shares
of the underlying security. Exchange Rule 1002 establishes exercise
limits for the corresponding options at the same levels as the
corresponding security's position limits.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exchange Rule 1002 states, in relevant part, ``* * * no
member or member organization shall exercise, for any account in
which such member or member organization has an interest or for the
account of any partner, officer, director or employee thereof or for
the account of any customer, a long position in any option contract
of a class of options dealt in on the Exchange (or, respecting an
option not dealt in on the Exchange, another exchange if the member
or member organization is not a member of that exchange) if as a
result thereof such member or member organization, or partner,
officer, director or employee thereof or customer, acting alone or
in concert with others, directly or indirectly, has or will have
exercised within any five (5) consecutive business days aggregate
long positions in that class (put or call) as set forth as the
position limit in Rule 1001, in the case of options on a stock or on
an Exchange-Traded Fund Share * * *''
    \8\ Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Position and Exercise Limit
    The Pilot Program increases the standard position and exercise
limits for equity options traded on the Exchange and for options
overlying QQQQ to the following levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Standard equity option contract        Pilot program equity option
              limit 8                           contract limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         13,500                               25,000
                         22,500                               50,000
                         31,500                               75,000
                         60,000                              200,000
                         75,000                              250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard QQQQ option contract limit  Pilot Program QQQQ option contract
                                                               limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        300,000                              900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, the Exchange believes that there have been no adverse
affects on the market as a result of these increases in the limits for
equity option contracts and options overlying QQQQ.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objective of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and the
national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest, by extending the Pilot Program for approximately an
additional six months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days from the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\13\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48 and should be submitted on or before September
28, 2006.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14793 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


1 Summary of Summary of EPA Ethics Review EPA Ethics Review Nethercott, J., Paustenbach, D., Adams, R, et al.( 1994) A study of chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis with 54 volunteers: implications for environmental risk assessment. Occup. Environ Med 1994; 51: 371 380. ( MRID 46803602) 2 Cr Cr VI ACD Study VI ACD Study

Study in Chrome sensitized subjects

Conducted by 6 dermatologists

Designed to resolve uncertainties resulting from prior work

Minimal reporting of ethical conduct 3 Cr Cr VI VI " Framework Framework"

1. Value  Undertaken to resolve questions raised by inconsistencies among earlier studies  Results were published, to the benefit of society 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 4 Cr Cr VI VI " Framework Framework"

 2 3. Subject Selection  6000 patient files screened  102 adult male and female volunteers participated in first phase  54 subjects confirmed to be Cr sensitized participated in later phases  Standards for inclusion or exclusion were based on the scientific goals of the study  Use of investigators' patients introduces role ambiguity; not addressed 5 Cr Cr VI VI " Framework Framework"

 3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Societal benefit of knowledge expected not addressed  Many subjects benefited directly by learning they were not Cr sensitized.

5. Independent Ethics Review  Approved by investigators' " respective human use committees as appropriate"

 No further documentation 6 Cr Cr VI VI " Framework Framework"

 4 6. Informed Consent  Written consent from all subjects asserted  No documentation of consent materials  Silent about further consent for special tests 7. Respect for Subjects  Subject privacy was not compromised  Subject freedom to withdraw not reported ( 11 potential subjects withdrew   for personal reasons  before testing) 7 Cr Cr VI Prevailing Standards VI Prevailing Standards

Conducted in the U. S. and Canada in 1992

No standard of conduct cited in report

Dermatologists likely to be familiar with HEW rules at 45 CFR 46

Declaration of Helsinki ( 1989) also assumed to apply 8 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

Basic Principle # 2: ". . . Each experimental procedure . . should be clearly formulated in an experimental protocol, which should be transmitted . . to a specially appointed committee . . ."

EPA Comment: No protocol available.

Reviewing ethics committees incompletely identified; ethics reviews undocumented 9 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 2

Basic Principle # 5: " Every . . . project . . .

should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others."

EPA Comment: If a careful assessment was conducted it was not reported 10 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 3

Basic Principle # 9: " each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims,

methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards of the study and the discomfort it may entail. . ."

EPA Comment: The study reports obtaining consent, but does not report what subjects were told 11 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 4

Basic Principle # 10: " When obtaining informed consent for the research project the physician should be particularly cautious if the subject is in a dependent relationship to him. ."

EPA Comment: Subjects were all former patients of the investigators. Role shift from doctor/ patient to investigator/ subject was not acknowledged or addressed 12 Comparison to Comparison to DoH DoH

 5

Basic Principle # 12: " The research protocol should always contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved . . . ."

