[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 71725]
[DOCID:fr18de07-78]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of: Avitech Life Sciences, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

December 14, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
market for the securities of Avitech LifeSciences, Inc. (``Avitech,''
trading symbol AVLF), may be reacting to manipulative forces or
deceptive practices and that there is insufficient current public
information about the issuer upon which an informed investment decision
may be made, particularly concerning (1) the identity of and prior
securities fraud judgments against persons who appear to be involved in
the offer and sale of Avitech shares; (2) the financial performance and
business prospects of Avitech; and (3) offerings to foreign investors
and any restrictions on the resale of shares.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period of 9:30 a.m. EST, December 14, 2007
through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2007.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-6095 Filed 12-14-07; 12:26 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53906-53911]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75804; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2015-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting a
Principles-Based Approach to Prohibit the Misuse of Material, Non-
public Information by Market Makers by Deleting Rule 810

September 1, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE
Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 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)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ISE Gemini proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information by market
makers by deleting Rule 810. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization
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

(a) Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information by market
makers by deleting Rule 810. In so doing, the Exchange would harmonize
its rules amongst its Members \5\ relating to protecting against the
misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange believes that
Rule 810 is no longer necessary because all Members, including market
makers, are subject to the Exchange's general principles-based
requirements governing the protection against the misuse of material,
non-public information, pursuant to Exchange Rules, Chapter 4--Business
Conduct, Rule 408 (Prevention of the Misuse of Material Nonpublic
Information), section (a) (``Rule 408(a)''), which obviates the need
for separately-prescribed requirements for a subset of market
participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an organization that has been
approved to exercise trading rights associated with Exchange Rights.
See Rule 100(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange has two classes of registered market makers. Pursuant
to Rule 800, a market maker is a Member with Designated Trading
Representatives that is registered with the Exchange for the purpose of
making transactions as a dealer-specialist. As the rule further
provides, a market maker can be either a CMM or a PMM. All market
makers are subject to the requirements of Rules 803 and 804, which set
forth the obligations of market makers, particularly relating to
quoting.
    Rule 803 specifies the obligations of market makers, which include
making markets that, absent changed market conditions, will be honored
for the number of contracts entered into the Exchange's System in all
series of options classes to which the market maker is appointed. The
quoting obligations of market makers are set forth in Rule 804. That
rule sets forth the main difference between PMMs and CMMs, namely that
PMMs have a heightened quoting obligation as compared to CMMs.\6\ In
addition to a heightened quoting obligation pursuant to Rule 804, an
Electronic Access Member may designate a Preferred Market Maker \7\ on
orders it enters into the System (``Preferenced Orders''). These
Preferred Market Makers, quoting at the NBBO at the time the
Preferenced Order is received, are eligible to receive a greater
allocation of participation rights.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Compare Rule 804(e)(1) (``Primary Market Makers. Primary
Market Makers must enter continuous quotations and enter into any
resulting transactions in all of the series listed on the Exchange
of the options classes to which it is appointed on a daily basis.'')
with 804(e)(2) (``Competitive Market Makers. (i) On any given day, a
Competitive Market Maker is not required to enter quotations in the
options classes to which it is appointed. (ii) A Competitive Market
Maker may initiate quoting in options classes to which it is
appointed intraday. (iii) Whenever a Competitive Market Maker enters
a quote in an options class to which it is appointed, it must
maintain continuous quotations in that class for 60% of the time the
class is open for trading on the Exchange; provided, however, that a
Competitive Market Maker shall be required to maintain continuous
quotations for 90% of the time the class is open for trading on the
Exchange in any options class in which it receives Preferenced
Orders. . . .'').
    \7\ A Preferred Market Maker may be the PMM appointed to the
options class or any CMM appointed to the options class.
    \8\ .03 of Supplementary Material to Rule 713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importantly, all market makers have access to the same information
in the order book that is available to all other market participants.
Moreover, none of the Exchange's market makers have agency obligations
to the Exchange's order book. As such, the distinctions between PMMs
and CMMs are the quoting requirements set forth in Rule 804.
    Notwithstanding that market makers have access to the same Exchange
trading information as all other market participants on the Exchange,
the Exchange has specific rules governing how market makers may
operate. Rule 810 allows market makers to engage in Other Business
Activities \9\ and to be affiliated with a broker-dealer that engages
in Other Business Activities only if there is an Information Barrier
between the marking making activities and the Other Business
Activities. The Rule further provides that market makers must implement
detailed Exchange-approved procedures to restrict the flow of material,
non-public information. Rule 810(b) outlines the organizational
structure of the Information Barrier, which a market maker must
implement to meet the requirements of Rule 810(a). The Information
Barrier is meant to ensure that a market maker will not have access to
material, non-public information while engaging in Other Business
Activities and that a market maker will not misuse material, non-public
information obtained from an affiliated broker-dealer engaged in the
Other Business Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Other Business Activities means ``(1) conducting an
investment or banking or public securities business; (2) making
markets in the stocks underlying the options in which it makes
markets; or (3) handling listed options orders as agent on behalf of
Public Customers or broker-dealers; (4) conducting non-market making
proprietary listed options trading activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that the guidelines in Rule 810, for market
makers, are no longer necessary and proposes to delete it. Rather, the
Exchange believes that Rule 408(a) governing the misuse of material,
non-public information provides for an appropriate, principles-based
approach to prevent the market abuses Rule 810 is designed to address.
Specifically Rule 408(a) requires every Exchange Member to establish,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed, taking into consideration the nature of the Member's
business, to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by
such Member or associated person. For purposes of this requirement, the
misuse of material, non-public information includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, partnership,
or Funds, as defined in Rule 502(h), or a trust or similar entities, or
in any related securities or related options or other derivative
securities, or in any related non-U.S. currency, non-U.S. currency
options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or any other
derivatives based on such currency, or in any related commodity,
related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other
related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material
nonpublic information concerning that corporation or those Funds or
that trust or similar entities;
    (b) trading in an underlying security or related options or other
derivative securities, or in any related non-U.S. currency, non-U.S.
currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or in
any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on
commodity futures or any other related commodity derivatives, or any
other derivatives based on such currency while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning imminent transactions in the
above; and

    (c) disclosing to another person any material nonpublic information
involving a corporation, partnership, or Funds or a trust or similar
entities whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in
an underlying security or related securities or in the underlying non-
U.S. currency or any related non-U.S. currency options, futures or
options on futures on such currency, or in any related commodity,
related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or any other
related commodity derivatives, or any other derivatives based on such
currency for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such
material nonpublic information.
    Because market makers are already subject to the requirements of
Rule 408(a) and because market makers do not have any trading or
information advantage over other Members, the Exchange does not believe
that it is necessary to separately require specific limitations on
dealings between market makers and their affiliates. Deleting Rule 810
would provide market makers and Members with the flexibility to adapt
their policies and procedures as reasonably designed to reflect changes
to their business model, business activities, or the securities market
in a manner similar to how Members on the Exchange currently operate
and consistent with Rule 408(a). However, the Exchange notes that
deleting Rule 810 does not obviate the need for reasonably designed
information barriers in certain situations.
    As noted above, PMMs and CMMs are distinguished under Exchange
rules only to the extent that PMMs have heightened obligations and
allocation guarantees. However, none of these heightened obligations
provides different or greater access to non-public information than any
other market participant on the Exchange.\10\ Specifically, market
makers on the Exchange do not have access to trading information
provided by the Exchange, either at, or prior to, the point of
execution, that is not made available to all other market participants
on the Exchange in a similar manner. Further, as noted above, market
makers on the Exchange do not have any agency responsibilities for
orders on the order book. Accordingly, because market makers do not
have any trading advantages at the Exchange due to their market role,
the Exchange believes that they should be subject to the same rules as
Members regarding the protection against the misuse of material, non-
public information, which in this case, is existing Rule 408(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rules 802(e) and 803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change,
pursuant to Rule 408(a), a market maker would still be obligated to
ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of
its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, and
with applicable Exchange rules, including being reasonably designed to
protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. While
information barriers would not specifically be required under the
proposal, Rule 408(a) already requires that a Member consider its
business model or business activities in structuring its policies and
procedures, which may dictate that an information barrier or a
functional separation be part of the set of policies and procedures
that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be
material, non-public information and, thus does not expect there to be
any changes to the types of information that an affiliated brokerage
business of a market maker could share with such market maker. In that
regard, the proposed rule change will not permit the EAM unit of a
member to have access to any non-public order or quote information of
the affiliated market maker, including hidden or undisplayed size or
price information of such orders and quotes. Market makers are not
allowed to post hidden or undisplayed orders and quotes on the
Exchange. Members do not expect to receive any additional order or
quote information as a result of this proposed rule change.
    Further, the Exchange does not believe that there will be any
material change to member information barriers as a result of removal
of the Exchange's pre-approval requirements. In fact, the Exchange
anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval requirement should
facilitate implementation of changes to member information barriers as
necessary to protect against the misuse of material, non-public
information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval
requirement is unnecessary because market makers do not have agency
responsibilities to the book, or time and place information advantages
because of their market role. However, as is the case today with market
makers, information barriers of new entrants would be subject to review
as part of a new firm application. Moreover, the policies and
procedures of market makers, including those relating to information
barriers, would be subject to review by FINRA, on behalf of the
Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement.
    The Exchange further notes that under Rule 408(a), a Member would
be able to structure its firm to provide for its options market makers,
as applicable, to be structured with its equities and customer-facing
businesses, provided that any such structuring would be done in a
manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material,
non-public information. For example, pursuant to Rule 408(a) a market
maker on the Exchange could be in the same independent trading unit, as
defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,\11\ as an equities market
maker and other trading desks within the firm, including options
trading desks, so that the firm could share post-trade information to
better manage its risk across related securities. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate, and consistent with Rule 408(a) and Section 15(g) of
the Act \12\ for a firm to share options position and related hedging
position information (e.g., equities, futures, and foreign currency)
within a firm to better manage risk on a firm-wide basis. The Exchange
notes, however, that if so structured, a firm would need to have
policies and procedures, including information barriers as applicable,
reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-
public information, and specifically customer information, consistent
with Rule 408(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR part 242.200(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-
based Rule 408(a) would ensure that a Member that operates a market
maker would be required to protect against the misuse of any material,
non-public information. As noted above, Rule 408(a) already requires
that firms refrain from trading while in possession of material, non-
public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or
related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-
based approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off a
market maker from the rest of the firm would provide Members operating
as market makers with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a
firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of
the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk
management

purposes for a member operating a market maker to be able to consider
both options market makers traded positions for purposes of calculating
net positions consistent with Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, calculating
intra-day net capital positions, and managing risk both generally as
well as in compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (the ``Market
Access Rule'').\13\ The Exchange notes that any risk management
operations would need to operate consistent with the requirement to
protect against the misuse of material, non-public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that if market makers are integrated
with other market making operations, they would be subject to existing
rules that prohibit Members from disadvantaging their customers or
other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a member
organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public
information. As such, a member organization that integrates its market
maker operations together with equity market making would need to
protect customer information consistent with existing obligations to
protect such information. The Exchange has rules prohibiting Members
from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by
improperly capitalizing on the Members' access to or receipt of
material, nonpublic information. For example, Rule 609 requires members
to establish, maintain, enforce, and keep current a system of
compliance and supervisory controls, reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules.
Additionally, Rule 400 prevents a person associated with a Member, who
has knowledge of all material terms and conditions of (i) an order and
a solicited order, (ii) an order being facilitated, or (iii) orders
being crossed; the execution of which are imminent, to enter, based on
such knowledge, an order to buy or sell an option for the same
underlying security as any option that is the subject of the order, or
an order to buy or sell the security underlying such class, or an order
to buy or sell any related instrument unless certain circumstances are
met.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ .02 of Supplementary Material to Rule 400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the text of
Supplementary Material .06 to Rule 717 to match a recent change made by
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\15\ The Exchange
further notes that the changes proposed in this filing to Rule 717 have
no substantive effect on the rule--Members may still demonstrate that
orders were entered without knowledge of a pre-existing order on the
book represented by the same firm by providing evidence that effective
information barriers between the persons, business units and/or systems
entering the orders onto the Exchange were in existence at the time the
orders were entered. The rule requires that such information barriers
be fully documented and provided to the Exchange upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See SR-ISE-2015-26 (notice pending publication in the
Federal Register).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) \17\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
adopting a principles based approach to permit a Member operating a
market maker to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to, among
other things, prohibit the misuse of material, non-public information
and eliminate restrictions on how a Member structures its market making
operations. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based
on an approved rule of the Exchange to which market makers are already
subject--Rule 408(a)--and harmonizes the rules governing market makers
and Members. Moreover, Members operating market makers would continue
to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements for protecting
material, non-public order information.\18\ The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market because it would harmonize the
Exchange's approach to protecting against the misuse of material, non-
public information and no longer subject market makers to additional
requirements. The Exchange does not believe that the existing
requirements applicable to market makers are narrowly tailored to their
respective roles because neither market participant has access to
Exchange trading information in a manner different from any other
market participant on the Exchange and they do not have agency
responsibilities to the order book. Additionally, concerning Rule 717,
the Exchange believes that appropriate information barriers can be used
to demonstrate that the execution of two orders within one second was
inadvertent because the orders were entered without knowledge of each
other, will clarify the intent and application of Supplementary
Material .06 to Rule 717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Rule 408(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and
equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to
market makers and Members the type of conduct that is prohibited by the
Exchange. While the proposal eliminates requirements relating to the
misuse of material, non-public information, market makers and Members
would remain subject to existing Exchange rules requiring them to
establish and maintain systems to supervise their activities, and to
create, implement, and maintain written procedures that are reasonably
designed to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules,
including the prohibition on the misuse of material, non-public
information.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still
require that Members operating market makers maintain and enforce
policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with
applicable federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange
rules. Even though there would no longer be pre-approval of market
maker information barriers, any market maker's written policies and
procedures would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange
and therefore the elimination of prescribed restrictions should not
reduce the effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the
misuse of material, non-public information. Rather, Members will be
able to utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their
policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their
business model, business activities, or to the securities market
itself. Moreover, while specified information barriers may no longer be
required, a Member's business model or business activities may dictate
that an information barrier or functional separation be part of the set
of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with applicable

securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change will
maintain the existing protection of investors and the public interest
that is currently applicable to market makers, while at the same time
removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving
to a principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of
material non-public information.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that proposed rule change to Rule
717 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which requires
the rules of an exchange to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest. In particular, by continuing to specify that the
information barriers must be fully documented, members will be better
prepared to properly respond to requests for information by the
Exchange in the course of a regulatory investigation. Moreover, while
members are generally required to provide information to the Exchange
as requested, continuing to specify that members must provide written
documentation regarding information barriers within the context of this
rule will assure that all members adhere to the existing standard for
demonstrating compliance with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing market
makers to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a manner best suited
to their business models, business activities, and the securities
markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still ensuring
compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange
rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a fair and
orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon market makers.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
eliminate a burden on competition for Members which currently exists as
a result of disparate rule treatment between the options and equities
markets regarding how to protect against the misuse of material, non-
public information. For those Members that are also members of equity
exchanges, their respective equity market maker operations are now
subject to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material non-public information.\20\ The Exchange believes it would
remove a burden on competition to enable Members to similarly apply a
principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material,
non-public information in the options space. To this end, the Exchange
notes that Rule 408(a) still requires a Member that operates as a
market maker on the Exchange to evaluate its business to assure that
its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to protect against
the misuse of material, non-public information. However, with this
proposed rule change, a Member that trades equities and options could
look at its firm more holistically to structure its operations in a
manner that provides it with better tools to manage its risks across
multiple security classes, while at the same time protecting against
the misuse of material non-public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2,
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules)
(``Arca Approval Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar.
2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order approving amendments to BATS Rule
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the
misuse of material, non-public information, and noting that the
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and
Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order''); and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR
39440 (July 10, 2014), SR-NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments
to NYSE Rule 98 governing designated market makers to move to a
principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material non-
public information) (``NYSE Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 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 after its filing date, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate.
    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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-ISE Gemini-2015-14 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-ISE Gemini-2015-14. 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
the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2015-14 and should be submitted on or before
September 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-22493 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3805-3806]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Advisory Committee; Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology Advisory Committee (Formerly Known as the Advisory
Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology),
Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology
Advisory Committee (formerly known as the Advisory Committee for
Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology) by the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined
that it is in the public interest to renew the Pharmaceutical Science
and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years
beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect
until the January 22, 2018.

DATES: Authority for the Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical
Pharmacology Advisory Committee will expire on January 22, 2018, unless
the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and

Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology
Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory
committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The
Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee
advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as
they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use
and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug
Administration has regulatory responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates scientific, clinical, and
technical issues related to the safety and effectiveness of drug
products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human
diseases; the quality characteristics which such drugs purport or are
represented to have, and as required, any other product for which the
Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility; and makes
appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The
Committee may also review Agency sponsored intramural and extramural
biomedical research programs in support of FDA's drug regulatory
responsibilities and its critical path initiatives related to improving
the efficacy and safety of drugs and improving the efficiency of drug
development.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 14 voting members
including two Chairpersons. Members and Chairpersons are selected by
the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in
the fields of pharmaceutical sciences (pharmaceutical manufacturing,
bioequivalence research, laboratory analytical techniques,
pharmaceutical chemistry, physiochemistry, biochemistry, molecular
biology, immunology, microbiology); clinical pharmacology (dose-
response, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, modeling and simulation,
pharmacogenomics, clinical trial design, pediatrics and special
populations and innovative methods in drug development); biostatistics,
related biomedical and pharmacological specialties, current good
manufacturing practices, and quality systems implementation. Almost all
non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government
Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically
qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is
identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a
consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested
persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include
up to three non-voting members who are identified with industry
interests.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AdvisoryCommitteeforPharmaceuticalScienceandClinicalPharmacology/ucm107524.htm or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Due to a change in the committee name,
FDA will publish a final rule will in the Federal Register amending 21
CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: January 15, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-01181 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5547]
[DOCID:fr30ja08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-1406-000; ER07-1406-001; ER07-1406-002]

Long Beach Partners, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 23, 2008.
    Long Beach Partners, LLC (Long Beach) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The
proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Long Beach also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Long Beach requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under
18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by Long Beach.
    On January 23, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Long Beach, should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2007). The Commission
encourages the electronic submissions of protests using the FERC Online
link at http://www.ferc.gov.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
February 22, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Long Beach is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Long Beach, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Long Beach's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. 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 Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1588 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


ICAO COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WORKING GROUP 3 - EMISSIONS TECHNICAL

6th Meeting

1 - 3 April 2009

London, UK

Draft Report of 6th Meeting

Plenary Sessions

Presented by Rapporteurs

1	Welcome

Curtis Holsclaw, Co-Rapporteur of WG3 took the chair and welcomed
members and guests to the fifth meeting under the CAEP8 work programme.
New members were Marcelo Saito (ANAC, Brasil) who attended with Cesar
Hess and will be replacing him in future meetings and Mr Matthew Spears
(EPA, USA)

2	Administration

2a	Attachment A to this report lists the attendees.  The current
membership list [IP6-01] was circulated for attendance recordkeeping and
amendment as necessary.

2b	The Rapporteurs reviewed the schedule [WP6-01], noting the initial
Plenary was intended to handle the bulk of the working group activities
and that the mini-Plenary sessions following each of the Task Group [TG]
meetings would be held to handle any WG3-level business related to
outcomes of those task group meetings.

2c	The meeting approved the Agenda [WP6-02].

2d	Attachment B to this report and IP6-02 provide a complete list of
papers. Attachment C lists the actions resulting from this meeting.

Attachment D and FL6-03 provides the initial response to GIACC/3
requests

3	Fifth Meeting of WG3 (November 2009,Tokyo, Japan)

3a	Approval of Minutes

The draft report of the fifth meeting of WG3 in Tokyo [WP6-03] had been
circulated and a number of comments received.  The substantive ones
were:

Section 8.4:	Delete paragraphs 8.4.1 & 8.4.2

Section 8.7:	Need to harmonise the wording relating to a CO2 standard
with the amendment noted earlier in section 3.1 of WP6-03 relating to
the minutes of the Montreal meeting [WP5-03], ie that the text regarding
a ‘CO2 standard’ is not to be interpreted as an aviation CO2
certification standard

The meeting accepted the proposed changes together with the minor
editorial revisions throughout the paper and approved the final version.

3b	Actions & Matters arising

3.1	All actions listed in Attachment C to WP6-03 had been completed,
with the exception of action 5.4 which would be addressed by CTG during
this meeting.

3.2	It was noted that ICCAIA had developed three NOx scenarios and
provided them to MODTF in late 2008 for use for Environmental Goals
modelling purposes.  Although LTTG had accepted them during the course
of scheduled Ad-hoc telecon discussions and further discussed them in
Tokyo, WG3 had not formally accepted them.  WP6-17 sets out the details
and a number of recommendations on how MODTF should implement these
scenarios.    WG3 accepted this document for the record.

3.3	In addition, two other more extreme scenarios had been proposed by
government members of WG3 and passed to MODTF for use.

3.4	The feedback from MODTF was that all these proposals were easy to
implement, but queried why, in the ‘government’ scenarios’, when
there was a high fuel improvement factor, there was no NOx improvement.

3.5	In discussion, it was suggested that since these government’
scenarios assumed the realisation of all research goals, then there
should be both a fuel and NOx improvement factor applied and proposed
that the ICCAIA best NOx factor should be taken.  ICCAIA stressed that
these scenarios were not supported by industry and that it was up to the
members who made the proposals to decide the response.  It was agreed
that the government representatives would discuss this and report back
to the group by the end of the week.

Action 6.1:	Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be
applied in ‘government’ scenarios and to report back to WG3 by
Friday. [CJE]

3.6	The outcome of this further discussion was presented in FL6-01.  The
recommendations were that, WG3 should:

note that ICCAIA retain their position that fuel and NOx technology
scenarios should be limited to the technology improvements previously
recommended by ICCAIA.

note that the WG3 members associated with the “Government” scenario
recommend the NOx scenario associated with the “advanced” technology
scenario also be used for the “Government” scenario

pass the recommendation in (ii) to MODTF

  .

WG3 accepted these recommendations.

Action 6.2:	To pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors
on to MODTF. [CJE]

4	Requests from the Third Meeting of GIACC [WP6-09 (App A), WP6-10,
WP6-11, WP6-17, IP6-07]

4.1	The CAEP Secretariat presented the  WP6-09  part that related to the
GIACC/3 meeting.  Section 2 reviewed the meeting and Appendix A provided
the Summary of Tasks requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP.   WG3 was requested
to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3
and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the
Appendix A for CAEP WG3, in order to prepare the initial view and
necessary deliverables of CAEP WG3 for these items (e.g. related issues,
challenges and work plan for CAEP/9 cycle), in time for GIACC/4 meeting
on 25-27 May 2009.

4.2	In clarification, it was pointed out that the 1st column of Appendix
A was the specific request as developed by GIACC/3.  The 2nd column was
the ‘initial interpretation’ by the CAEP Secretary that had been
re-presented to GIACC/3 and accepted by them.   WG3 was also free to add
its interpretation of the requests and its response would be taken into
discussion at the Steering Group in June 2009.   CAEP had not yet
accepted the requests - they would essentially be CAEP/9 work items.

4.3	The three specific requests are considered further below.

4a.	Efficiency metric that takes into account alternative fuels

4.4	Discussion on this topic was deferred to Agenda item 9f (Report of
the Fuel Efficiency Metric [FEM] ad-hoc group).

4b	Fuel conversion factors between existing fuels and potential biofuels

4.5	A number of the considerations were also part of the FEM
discussions.  If this was primarily aimed at assessing life cycle
differences then it was not a WG3 activity.  Sources outside of CAEP
such as CAAFI, SWAFEA were already addressing these.   However, if it
was requesting CO2 emissions factors then this simply required knowledge
of the fuel composition; it was pointed out that while the CO2 may be
the same, the HC composition might be significantly different and that
would be an issue for WG3.

4c	The question of setting a CO2 standard	[WP6-10, WP6-11, IP6-07]

4.6	WP6-10  presented by ICSA reviewed options for a carbon intensity
metric for new aircraft.  Any useful metric should recognise and reward
technical progress and could be different for different functions eg
freight (mass) or passengers (numbers).  The preferred options were for
an ATK /ASK basis, arguing that a TOW base did not distinguish between
fuel burnt (a) to move the airframe weight (b) to carry fuel and (c) to
move payload.  The paper also proposed that the diversity of function
for various aircraft could be handled either by setting separate
standards for different aircraft types, or by establishing a sales and
activity-weighted intensity target for individual manufacturers.  Given
sufficient priority by WG3, it was  believed that a suitable metric
could be developed in time to recommend an airframe CO2 standard within
the CAEP/9 work cycle.

4.7	ICCAIA acknowledged the high level of technical understanding by
ICSA and agreed that development of a CO2 standard had more chance of
success if it was focussed on new aircraft types rather than on
in-service ones.    No comment was offered on the metric proposals at
this time.

4.8	In discussion the following points were raised:

All metrics are, to some degree, imperfect.  We need the best metric we
can find, for which any perverse consequences are small in CO2 terms.
Also the change in the political climate gave opportunities to
reconsider previous thinking.

There was need for consistency between freight and passenger.
Conversion factors for passenger weights vary.  It was noted that any
metric has a specific use and couldn’t necessarily be applied across
the board.

There would be need for a body of documentation to underpin any decision
in CAEP/9

Care needed to be taken that both policy and technical perspectives are
considered appropriately.

4.9	Following this the Rapporteurs proposed that further discussion of
this should be remitted to CTG.  The group accepted this recommendation.

Action 6.3:	To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required
to develop a CO2 standard [CTG]

4.10	WP6-11 from ICCAIA addressed issues arising from an earlier FAA
proposal [Nov 2008] that “given the previous difficulties in
developing a sophisticated parameter and scheme for the whole aircraft
…….there may be options to consider that focus solely on the engine
in a similar manner as the current LTO cycle gaseous emissions
standards… “.   At that meeting, ICCAIA stated “An engine based
standard would be detrimental or counter productive to improved aircraft
performance.  Also previous WG3 work on alternative emissions methods,
during CAEP5 and CAEP6 had already pointed out potential adverse
consequences from an engine based standard”

4.11	ICCAIA had considered the specific suggestion to base an efficiency
parameter solely on the engine, and the suggestion to use LTO data for
an efficiency parameter, in terms of CO2 emissions.  It was concluded
that an engine-only based efficiency parameter was unlikely to be a fair
and useful means to judge the relative merits of different products. A
poorly defined efficiency parameter could influence manufacturers to
optimize designs to unrealistic requirements.  Additionally, thrust and
fuel flow rate data from ICAO emissions certification tests at sea level
static conditions were not representative of in-service efficiency over
a full flight cycle.  ICCAIA asked for WG3 endorsement of these
conclusions.

4.12	There was support for the view that a CO2 standard should be
aircraft based, but the UK suggested that if there were no prospect of
this then an alternative approach would be needed.  It was stated that
LTO fuel / thrust was clearly not appropriate, but possibly some
factoring of these for flight conditions might be considered.  ICCAIA
pointed out that the complexity of the factoring would make this
extremely difficult.

4.13.	In response to a comment that LTO fuel was reasonable for
characterising block fuel for RJs, even if not for large wide body
aircraft, it was noted that the trades would vary with aircraft sizes.

4.14	IP6-07 provided a Collection of past CAEP material on CO2 Standard
and Aircraft Efficiency Parameters

4.15	WG3 accepted the conclusions presented in WP6-11.

4.16	The Rapporteurs reminded the meeting that WP6-09 had requested WG3
to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3
and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the
Appendix A and prepare the initial view and necessary deliverables of
CAEP WG3 for these items, in time for GIACC/4 meeting on 25-27 May 2009.
 This would need input from CTG and the FEM ad-hoc group.

Action 6.4:	Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report
back to WG3 by Friday for approval. [Rapporteurs]

4.17	A draft of this response was further discussed /amended at the end
of the meeting and the final version is given in Appendix D to this
report [also as FL6-03].

Action 6.5:	Forward initial response of WG3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP
Secretariat by end of April [Rapporteurs]

5	Reports from LTTG	[WP6-04, WP6-05, WP6-06, IP6-03]

5a	IE Initial report on Fuel Burn Reduction Technology Workshop
[WP6-04, WP6-05]

5.1	The ICCAIA led Workshop had taken place in the previous week.  The
FBRT Independent Experts (IEs) had prepared an initial paper (presented
by LTTG lead in absence of IE Chairman).

5.2	In summary, the IEs noted that the Workshop represented a good start
for their task to discharge the SG remit to provide technology goals for
fuel burn reductions over a 10 and 20-year timeframe.  However, in their
view:

the Industry 20 year technology projections were weak

few technologies discussed were at a low TRL and therefore there
appeared little continuity between near medium and long term
technologies

there was no indication of probability of success

the EC presentation on European research projects offered no substantive
information on LT technology goals

In general, more (quantified) information was needed and therefore the
IEs could not offer views on precise quantitative goals at this stage,
but it should be possible to indicate broad regions for long term
technology goals (using uncertainty bands) for an agreed range of
different aircraft classes

The IEs will be preparing a report for presentation at the SG meeting in
Brazil, June 2009, with recommendations relating to a formal technology
review for fuel burn reductions in 2010.

5.3	In response ICCAIA was strongly of the opinion that the IEs had
treated the Workshop as if it was the Review; their expressed views did
not appear to match what ICCAIA believe they had offered.  There was a
need for urgent interaction to address any differences of expectations.
Also, ICCAIA was unsure whether there was an adequate spread of
expertise among the IEs.  ICCAIA noted that it would not be easy to
provide all the data requested owing to its commercially sensitive
nature and that this would be unlikely to change in the near future.

5.4	WG3 noted the initial report from the IEs and the concerns expressed
by ICCAIA and recommended that ICCAIA interact with the IEs promptly to
find ways of addressing these issues.  WG3 asked that the IEs provide a
more formal paper within 2 weeks.

Action 6.6	FBRT IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Workshop [LTTG
Lead]

Action 6.7	ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and
expectations

5b	IE Initial report on the NOx Emissions Technology Goals Review /
update	[WP6-06]

5.5	The Independent Expert (IE) NOx goals update review took place in
the 2 days prior to WG3 and as such only a very simple verbal overview
statement was available (presented by LTTG lead in absence of IE
Chairman).  In summary, the IEs:

had considered all inputs, capturing the time scales for reporting to
CAEP/8

had reviewed progress towards the goals set 3 years ago;

reviewed the status of science understanding - believing that there was
even more compelling need for control of NOx than appeared evident 3
years ago.

thought that within a year the goal as defined in 2006 would be attained

thought that there was a need to monitor the relationship between LTO
NOx and cruise NOx

expressed appreciation to ICCAIA for the excellent input.

Would put further questions directly to ICCAIA and RFP/SFPs.

At the last review the IEs indicated that a goal is reached when one or
more products cross the goal line. The IEs feel that a refinement to
that assumption may be warranted, as it may not adequately cover engine
families.

5.6	WG3 accepted this brief report and requested that the IEs provide a
written paper within 2 weeks.

Action 6.8	NOx IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Goals review /
update [LTTG Lead]

5c	Fuel Consumption Scenarios	[IP6-03]

At the WG3/LTTG meeting in Nov 2009, ICCAIA had presented a paper on 2
scenarios of new and in-production aircraft fuel burn improvement over
time, to go with “Scenario 1” from the 1999 IPCC Special Report On
Aviation And The Environment.

As an interim status to the Fuel Burn Technology Goals Review Process,
that paper summarized the on-going industry technology developments,
which were being transitioned in the near future to upcoming products or
were being studied for next-generation aircraft, in support of the fuel
burn scenarios identified for the MODTF exercise.

IP6-03 by ICCAIA provided further background information on how the two
new fuel consumption scenarios were developed.

6	Reports from CETG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary)	[WP6-07, WP6-18,
WP6-19]

6.1	Plenary	[WP6-07]

6.1.1	The CETG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned
remits.

E.05.1.a)	Evaluate and document non-volatile PM measurement procedures,
which, if appropriate, could be used in a certification methodology.
DONE – draft AIR 5892 from E-31 up for vote late 2008/early 2009.

E.05.1.b)	Develop measurement and sampling techniques for volatile PM
emissions. No longer a deliverable for CAEP8.

E.05.1.c)	Validate and improve FOA methodology.  Ongoing with PM ad hoc
group.

E.05.2	Further characterize LTO PM emissions reflecting
state-of-the-science.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from
RFP/SFPs.

E.05.3	Monitor latest understanding of PM impacts on both LAQ & climate
change.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs.

E.05.4	Assess the data required for environmental impact studies of
aircraft particle emission on the upper atmosphere and provide data
(e.g., emissions factors), including uncertainties, for global emissions
inventories of particles based upon ground-based and other measurement
data.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs.

E.08.4	APU emissions.  Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc group.

E.09.1	Review trends in aviation kerosene fuel supply composition.
Ongoing with ICCAIA.

E.09.2	Promote improved understanding of the potential use and emission
effects of alternative fuels. Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA.

E.09.3	Work with CRC, ASTM, and other appropriate bodies to further
evaluate the costs and benefits of a potential policy to remove sulphur
from jet fuel.  Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA.

E.10	Support WG2/TG4 with emissions methodologies for ICAO/CAEP Airport
Air Quality Guidance Manual.  Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc
group.

E.11	Support MODTF as requested.  Ongoing on an as needed basis.

Most of the remit items have been progressed via ad-hoc groups’
telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting.  WG3 noted the
progress to date.

6.2	Mini-Plenary	[WP6-18, WP6-19]

CETG raised 3 items to WG3 for consideration / approval as follows:

a.	Emissions vs thrust relationship for airport inventory work [WP6-18]

6.2.1	WG2/TG4 had requested guidance from WG3 “whether a linear fit
between the 85% and 30% ICAO thrust setting modes is the best method for
estimating emissions indices”.  The CETG has concluded work on this as
documented by CETG6 WP05 [taken as WP6-18 in WG3].  For thrusts down to
60%, the recommendation was to use a twin quadratic to estimate fuel
flow from thrust, followed by the use of existing methods to estimate
emissions from fuel flow. This advice was applicable for the purposes of
calculating aircraft emissions inventories.  CETG also requested that
WG2-TG4 adhered to the precise language without further methodological
embellishments.

WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to
WG2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document

Action 6.9:  Provide WG2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions
versus thrust relationship, including the language caveats, as provided
in Appendix A to CETG6 WP05 [WG3-WP6-18] for inclusion in the ICAO
Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs]

b.	Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient Conditions And Forward
Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using Advanced Modelling Methods
[WP6-19]

6.2.2	Preliminary guidance on such effects had already been produced by
ICCAIA and included in the ICAO Air Quality Guidance Manual. However,
this guidance was based upon the ‘Simple’ approach.  WG2 has also
requested a statement providing some guidance for modellers who wish to
use an ‘Advanced’ approach.  The CETG has concluded work on this, as
documented by CETG6 WP07 [taken as WP6-19 in WG3].  This paper discussed
how corrections for ambient conditions and forward speed effects might
be applied to calculation methods for aircraft emissions categorized as
Advanced according to the WG2 draft guidance on airport air quality
calculations.  General considerations that apply to all Advanced models
were discussed, and then Advanced Options B and A were considered
individually. Advanced Option B was conceptually easier to adjust for
these effects than Advanced Option A, because the performance models
that underlie Advanced Option B should already be capable of considering
them.  CETG recommended the preferred use of option B and also laid out
some important caveats for modellers using any Advanced method.

WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to
WG2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document

Action 6.10:	Provide WG2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of
Ambient Conditions And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using
Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP07 [WG3-WP6-19] for
inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs]

c.	Remit item E.09.1:	Fuel composition and emissions effects; review
trends in aviation kerosene supply composition.

6.2.3	A Status report on this item is a deliverable for SG2009.
However, in view of other priority work, ICCAIA had asked that this be
deferred to CAEP/8.  WG3 accepted this request.

Action 6.11	WG3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request
to defer delivery of remit item E.09.1 report until CAEP/8 [Rapporteurs]

7	Reports from CTG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary)

[WP6-08, WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16 & WP6-20]

7.1	Plenary	[WP6-08, WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16]

7.1.1	The CTG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned remits
[WP6-08].

E.03.2 	Technology Interdependencies:	Completed

E.06 	Annex 16, Volume II:	Proposals for amendments nearing completion

E.07 	Environmental Technical Manual: Proposals for updates nearing
completion

E.08.1 	NOx LTO stringency:	Completed - further work now with FESG and
MODTF

E.08.2	NOx cruise climb methodology:	Now considered as a CAEP/9 future
work item

E.08.3 	Supersonic aircraft emissions:	No significant developments -
waiting on WG1

E.12 	ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank:	V16 issued in Feb 2009

Most of the remit items have been progressed via the ad-hoc group’s
telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting.  WG3 noted the
progress to date.

7.1.2	The EPA presented 3 papers [WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16] that were
within the scope of CTG and had not yet been brought to the attention of
the group.  Since this was also an issue of ‘process’ the Rapporteur
stated that while an outline of the papers could be given to WG3, they
would need to be remitted to CTG for fuller consideration before any
recommendations could be taken by WG3.

7.1.3	WP6-14 on Production cut-off, made several recommendations related
to this topic.  The Rapporteur noted that this was a policy issue
already under consideration within SG and WG3 was not the arena for
discussion until SG had given direction on it.  The Rapporteurs
suggested that the EPA re-present this paper to the SG.  Also that WG3,
in its report to SG2009, could note that it had had sight of this
document and noted the policy perspective in it.  This was accepted.

7.1.4	WP6-15 made many detailed proposals for additions to the emissions
Databank.  This was remitted to CTG for consideration.

Action 6.12:	Consider proposals of WP6-15 and report back to WG3 [CTG]

7.1.5	WP6-16 on revision of exemptions provisions within Annex 16 Vol.
II, attempted to address a number of questions that had arisen during
the CTG ETM ad-hoc group discussions and made specific recommendations
for revision of the exemption language of the Annex.  It was
acknowledged that there was a strong link between introduction of a
production cut-off and the need for some exemption provisions.  A
Rapporteur noted, however, that work on this topic did not imply any
decision about a production cut-off.

7.1.6 	ICCAIA stated that any data used in such analyses should be the
latest from the manufacturer and, if necessary, requested between WG3
meetings.  EPA believed it could work with ICCAIA concerns and stated
that WP6-14 was aiming to open a continuing dialogue for mutual benefit.
 EPA also clarified that the data used was just related to engine types,
not taking the proportions of flights into account.

7.1.7	FL6-02 was an initial informal response from ICCAIA to WP6-14 &
WP6-16 from EPA.  ICCAIA appreciated that the USEPA were once again
directly involved in and actively contributing to the CAEP process.
ICCAIA believed that the available evidence supported the view that
market forces were effective and that manufacturers voluntarily complied
with new CAEP NOx standards.  ICCAIA recommended that work towards
production cut-off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard was
premature before CAEP/8.  However ICCAIA supported work to include
suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM and
recommended that WG3 support the inclusion of this work in the future
work programme.

7.1.8	Following these comments and clarification these papers were
remitted to CTG for consideration.

Action 6.13:	Consider proposals of WP6-16 & comments in FL6-02 and
report back to WG3 [CTG]

7.2	Mini-Plenary 	[WP6-20]

CTG raised 4 items to WG3 for consideration / approval as follows:

a.	Estimation of PM Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines [WP6-20]

7.2.1	At the request of MODTF, CTG had carried out a qualitative
assessment of noise and emissions from CIS aircraft.  At CTG (Nov 2009),
it was concluded that “CIS operations comprised a small representation
of total noise and emissions, although this did vary across different
ICAO regions. There was some discussion as to whether PM emissions from
CIS aircraft would be disproportionately high due to higher smoke
numbers.

7.2.2	This paper presented the analysis of CIS engine PM emissions as
calculated from data in the ICAO Emissions Databank V16a (EDB).  Data
from the FOI database were not used explicitly. However, data on two
CIS-manufactured turboprops were also analysed.

7.2.3	CTG recommended that “For the purposes of supporting the CAEP/8
MODTF Environmental Goals Analysis, based on an approximate assessment
based on in-service engines in the EDB and using FOA3, the estimated PM
emissions from CIS- manufactured engines are likely to be approximately
3 to 4 times those of equivalent non-CIS engine types for the current
fleet.  For future fleets, it can be expected that next generation CIS
types will produce similar smoke and levels to Western types. Total PM
emissions will be subject to any fuel sulphur content differences.”

7.2.4	WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this
to MODTF for use in CAEP/8 Environmental Goals Analysis.

Action 6.14	Provide MODTF with the information on the Estimation of PM
Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6-WP03
(WG3-WP6-20). [Rapporteurs]

b.	CO2 scoping study

7.2.5	Based on discussions held during the WG3 Plenary meeting, and
subsequent input from relevant stakeholders, CTG proposed a way forward
on the issue of developing a potential aircraft CO2 emissions
certification requirement.  CTG recommended that the SG2009 meeting
should be provided with references to past CAEP work regarding CO2
standards and aircraft efficiency parameters, the WG3 responses to
GIACC-4 and a proposal for a new WG3 work item to scope out this issue
in order to inform CAEP/8 discussions and any CAEP/9 work.  The scoping
work could include a comparison with existing Annex 16 Vol. II
requirements, as well as CO2 standards in other sectors, in order to
inform future workload, metric(s), methodology, applicability and
terminology.  If the study is agreed by SG2009, WG3/CTG recommended that
WG3 establish a “CO2” ad-hoc group to address this issue via
telecons prior to the next WG3 meeting.

	WG3 accepted the proposal and agreed to bring it to the attention of
SG2009.

Action 6.15:	WG3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a
scoping study for CAEP/8 on the likely work required to develop a
potential aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement.
[Rapporteurs]

c.	Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II and updates to emissions ETM

7.2.6	Final agreements on the Annex 16 Vol. II issues, which had already
been resolved, had been reached at the last meeting. As no comments had
since been received from WG3 these were now considered approved.

7.2.7	Two new items had been added to the Annex 16 ad-hoc group remit.
The first was to review the Annex 16 humidity measurement requirements
which were stricter than those used for performance measurements. This
had already caused difficulties in past engine projects. The second item
was linked to the ongoing discussions on a potential CAEP/6 production
cut-off requirement, and the need to review paragraph 2.1.1 of the Annex
dealing with exemptions. Guidance on evaluating and issuing exemptions
was also urgently required within the ETM.  In the light of this, WG3
WP6-16 from the EPA had been remitted to the ad-hoc group for further
discussion.

7.2.8	The latest updates to the ETM had been approved by CTG and were
available as Attachment 1 to CTG-WP6/06.  WG3 members were requested to
provide any comments by Friday 22nd May.

Action 6.16:	Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in
CTG WP6/06 by May 22. [All WG3 members]

d.	Response re EPA WP6-15 [Databank]

7.2.9	A CTG Databank ad-hoc group has been created to address the
outstanding issues and to try to incorporate as many of these changes as
possible into the next version of EDB - likely Feb 2010.

8	Follow-on from the CAEP Impacts Workshop	[IP6-04]

8.1	IP6-04 was a spreadsheet, compiled by the CAEP Secretariat, of
recommendations arising from this Workshop, together with a request for
each CAEP WG or TF to identify the level of resources needed to address
each of the recommendations at 3 different ‘Tier’ levels [1-3 in
increasing complexity and time scales].  The CAEP Secretariat was asking
for a ‘fast track’ response as a SG2009 input.

8.2	There was a broad discussion about this request, including the
purpose of such a matrix, what could be considered and the linkage of
emissions to impacts, recognising that this could require WG3 to expand
its range of expertise considerably.

8.3	WG3 agreed that an initial response would be identified by a small
group of volunteers during this meeting.

Action 6.17:	Develop an initial response to request related to follow-on
from CAEP Impacts Workshop and report back during this meeting [Ad Hoc
group (DL, MG, PM and RI)]

8.4	The initial response recommended setting up a new group (an Impacts
Task Force) within the CAEP framework.  WG3 accepted this.

Action 6.18:	Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co-ordinators
of the Workshop for inclusion in their submission to SG2009.
[Rapporteurs]

9	Co-ordination with Other Working Groups, etc.

9.1	Technology Interdependencies Group (TIG)

There was nothing to report.

9.2	Working Group 1

CTG Lead will circulate papers from the WG1 Supersonic Task Group (SSTG)
meeting to be held in Paris during April to CTG members.  The CAEP
Secretariat noted that they have received questions regarding the
current status of the certification requirements for engines intended
for propulsion at supersonic speeds.  There was a request for a progress
report on the IE Noise Technology Review.

Action 6.19:	Request a progress report of the WG1 IE Noise Technology
Review to assist WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]

9.3	Working Group 2

There was nothing from WG2.  However an early copy of the ATM IE report
would be helpful for WG3 FBRT IEs.

Action 6.20:	Request an early copy of the WG2 ATM IE report to assist
WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]

9.4	Modelling and Database Task Force (MODTF)

MODTF is currently performing a second round of modelling.  All WG3
stringency options have been used satisfactorily.  Environmental Goals
issues related to technology improvement factors have been brought to
WG3 and resolved [see Section 3.6].

9.5	Forecasting and Economic Analysis Sub-Group (FESG)

There was nothing to report.

9.6	Fuel Efficiency Metric [WP6-13, IP6-08]

9.6.1	The Fuel Efficiency Metric ad-hoc (FEMah) group had been
established jointly by WG3, WG2 and MODTF, to address task E.03.b
“formulate appropriate fuel efficiency metric(s) for use in assessment
of CAEP Environmental goals (MODTF), air traffic operational goals (WG2)
and aircraft and engine technology goals (WG3)”.

9.6.2	IP6-08 covered the metric for the Environmental Goals assessments
only, describing the approach taken by the ad hoc group, the metric
developed, the rationale for its creation and the testing undertaken.
The outcome of this was the “Commercial Aircraft System Fuel
Efficiency (CASFE)” metric (using fuel mass as the numerator and
payload multiplied by distance as the denominator) that reflected that
the metric incorporated the fleet usage and operational factors
alongside actual aircraft performance capability.

9.6.3	WP6-13 covered overall progress on task E.03.b and the two issues
raised at the Sept 08 Steering Group (Alternative fuels and metric
proposed to GIACC). In addition the paper made proposals to address the
fuel efficiency requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP.  The recommendations to
WG3 are listed below:

a)	Note the clarification to the payload-weight term shown (Section 2.1)

b)	Note the potential applicability of CAFSE to the draft Operations
Goals (Section 2.2)

c)	Note the future work to complete Task E03b (Sections 2.1, 2.2 and
2.3)

d)	Accept the proposed responses to SG Salvador on the two fuel
efficiency metric questions from SG Seattle (Section 3)

e)	Note the initial FEMah comments on GIACC/3 requests to CAEP (Section
4) and agree a way forward.

9.6.4	Regarding the passenger weight issue it was noted that this only
refers to the ‘usefully moved weight’ of the person, not including
anything else.  The actual weight is currently under review [91 to
100kg].  Additionally there is also the passenger / freight weight
conversion term.  These are not items for WG3 to resolve.

9.6.5	The ad-hoc group recognised that metrics were required for
different purposes and that the CASFE fuel efficiency metric had the
potential to be adapted or extended for other purposes, potentially
including alternative fuels.   However, the CASFE metric could not be
easily extended to radically different aircraft designs resulting from
use of fuels very different from current aviation kerosene.

9.6.6	It was confirmed that the GIACC metric was identical in technical
format to the proposed CASFE metric and that the application was on a
fleet-wide basis, albeit at National rather than Global/Regional level.
However, the proposed use was outside the current scope of the work of
the FEMah Group.

9.6.7	WG3 accepted the recommendations and proposed that the information
should be provided as a WP to SG2009, additional to the main WG3 report.

Action 6:21:	Prepare paper on Fuel Efficiency Metric issues for SG2009
[FEMah group]

10	Other WG3 Business	[WP6-09, WP6-12, IP6-05, IP6-06]

a.	Update on environmental activities in ICAO and other UN bodies
[WP6-09]

10.1	The key issues for WG3 action, namely response to GIACC/3, had
already been covered in Agenda Item 3 [see paragraph 4.17 and App D].

10.2	WG3 noted the future ICAO Conference on Aviation Alternative Fuels
[Nov 2009] and outcome of the UNFCCC COP14 [Nov 2008].  Although
aviation was not the main item on the agenda of COP, an important
development of the Conference had been the publication of the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory data for the period 1990–2006 which
reflected, inter alia, that international aviation emissions increased
by 65.9 per cent in Annex I countries. For maritime the growth was
reported to be 18.4 per cent.   [IEA data based on fuel sales also
supported this - 70% for aviation and 30% for marine]

b.	Open Rotor Technology [WP6-12, IP6-05, IP6-06]

10.3	WP6-12, supported by IP6-05 and IP6-06, were ICCAIA papers
requesting work on emissions regulations for Open rotors and setting out
potential issues associated with the emissions certification of such
engines.  Open rotors are one of several new technologies offering
potential solutions for the next generation aircraft, predicted to
provide a 25–30% reduction in specific fuel consumption & CO2
emissions relative to current, equivalent turbofan engines, as well as
possible NOx advantages.  There are substantial challenges associated
with open rotors including noise, aircraft integration, certification
requirements, accessibility & maintenance, etc – however it is
believed that all can be overcome.

10.4	Current Annex 16, Vol. II certification requirements are not
applicable to such technologies because of the markedly different
physical configuration.  For example, small core sizes pose particular
problems of sampling and measurement; ability to feather blades would
mean difficulty in defining idle thrust setting.

10.5	Therefore Working Group 3 were asked to include a recommendation in
their report to the CAEP Steering Group that certification procedures be
developed for alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors,
that may not be able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16
Vol. II.

10.5	Discussion clarified that likely certification date would be late
2010; cruise NOx is not linked to LTO NOx; rules already exist for noise
measurements.

10.6	WG3 accepted the recommendation for inclusion of this as a CAEP/9
work item

Action 6.22:	Propose development of certification procedures for
alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be
able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9
work item [Rapporteurs]

c.	WG3 ad-hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2

	This was an updated telecon schedule until end September 2009

11	Preparations for WG3 report to SG2009

The Rapporteurs proposed structuring the report to SG similarly to that
presented to earlier SG meetings ie they would draft the report, looking
to the Task Group Leads to provide the sections related to their TG
responsibilities.  WG3 concurred with this proposal.

12	Next Meeting

At the request of the CAEP Secretariat the next meeting is now
rescheduled for the week Sept 28 - Oct 2, still in Montreal

The Rapporteurs closed the meeting with thanks to UK BERR and Peter
Newton as LTTG Lead for hosting not only the WG3 meeting but also the
FBRT Workshop and the IE NOx Goals Update meeting during the two weeks.

Attachment A:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group

Sixth Meeting: April 1 - 3, 2009, London, UK

ATTENDANCE

Name

	Organisation / Affiliation

Lister, Dave

Holsclaw, Curtis	Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), UK

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), USA

Allyn, Dan

Andreini, Antonio

Arrowsmith, Steve

Dantec, Delphine

Dikstra, Wieger

Dudebout, Rudy

Dodds, Will

Eyers, Chris

Gupta, Mohan

Hawkins, Betty

Herms, Erika

Hess, Cesar

Hoermann, Werner

Husse, Olivier

Iovinelli, Ralph

Madden, Paul

Manzoni, Helene

McDonald, Ted

McQueen, Ed

Miake-Lye, Rick

Newton, Peter

Plaisance, Christophe

Plohr, Martin

Rindlisbacher, Theo

Rollin, Gilles

Roetger, Thomas

Rutherford, Dan

Ryman Jenny

Saito, Marcelo

Sepulveda, Dom

Spears, Matthew

Tanaka, Tetsuya

Wayson, Roger

Wetzel, Frank

Worth, Roger	Boeing / ICCAIA

University of Florence, Italy

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), EU

Air France / IATA

Ministry of Environment, Netherlands

Honeywell / ICCAIA

General Electric (GE) / ICCAIA

QinetiQ, UK

FAA, USA

Air Transport Association / IATA

EASA, EU

ANAC / Brazil

EASA, EU

Airbus / ICCAIA

FAA, USA

Rolls-Royce / ICCAIA

DGAC / France

Transport Canada / Canada

FAA, USA

Aerodyne, USA

BERR, UK

Airbus / ICCAIA

DLR / Germany

FOCA / Switzerland

Snecma / ICCAIA

IATA

ICCT / ICSA

Swedish Transport Authority

ANAC, Brazil

P&W, / ICCAIA

EPA, USA

ICAO Secretariat

Volpe, USA

UBA, Germany

DfT, UK

Attachment B:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group

Sixth Meeting: April 1-3, 2009, London, United Kingdom

LIST OF PAPERS

WP No.	Title	Agenda Item	Prepared by

WP6-01	Final Meeting Schedule	2b	Rapporteurs

WP6-02	Final Agenda	2c	Rapporteurs

WP6-03	Draft Report of 5th WG3 meeting – Tokyo, Japan	3	Rapporteurs

WP6-03 (rev)	Final Report of 5th WG3 meeting – Tokyo, Japan	3
Rapporteurs

WP6-04	Progress Report from LTTG	5	LTTG Lead

WP6-05	Initial Report on the Fuel Burn Technology Workshop	5a	IEs

WP6-06	Initial Report on NOx Emissions Technology Goal Review/Update	5b
IEs

WP6-07	Progress Report from CETG	6	CETG Lead

WP6-08	Progress Report from CTG	7	CTG Lead

WP6-09	Updates on Environmental Activities in ICAO and other UN bodies
4, 10a	Secretariat

WP6-10	Characterizing the CO2 Intensity of Commercial Aircraft under a
Potential Airframe Standard	4c	ICSA

WP6-11	Consideration of CO2 Standards for Aircraft Engines	4c	ICCAIA

WP6-12	Potential Issues Associated with the Certification of Open Rotor
Engines for Emissions	10b	ICCAIA

WP6-13	Fuel Efficiency Metric ad-hoc Group – Progress Report and
Additional Tasks	4a, 9f	FEMah Lead

WP6-14	Production Cut-Off	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-15	Additions to the ICAO Databank	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-16	Revision of Exemption Provisions	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-17	NOx Scenarios for MODTF Goals/Trends Analysis	3b	ICCAIA

WP6-18	CAEP8_WG3_CETG6_WP05 (Emissions vs Thrust Final)	9c	CETG Lead

WP6-19	CAEP8_WG3_CETG6_WP07 (Forward-Ambient for Advanced Calcs)	9c	CETG
Lead

WP6-20	CAEP8_WG3_CTG6_WP03 (CIS Aircraft PM V1_0)	9d	CTG Lead

IP No.	Title	Agenda item	Prepared by

IP6-01	WG3 Membership - updated April 2009	2a	Rapporteurs

IP6-02	Final List of WG3 Plenary Papers	2d	Rapporteurs

IP6-03 and App	Further Information About ICCAIA Fuel Consumption
Scenarios	5c	ICCAIA

IP6-04	CAEP Impacts Workshop Recommendations Matrix	8	Rapporteurs

IP6-05	What is an Open Rotor?	10b	Rolls-Royce, GE Snecma

IP6-06	SBAC Aviation and Environment Briefing Papers; Open Rotor Engines

	10b	SBAC

IP6-07	Collection of past CAEP material; CO2 Standard and Aircraft
Efficiency Parameters	4c	ICCAIA

IP6-08	Commercial Aircraft System Fuel Efficiency Metric for Use in CAEP
Environmental Goals Trends Assessment	9f	FEMah Lead

	FL No.	Title	Agenda item	Prepared by

FL6-01	NOx Assumptions for the “Government” Environmental Goals
Scenario	3b	QinetiQ

FL6-02	ICCAIA Response to EPA Papers on Production Cut Off (WP6-14) and
Engine Exemptions (WP6-16)	7	ICCAIA

FL6-03	CAEP/WG3 initial response to task requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP	4
Rapporteurs

FL6-04	WG3 ad-hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2	10c	TG leads

	Attachment C:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group

Sixth Meeting: 1 - 3 April 2009, London UK

AGREED ACTIONS

Action Item No.	Item

	Agenda

Item	Action by:	Timetable

[Status as of August 2009]

6.1		Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be applied in
‘government’ scenarios and to report back to WG3 by Friday	3b	CJE	3
April [Done]

6.2	Pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors on to MODTF
3b	CJE	Asap [Done]

6.3	To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required to
develop a CO2 standard	3c	CTG	3 April [Done

6.4	Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report back to
WG3 by Friday for approval	3	Rapporteurs	3 April [Done]

6.5	Forward initial response of WG3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP
Secretariat by end of April	3	Rapporteurs	End April [Done]

6.6	Request FBRT IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Workshop	5a	LTTG
Lead	17 April [Done]

6.7	ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and
expectations	5a	ICCAIA	Asap [on-going]

6.8	Request NOx IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Goals review /
update	5b	LTTG Lead	17 April [Done]

6.9	Provide WG2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions versus
thrust relationship, including the language caveats, as provided in
Appendix A to CETG6 WP05 [WG3-WP6-18] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport
Air Quality Guidance Manual.	6	Rapporteurs	Before next WG2 meeting
[Done]

6.10	Provide WG2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient
Conditions And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using
Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP07 [WG3-WP6-19] for
inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual.	6	Rapporteurs
Before next WG2 meeting [Done]

6.11	WG3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request to defer
delivery of remit item E.09.1 report until CAEP/8	6	Rapporteurs	In WG3
report to SG2009 [Done]

6.12	Consider proposals of WP6-14 and report back to WG3	7	CTG	3 April
[Done]

6.13	Consider proposals of WP6-16 & comments in FL6-02 and report back
to WG3	7	CTG	3 April [Done]

6.14	Provide MODTF with the information on the Estimation of PM
Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6-WP03
[WG3-WP6-20].	7	Rapporteurs	Before next MODTF meeting [Done]

6.15	WG3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a scoping
study for CAEP/8 on the likely work required to develop a potential
aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement.	7	Rapporteurs	In WG3
report to SG2009 [Done]

6.16	Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in CTG WP6/06
by May 22.	7	All WG3 members	22 May

6.17	Develop an initial response to request related to follow-on from
CAEP Impacts Workshop and report back during this meeting	8	Ad Hoc group
3 April [Done]

6.18	Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co-ordinators of the
Workshop for inclusion in their submission to SG2009. [Rapporteurs]	8
Rapporteurs	End April [Done]

6.19	Request a progress report of the WG1 IE Noise Technology Review to
assist WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]	9b	LTTG Lead	End April [Done]

6.20	Request an early copy of the WG2 ATM IE report to assist WG3 FBRT
IEs [LTTG Lead]	9c	LTTG Lead	End April [Done]

6.21	Prepare paper on Fuel Efficiency Metric issues for SG2009	9f	FEMah
group	For SG2009 [Done]

6.22	Propose development of certification procedures for alternative
engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be able to
certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9 work
item.	10b	Rapporteurs	For SG2009 [Done]

Attachment D:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group

Sixth Meeting: April 1-3, 2009, London, United Kingdom

WG3 INITIAL RESPONSE TO TASK REQUESTS FROM GIACC/3 TO CAEP

Request 2.	CAEP is asked to address the development of a new efficiency
metric that takes into account alternative fuels.

WG3 initial response:	For kerosene-like “drop-in” fuels, the
development of any fuel efficiency metric to include emissions from the
life cycle of alternative fuels should be approached essentially as a
two-part problem.  These parts are an efficiency metric (based on fuel
properties / aircraft technology / operational parameters), and a
separate analysis taking account of life cycle emissions.  CAEP has
completed some preliminary work on a Commercial Aircraft System Fuel
Efficiency Metric (CASFE).  Use of non-kerosene-like fuels would
seriously impact aircraft design and affect fleet mixes; the current
CAEP work has not addressed this matter.

Potential CAEP/9 Work Item

Request 3.	CAEP is asked to consider fuel conversion factors between
existing fuels and potential biofuels.

WG3 initial response:	Assuming this is purely an issue of the
differences in the total life cycle emissions of different fuels, then
this is substantially independent of the final user, ie it is not an
aviation specific issue.  A consistent methodology needs to be used for
all energy uses and is best addressed from the energy supply side.
Aviation needs reliable values for fuels that it might use, but does not
need to be the developer of the information.  We believe that these
issues are being addressed by sources outside of CAEP such as CAAFI,
SWAFEA.

This is not a CAEP work item

Alternatively, if this question deals with CO2 emissions factors then
this simply requires knowledge of the fuel composition that would need
to be provided by the fuel supplier.

Request 4.	Secretariat is asked to raise with CAEP the question of
setting a CO2 Standard.

WG3 initial response: CAEP has already devoted significant resources in
attempting to develop aircraft efficiency parameters and continues work
in related areas.  Recognizing the importance of this matter some major
considerations to address the question of setting a CO2 standard are the
following:

The development of appropriate metric(s) is a key issue that must be
addressed as a first step.

Any standard should apply to aircraft, not just engines alone.

It may be easier to develop and implement an accurate methodology if it
is based upon and solely applicable to new aircraft

It is essential to avoid metrics and methodology that may contribute to
perverse incentives and counterproductive influences on aircraft/engine
development.  Also there is a need to take into account operational
considerations in order to avoid unintended consequences

The implications for implementation by certification authorities and
manufacturers

Defining the scope of work could be performed by WG3 to inform CAEP/8
discussion on this issue

The level of work required in setting any potential standard should not
be underestimated [note earlier CAEP work of a similar nature on cruise
NOx methodology and fuel efficiency parameter]

Potential CAEP/9 + Work Item

- END -

CAEP8-WG3-WP7-03

6th Meeting Report [090914 Final draft]

CAEP8-WG3-WP7-03

6th Meeting Report [090914 Final Draft]

 PAGE   4

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11598]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-232-000]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

February 28, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 24, 2006, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
(Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
April 1, 2006:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 10
First Revised Sheet No. 12

    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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3205 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P