EPA Comment: The report is silent about ethical considerations 13 Comparison to 45 CFR 46 Comparison to 45 CFR 46

§ 46.109( b): " An IRB shall require that information given to subjects as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 46.116."

EPA Comment: The study does not report what subjects were told as part of informed consent 14 Comparison to 45 CFR 46 Comparison to 45 CFR 46

§ 46.111: Criteria for IRB approval

EPA Comment: There is no record of IRB determinations that all criteria in § 46.111 were satisfied § 46.116: General requirements for Informed Consent

EPA Comment: Can't tell if they were met 15 Chrome Chrome VI Summary VI Summary

Gaps in the record, but gaps are not " clear and convincing evidence"

No evidence that the research was fundamentally unethical

No evidence that subjects included children or pregnant women

Some possible deficiencies relative to prevailing ethical standards

We welcome the Board's advice on the significance of those deficiencies


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59227-59229]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29342; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-08-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. Model 600N
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes superseding an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model 600N helicopters.
That AD currently requires interim initial and repetitive inspections
of tailboom parts, installing six inspection holes in the aft fuselage
skin panels, installing tailboom attachment bolt washers, modifying
both access covers, and replacing broken attachment bolts. The current
AD also provides for modifying the fuselage aft section as an optional
terminating action. This proposal would mandate modifying the fuselage
aft section within the next 24 months to strengthen the tailboom
attachment fittings and upper longerons. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the tailboom attachment
fittings, separation of the tailboom from the helicopter, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from MD Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E.
McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone 1-
800-388-3378, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the web at http://www.mdhelicopters.com.

    You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed
under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29342, Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-08-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing
date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of our docket Web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations
Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On April 20, 2006, we issued AD 2006-08-12, Amendment 39-14569 (71
FR 24808, April 27, 2006), which superseded AD 2001-24-51, Amendment
39-12706 (67 FR 17934, April 12, 2002). AD 2001-24-51 required
inspecting both the upper tailboom attachment fittings, nut plates, and
both angles for a crack or thread damage, and repairing or replacing
any cracked or damaged part. That AD also required replacing the upper
right tailboom attachment bolt with a new bolt. That AD required if the
attachment bolt was broken replacing the three remaining attachment
bolts with airworthy attachment bolts. Adding a washer to each bolt and
modifying both access covers was also required. Thereafter, inspecting
the upper tailboom attachments at intervals not to exceed 25 hours
time-in-service and repairing or replacing any cracked part was
required. Superseding AD 2006-08-12 requires installing six inspection
holes in the aft fuselage skin panels, inspecting the tailboom
attachment fittings and parts, and replacing or modifying certain parts
as necessary. That action was prompted by an accident involving a Model
600N helicopter. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent
failure of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
    On January 12, 2004, MDHI issued Technical Bulletin (TB) TB600N-007
specifying procedures, tooling, replacement parts, and supplies needed
for modifying the fuselage aft section and tailboom. TB600N-007R1,
dated April 13, 2006, superseded TB600N-007 to correct some tooling,
replacement parts, and supplies. TB600N-007R2, dated October 5, 2006,
superseded TB600N-007R1 to correct tooling part numbers and re-sequence
some assembly steps. These TBs specify that any aircraft complying with
any of these revisions meets the intent of the other TBs.
    In AD 2006-08-12, we incorporated by reference TB600N-007R1, dated
April 13, 2006. Since issuing that AD, MDHI has issued TB600N-007R2,
dated October 5, 2006 (TB), which updates previous issues by further
specifying procedures for modifying the fuselage aft section to
strengthen the tailboom attachment fittings and upper longerons. This
latest revision continues to caution that a high level of sheet metal
expertise and experience is required to perform this modification.
    This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or
develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-08-12 to require within the next 24
months, modifying the fuselage aft section to strengthen tailboom
attach fittings and upper longerons, which would constitute terminating
action for this unsafe condition.
    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 18 helicopters of
U.S. registry, and the proposed actions would take about 322 work hours
to modify each helicopter at an average labor rate of $80 per work
hour. Required parts would cost about $14,960 per helicopter. The
manufacturer states in its TB that those complying with the TB within 3
years of the issue date are eligible for special pricing and technical
assistance. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact
of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $732,960, assuming no
special pricing from the manufacturer.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 that the 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 draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the DMS to examine the draft economic
evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-14569, AD
2006-08-12, (71 FR 24808, April 27,

2006), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as
follows:

MD Helicopter, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2007-29342, Directorate
Identifier 2007-SW-08-AD. Supersedes AD 2006-08-12, Amendment 39-
14569, Docket No. FAA-2006-24518, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-10-
AD.
    Applicability: Model 600N helicopters, serial numbers with a
prefix ``RN'' and 003 through 058, that have not been modified in
the fuselage aft section to strengthen the tailboom attachments and
longerons per MD Helicopters (MDHI) Technical Bulletin (TB) TB600N-
007, dated January 12, 2004; TB600N-007R1, dated April 13, 2006, or
TB600N-007R2, dated October 5, 2006, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required within the next 24 months, unless
accomplished previously.
    To prevent failure of the tailboom attachment fittings,
separation of the tailboom from the helicopter, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter, do the following:
    (a) Modify the fuselage aft section to strengthen the tailboom
attach fittings and upper longerons by following paragraph 2,
Accomplishment Instructions, of MDHI TB600N-007R2, dated October 5,
2006, except you are not required to contact the manufacturer. This
modification to the fuselage aft section is terminating action for
the requirements of this AD.
    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
ATTN: Jon Mowery, Aviation Safety Engineer, Airframe Branch, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-
5322, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information about previously approved
alternative methods of compliance.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 10, 2007.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-20680 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 105]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-150-000]

Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Flowthrough Crediting
Mechanism

December 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 20, 2005, Sea Robin Pipeline Company,
LLC (Sea Robin) submitted its Annual Flowthrough Crediting Mechanism
Filing. Sea Robin states that this filing was made pursuant to section
22 of the general terms and conditions of Sea Robin's FERC Gas Tariff,
which requires the crediting of certain amounts received as a result of
resolving monthly imbalances between its gas and liquefiables shippers
and under its operational balancing agreements as described in section
6 of its Tariff, and to accumulate amounts received as a result of
imposing scheduling penalties as described in section 7 of its Tariff.
    Sea Robin further states copies of this filing are being served on
all jurisdictional customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 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 January 3, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-8182 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>2

DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of  __1_

Project Name: 304m – Coal Mining Detailed Study

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

	  Outgoing Call

Date: 5/24/2007

Time: 2:00 pm

Company Name: OSMRE Harrisburg, PA

Contact Name:   Brent Means

Phone No.:

Name:  Ellie Ku Codding and Jessica Wolford

GENERAL SUBJECT:  AMDTreat® and Model Mine Concept Memorandum
Discussion

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm, Mr. Brent Means, Office of Surface
Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, called to discuss AMDTreat® and
the methodology EPA proposed to calculate manganese treatment costs in
the “Model Mine Concept Memorandum.”  Ms. Ellie Codding asked Mr.
Means what the cost basis is in the current version of AMDTreat®

Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10 am, I spoke with Mr. Mike Smith, PA DEP
Moshannon District Mining Manager.  I asked Mr. Smith if he could
estimate how often NPDES permit limits for manganese were water-quality
based, instead of being based on the Part 434 monthly-average limit of 2
mg/L.  I told him that, from what we had seen in PA NPDES permits for
coal mines, monthly-average effluent limits were 1 mg/L, which must be
water-quality based.

Mr. Smith said that permit writers first apply BAT from Part 434, to
establish the least-stringent limit.  From there, they apply
water-quality based limits or TMDLs (for those streams with TMDLs).  He
estimated that roughly half of the NPDES permit limits were Part
434-based.  For example, the Part 434 limit applies most sites with
perpetual treatment that discharge to an acid-impaired stream, because
water-quality standards may not apply to acid-impaired streams.
Although many permit limits are water quality or TMDL based, Mr. Smith
stresses that the BAT limit for manganese is still restrictive for mines
discharging to streams that are of low quality.

We also discussed research regarding the toxicity of manganese.  Mr.
Smith agreed that most published work he has seen demonstrates no
effects of manganese on the typical chronic and acute toxicity tests,
such as for fathead minnows and ceriodaphnia.  However, anecdotally, Mr.
Ron Huey of PA DEP has observed deposits of manganese covering
streambeds.  Mr. Huey recommends a more thorough study be done to fully
study the effect on manganese on stream health, rather than focusing on
the toxicity of specific species.  For example, aquatic life that feed
on the bottom of the stream (“scum scrapers”) may be affected by
manganese coating stream beds.  Mr. Smith recommended contacting Mr. Bob
Ross, of the U.S.G.S. Research Center in Wellsboro, PA, to see if any
studies had been published (or at least considered) regarding entire
stream health and manganese.

Need to return call by         /         at/between         and
.	Signature: