[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 36538-36539]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55958; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange Inc;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Establish New
Procedures To Be Followed When Trading Halts on the Primary Market for
the Underlying Security

June 26, 2007.
    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 June 14, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Phlx. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Phlx proposes to amend Exchange Rules 1047, Trading Rotations,
Halts and Suspensions concerning equity options, 1047A, Trading
Rotations, Halts or Reopenings concerning index options, and OFPA G-2,
Trading Rotations, Halts or Reopenings, to establish new procedures to
be followed when trading halts on the primary market for the underlying
security.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, http://www.phlx.com
, and 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, Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to help Exchange options
specialists and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') better manage
risk following a trading halt on the primary market in the underlying
security by permitting specialists to halt trading in the overlying
option prior to receiving approval from an Options Exchange Official.
    Under current Exchange rules, in order to halt trading in an
option, the specialist in the option must seek out and obtain prior
approval from an Options Exchange Official to do so. Typically, when
trading in the underlying security halts on the primary market, a
period of time passes before the specialist (a) learns of the halt on
the primary market in the underlying security; and (b) is able to
obtain the necessary approval to halt trading in the overlying option.
During this time period, the specialist and ROTs continue to
disseminate quotations in the option and are at significant market risk
due to uncertainty in the pricing of the option.
    The proposal would change the procedure for halting trading in
equity options in the overlying option when trading is halted on the
primary market in the underlying security, and in index options when
trading on the primary market in underlying securities representing
more than 10% of the current index value is halted. Specifically, the
proposal would permit the specialist to halt trading in the option in
these circumstances prior to receiving approval from an Options
Exchange Official, provided that such approval is granted within five
minutes following the halt of trading in the option.
    The Exchange believes that this should reduce the time period
following a trading halt on the primary market in the underlying
security before trading the overlying option is halted, thus enabling
specialists to halt trading in the overlying option more expeditiously.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it is designed 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,
by enabling Exchange options specialists and ROTs to better manage
their market risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Phlx. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-45 and should be
submitted on or before July 24, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary. 6 5
 [FR Doc. E7-12780 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12991-12992]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0588; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-074-AD;
Amendment 39-16717; AD 2011-12-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to Robinson
Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, R22
Mariner, R44, and R44 II helicopters. The paragraph reference in
paragraph (b) of the Compliance section is incorrect. Paragraph (b)
references paragraph (d), when it should reference paragraph (c). This
document corrects that error. Additionally, the word ``inspection'' has
been added in paragraph (b) for clarification. In all other respects,
the original document remains the same.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is March 5, 2012. The
effective date for AD 2011-12-10 remains July 5, 2011.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric D. Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone
(562) 627-5348; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(regarding Model R22
helicopters); or Fred Guerin, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(regarding Model R44 helicopters).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2011-12-10,
Amendment 39-16717 (76 FR 35330, June 17, 2011), currently includes the
following paragraph (b) in the compliance section:
    ``(b) If you find any bare metal in the area of the skin-to-spar
bond line, before further flight, inspect the blade by following the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this AD.''
    As published, the reference to paragraph (d) is incorrect. The
correct reference is to paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) contains the
inspection requirements, and the incorrect

reference to paragraph (d) is confusing. We have also added the word
``inspection'' to clarify that the requirements we are referring to are
the inspection requirements, not the compliance times.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
In the Federal Register of June 17, 2011, on page 35333 in the second
column, paragraph (b) of AD 2011-12-10 is corrected to read as follows:
* * * * *
    (b) If you find any bare metal in the area of the skin-to-spar bond
line, before further flight, inspect the blade by following the
inspection requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 3, 2012.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-4604 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27689-27690]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

2015 International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering/Food
and Drug Administration/Product Quality Research Institute Quality
Manufacturing Conference

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, in cosponsorship with the International
Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), is announcing a meeting
entitled ``2015 ISPE/FDA/PQRI Quality Manufacturing Conference,''
formerly known as the annually occurring ``ISPE/FDA Current Good
Manufacturing Practices Conference.'' The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss the quality of global pharmaceutical manufacturing and the
combined efforts of industry leaders and regulators to modernize
manufacturing facilities and processes to ensure quality and
compliance.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 1 to 3, 2015, beginning at 7:30
a.m. on June 1 and ending at 4 p.m. on June 3.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Mayflower Renaissance, 1127
Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036. The hotel's phone number is
202-347-3000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bournas, President, International
Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, 600 North Westshore Blvd.,
Suite 900, Tampa, FL 33609, telephone: 1-813-960-2105, FAX: 1-813-264-
2816, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering is a not-
for-profit international association of more than 20,000 engineers,
scientists, manufacturing, quality and company executives, their
suppliers, and regulatory agencies involved in the development,
manufacture, quality control, and regulation of

pharmaceuticals and related products. The goal of the conference is to
ensure widespread opportunities for attendees to learn about important
and critical issues that intersect with pharmaceutical manufacturing
quality and regulatory topics that impact manufacturers, suppliers, and
regulatory health authorities.

II. Registration

    There is a registration fee to attend this meeting. The
registration fee is charged to help defray the costs of conference
sessions and presentations, facilities, materials, and food. Seats are
limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
    To register, please complete registration online at http://www.ispe.org/2015-quality-manufacturing-conference/fees-and-registration. (FDA has verified the Web address, but FDA is not
responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.) The costs of registration for the
different categories of attendees are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISPE Members.................................................     $2,095
Nonmembers...................................................      2,475
Government...................................................        700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations.
Attendees making reservations at The Mayflower Renaissance, Washington
DC, may check for the availability of a reduced rate by mentioning ISPE
when making their reservation.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-11620 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57653-57657]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23813]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609; FRL-8889-2]

Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab Protein in Corn; Temporary
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation extends the effective date for a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn, in or on the food or feed
commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when used
as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 67979-EUP-8. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting to extend the existing temporary tolerance
exemption for Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn that was
set to expire on March 1, 2013. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn under the FFDCA. The temporary
tolerance exemption now expires on December 31, 2013.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 16, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 15, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 15, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0609, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33183) (FRL-8874-8),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP
1G7868) by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., P.O. Box 12257, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended
by extending the effective date of an existing temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis
eCry3.1Ab protein in corn. This notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., which is
available in the docket via

http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit VII.C.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe '' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance exemption and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue * * *.'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires
that EPA consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of [a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.

A. Product Characterization Overview

    Based on amino acid sequence homology and crystal structures, known
Cry proteins have a similar three-dimensional structure comprised of
three domains, Domain I, II, and III (Refs. 1, 2, 3, and 4). The toxin
portions of Cry proteins are characterized by having five conserved
blocks (CB) across their amino acid sequence. These are numbered CB1 to
CB5 from the N-terminus to the C-terminus (Ref. 5). The sequences
preceding and following these conserved blocks are highly variable and
are designated as variable regions V1 to V6.
    Syngenta Seeds, Inc. developed Event 5307 maize (Zea mays) through
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (via plasmid vector PV-ZMIR245)
to express eCry3.1Ab protein for use as a plant-incorporated protectant
(PIP). This proposed PIP is a chimeric Bacillus thuringiensis protein,
composed of portions of Cry1Ab and modified Cry3A proteins. The
eCry3.1Ab protein was genetically engineered via exchanging the
variable regions (V1 to V6) between the mCry3A and the Cry1Ab proteins
for enhanced toxicity against western corn rootworm (WCR, Diabrotica
virgifera). The eCry3.1Ab protein consists of a fusion between the N-
terminus (Domain I, Domain II, and a portion of Domain III) of mCry3A
and the C-terminus (a portion of Domain III and variable region 6) of
Cry1Ab. The eCry3.1Ab protein is 654 amino acid residues in size and is
approximately 73.7 kilodaltons.

B. Mammalian Toxicity and Allergenicity Assessment

    Syngenta Seeds, Inc. has submitted acute oral toxicity data
demonstrating the lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure
to the pure eCry3.1Ab protein. These data demonstrate the safety of the
product at a level well above maximum possible exposure levels that are
reasonably anticipated in the crop. Basing this conclusion on acute
oral toxicity data without requiring further toxicity testing and
residue data is similar to EPA's position regarding toxicity testing
and the requirement of residue data for the microbial Bacillus
thuringiensis products from which this PIP was derived (see 40 CFR
158.2130(d)(1)(i) and 158.2140(d)(7)). For microbial products, further
toxicity testing and residue data are triggered by significant adverse
acute effects in studies, such as the mouse oral toxicity study, to
verify and quantify the observed adverse effects and clarify the source
of these effects (Tiers II & III).
    An acute oral toxicity study in mice (Master Record Identification
Number (MRID No.) 477539-01) indicated that eCry3.1Ab is nontoxic. Two
groups of 10 male and 10 female mice were orally dosed (via gavage)
with 2,000 milligrams/kilograms bodyweight (mg/kg bwt) (eCry3.1Ab
protein mg/kg bwt) of the eCry3.1Ab-0208 test substance, the microbial-
produced eCry3.1Ab protein. All treated animals gained weight and had
no test material-related clinical signs and no test material-related
findings at necropsy. Since there were no significant differences
between the test and control groups related to the oral administration
of eCry3.1Ab-0208 test material, the eCry3.1Ab protein does not appear
to cause any significant adverse effects at an exposure level of up to
2,000 mg/kg bwt and supports the finding that the eCry3.1Ab protein
would be nontoxic to mammals.
    When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms
and at very low dose levels (Ref. 6). Therefore, since no acute effects
were shown to be caused by eCry3.1Ab, even at relatively high dose
levels, the eCry3.1Ab protein is not considered toxic. Further, amino
acid sequence comparisons showed no similarities between the eCry3.1Ab
protein and known toxic proteins in protein databases that would raise
a safety concern.
    Since eCry3.1Ab is a protein, allergenic sensitivities were
considered. Currently, no definitive tests exist for determining the
allergenic potential of novel proteins. Therefore, EPA uses a ``weight-
of-the-evidence'' approach where the following factors are considered:
Source of the trait; amino acid sequence similarity with known
allergens; prevalence in food; and biochemical properties of the
protein, including in vitro digestibility in simulated gastric fluid
(SGF) and glycosylation (as recommended by CAC 2003, see Ref. 7).
Current scientific knowledge suggests that common food allergens tend
to be resistant to degradation by acid and proteases; may be
glycosylated; and present at high concentrations in the food.
    1. Source of the trait. Bacillus thuringiensis is not considered to
be a source of allergenic proteins.
    2. Amino acid sequence. A comparison of the amino acid sequence of
eCry3.1Ab with known allergens showed no significant overall sequence
similarity or identity at the level of eight contiguous amino acid
residues. This is the appropriate level of sensitivity to detect
possible IgE epitopes without high false positive rates.
    3. Prevalence in food. Preliminary expression level analysis shows
that the eCry.1Ab protein is present at relatively low levels. Dietary
exposure is expected to be correspondingly low. Expression

in Event 5307 leaf is 35 parts per million (ppm); root is 6 ppm; and
pollen is 0.15 ppm. Thus, the expression has been shown to be in the
parts per million range.
    4. Digestibility. The eCry3.1Ab protein was rapidly digested in
simulated mammalian gastric fluid containing pepsin at a pH of 1.2 at
37 [deg]C. The estimated degradation rate (DT50) is less
than 1 minute for eCry3.1Ab protein.
    5. Glycosylation. The eCry3.1Ab protein expressed in corn was shown
not to be glycosylated.
    6. Conclusion. Considering all of the available information, EPA
has concluded that the potential for eCry3.1Ab to be a food allergen is
minimal.

IV. Aggregate Exposure

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
    EPA has considered available information on the aggregate exposure
levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers) to
the pesticide chemical residue and to other related substances. First,
with respect to other related substances, the eCry3.1Ab protein is a
chimeric Bacillus thuringiensis protein, composed of portions of Cry1Ab
and mCry3A proteins, both of which are registered PIPs that were
previously assessed as having a lack of mammalian toxicity at high
levels of exposure. Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance have
been established for Cry1Ab in food and mCry3A in maize (see 40 CFR
174.511 and 40 CFR 174.505, respectively). Second, and specific to the
eCry3.1Ab protein, these considerations include dietary exposure under
the tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in
effect for the PIP chemical residue and exposure from non-occupational
sources. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the
PIP is contained within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these
exposure routes or reduces these exposure routes to negligible. The
amino acid homology assessment included similarity to known
aeroallergens. It has been demonstrated that there is no evidence of
occupationally related respiratory symptoms, based on a health survey
on migrant workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides
(Ref. 8). Exposure via residential or lawn use to infants and children
is also not expected because the use sites for the eCry3.1Ab protein
are all agricultural for control of insects. Oral exposure, at very low
levels, may occur from ingestion of processed corn products and,
potentially, drinking water.
    However, oral toxicity testing done at a dose of 2 gm/kg showed no
adverse effects. Furthermore, the expected dietary exposure from corn
is several orders of magnitude lower than the amounts of eCry3.1Ab
protein shown to have no toxicity. Therefore, even if negligible
aggregate exposure should occur, EPA concludes that such exposure would
present no harm due to the lack of mammalian toxicity and the rapid
digestibility demonstrated for the eCry3.1Ab protein.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance exemption, EPA
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] * * * residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Since eCry3.1Ab is not considered toxic, EPA has not found Bacillus
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and Bacillus thuringiensis
eCry3.1Ab protein in corn does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that Bacillus thuringiensis
eCry3.1Ab protein in corn does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. Following from this, EPA concludes that there
are no cumulative effects associated with eCry3.1Ab that need to be
considered. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for United States (U.S.) Population,
Infants and Children

    The data submitted and cited regarding potential health effects for
the eCry3.1Ab protein include the characterization of the expressed
eCry3.1Ab protein in corn, as well as the acute oral toxicity, heat
stability, and in vitro digestibility of the protein. The results of
these studies were used to evaluate human risk, and the validity,
completeness, and reliability of the available data from the studies
were also considered.
    As discussed more fully in Unit III., the acute oral toxicity data
submitted supports the prediction that the eCry3.1Ab protein would be
nontoxic to humans. Moreover, eCry3.1Ab showed no sequence similarity
to any known toxin. Because of this lack of demonstrated mammalian
toxicity, no protein residue chemistry data for eCry3.1Ab were required
for a human health effects assessment. Even so, preliminary expression
level analysis showed eCry3.1Ab protein is present at relatively low
levels. Dietary exposure is expected to be correspondingly low.
    In addition, since eCry3.1Ab is a protein, its potential
allergenicity was also considered as part of the toxicity assessment.
Data considered as part of the allergenicity assessment include that
the eCry3.1Ab protein came from Bacillus thuringiensis, which is not a
known allergenic source, showed no sequence similarity to known
allergens, was readily degraded by pepsin, and was not glycosylated
when expressed in the plant. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty
that eCry3.1Ab protein will not be an allergen.
    Considered together, the lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels
of exposure to the eCry3.1Ab protein and the minimal potential for that
protein to be a food allergen demonstrate the safety of the product at
levels well above possible maximum exposure levels anticipated in the
crop.
    Finally, and specifically in regards to infants and children, FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the available
information about consumption patterns among infants and children,
special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical
residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the
residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In
addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children.
    Based on its review and consideration of all the available
information, as discussed in more detail in this unit, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population, including infants and

children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the Cry3.1Ab protein
and the genetic material necessary for its production in corn. This
includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information. EPA has also concluded, again for
the reasons discussed in more detail in this unit, that there are no
threshold effects of concern and, as a result, that an additional
margin of safety for infants and children is unnecessary in this
instance.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since it is establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Nonetheless, a method for extraction and two test strip commercial kits
to detect eCry3.1Ab protein via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
analysis in corn have been submitted.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. In this
context, EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs)
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food
and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for Bacillus thuringiensis
eCry3.1Ab protein in corn.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from an anonymous individual who objected
to the use or approval of Bacillus thuringiensis-based corn. The
individual further stated that the subject Bt corn was toxic and
harmful and that animals eating it would be poisoned. No basis was
given for these comments. While EPA understands that some individuals
are opposed to all pesticide use and/or biotechnology based products,
relevant data discussed in this unit did serve as the basis for EPA's
conclusion in this instance that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm from residues of Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn.

VIII. Conclusion

    EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to residues of Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab
protein in corn and the genetic material necessary for its production.
Therefore, the temporary exemption for residues of Bacillus
thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn, in or on the food or feed
commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when used
as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 67979-EUP-8 is modified by extending
the expiration date to December 31, 2013.

IX. References

1. Ge A, Rivers D, Milne R, Dean DH. 1991. Functional Domains of
Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Proteins. Refinement of
Heliothis virescens and Trichoplusiani Specificity Domains on
Cry1A(c). Journal of Biological Chemistry. 266: 17954-17958.
2. Honee G, Convents D, Van Rie J, Jansens S, Peferoen M, Visser B.
1991. The C-Terminal Domain of the Toxic Fragment of a Bacillus
thuringiensis Crystal Protein Determines Receptor Binding. Molecular
Microbiology. 5: 2799-2806.
3. Li J, Carroll J, Ellar DJ. 1991. Crystal Structure of
Insecticidal delta-Endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis at 2.5 A
resolution. Nature. 353: 815-821.
4. Nakamura K, Oshie K, Shimizu M, Takada Y, Oeda K, Ohkawa H. 1990.
Construction of Chimeric Insecticidal Proteins Between the 130-kDa
and 135-kDa Proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. aizawai for
Analysis of Structure-Function Relationship. Agricultural Biological
Chemistry. 54: 715-724.
5. Hofte H, Whitley HR. 1989. Insecticidal Crystal Proteins of
Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiology Review. 53: 242-255.
6. Sjoblad RD, McClintock JT, Engler R. 1992. Toxicological
Considerations for Protein Components of Biological Pesticide
Products. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 15(1): 3-9.
7. CAC. 2003. Alinorm 03/34: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Programme.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Twenty-Fifth Session, 30 July 2003.
Rome, Italy. Appendix III: Guideline for Conduct of Food Safety
Assessments of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants; Appendix
IV: Annex on Assessment of Possible Allergenicity. Codex
Alimentarius Commission, 47-60.
8. Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S, Bernstein DI.,
Lummus Z, Selgrade MK, Doerfler DL, Seligy VL. 1999. Immune
responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis
pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. 107(7):575-82.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule modifies a tolerance exemption under section 408(d)
of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are modified on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance exemption
in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 8, 2011.
Keith Matthews,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 174.532 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  174.532  Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn;
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn, in or
on the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and
corn, pop are exempt temporarily from the requirement of a tolerance
when Bacillus thuringiensis eCry3.1Ab protein in corn is used as a
plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit 67979-EUP-8. This temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance expires on December 31, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2011-23813 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55113-55116]
[DOCID:fr28se07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29332; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required a safety review of the
aircraft Fuel Tank System * * *.
* * * * *
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an ``unsafe condition'' * * *. These are identified
in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable probability of
ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or practices are not
performed in accordance with the manufacturers' requirements.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http:// dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
29332; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

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

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2006-0219R1, dated June 29, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations)
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities)
using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) Sec.  25.901(c), Sec.
25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process
for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel
Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO,
http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html ) that also

included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of
the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the
harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type
certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published
compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy
statement has been revised in March 2006: the date of 31-12-2005 for
the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an `unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new
limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank

systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled
``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability
Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements'' (66 FR 23086,
May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport
airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,'' Amendment 21-78, and
subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed
to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory
standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that
all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport
category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against
explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    ATR has issued the Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR42-200/-
300/-320 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), Revision 7, dated
March 31, 2006; the ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR, Revision 6, dated March 26,
2007; and the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated March 26, 2007. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 84 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $6,720, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

ATR-GIE Avions De Transport Regional (Formerly Aerospatiale): Docket
No. FAA-2007-29332; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 29, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and
-500 airplanes; and all ATR Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211,
-212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR 88) in June 2001. SFAR 88 required a
safety review of the aircraft Fuel Tank System to determine that the
design meets the requirements of FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation)
Sec.  25.901 and Sec.  25.981(a) and (b).
    A similar regulation has been recommended by the JAA (Joint
Aviation Authorities) to the European National Aviation Authorities
in JAA letter 04/00/02/07/03-L024 of 3 February 2003. The review was
requested to be mandated by NAA's (National Aviation Authorities)
using JAR (Joint Aviation Regulation) Sec.  25.901(c), Sec.
25.1309.
    In August 2005 EASA published a policy statement on the process
for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of Fuel
Tank System ignition source prevention (EASA D 2005/CPRO, http://www.easa.eu.int/home/cert_policy_statements_en.html
) that also

included the EASA expectations with regard to compliance times of
the corrective actions on the unsafe and the not unsafe part of the
harmonised design review results. On a global scale the TC (type
certificate) holders committed themselves to the EASA published
compliance dates (see EASA policy statement). The EASA policy
statement has been revised in March 2006: the date of 31-12-2005 for
the unsafe related actions has now been set at 01-07-2006.
    Fuel Airworthiness Limitations are items arising from a systems
safety analysis that have been shown to have failure mode(s)
associated with an 'unsafe condition' as defined in FAA's memo 2003-
112-15 `SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision Criteria'. These are
identified in Failure Conditions for which an unacceptable
probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks and/or
practices are not performed in accordance with the manufacturers'
requirements.
    This EASA Airworthiness Directive mandates the Fuel System
Airworthiness Limitations (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks
and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)) for
the type of aircraft, that resulted from the design reviews and the
JAA recommendation and EASA policy statement mentioned above.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Task 28.10.00 ``Fuel Tank--
General,'' and Task 28.20.00 ``Distribution,'' of the Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMR) Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the
ATR-42-200/-300/-320 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR),
Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; the ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR, Revision
6, dated March 26, 2007; or the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated March
26, 2007; as applicable. For all tasks identified in the applicable
MRBR, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, except
as provided by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD. The repetitive
inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval
specified in the applicable MRBR.
    (i) The effective date of this AD.
    (ii) The date of issuance of the original French standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD or
before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
CDCCLs as defined in Section 4. ``Critical Design Configuration
Control List,'' of the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Time
Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR42-200/-300/-320 Maintenance
Review Board Report (MRBR), Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; the
ATR 42-400/-500 MRBR, Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or the ATR
72 MRBR, Revision 8, dated March 26, 2007; as applicable.
    (3) For the task titled ``Detailed visual inspection of the fuel
tanks and associated equipment, wiring, piping and braids'' (CMR
(Certification Maintenance Requirements) task reference 28.10.00-1):
The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this AD. Thereafter, the task
titled ``Detailed visual inspection of the fuel tanks and associated
equipment, wiring, piping and braids'' must be accomplished at the
repetitive interval specified in Section 4. ``Critical Design
Configuration Control List,'' of the Airworthiness Limitations
Section of the Time Limits Section of Part 1 of the ATR42-200/-300/-
320 MRBR, Revision 7, dated March 31, 2006; the ATR 42-400/-500
MRBR, Revision 6, dated March 26, 2007; or the ATR 72 MRBR, Revision
8, dated March 26, 2007; as applicable.
    (i) Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original
French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original French export certificate of airworthiness.
    (ii) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (4) Except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: After
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2)
of this AD, no alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or
CDCCLs may be used.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

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

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2006-0219R1, dated June 29, 2007, and the
service information identified in Table 1 of this AD, for related
information.

                      Table 1.--Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Revision
             Document                level               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of           7  March 31, 2006.
 the ATR42-200/-300/-320
 Maintenance Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of           6  March 26, 2007.
 the ATR42-400/-500 Maintenance
 Review Board Report.
Time Limits Section of Part 1 of           8  March 26, 2007.
 the ATR72 Maintenance Review
 Board Report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-19201 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15406-15407]
[DOCID:fr28mr06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER06-499-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an amendment to its
1/18/06 filing of revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0284.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-542-001.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co amends its 1/25/06 filing
to reflect subsequent change in the Commission's regulations.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0285.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-700-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
clarifications and corrections to their March 2006 Credit Policy
Amendments.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0273.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-726-000.
    Applicants: Madison Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Madison Windpower LLC petitions the Commission for
order accepting market-based rate schedule for filing and granting
waivers and blanket approvals.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0274.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-727-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an unexecuted service
agreement for Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Calpine Energy
Services LP, effective 2/15/06.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0275.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-728-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Potrero LLC.
    Description: Mirant Potrero LLC submits revisions to its must Must-
Run Service Agreement with the California Independent System Operator
Corp.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0276.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-729-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0277.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-730-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060317-0278.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately
intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you
have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings
initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or
before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(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. E6-4455 Filed 3-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61054-61056]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27698]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82358; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2017-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in
Options Classes

December 19, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 11, 2017, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE American'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in
order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues
(``Pilot Program'') previously approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') through June 30, 2018. The Pilot Program is
currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange hereby proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY
to extend the time period of the Pilot Program,\4\ which is currently
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017, through June 30, 2018. The
Exchange also proposes that the dates to replace issues in the Pilot
Program that have been delisted be revised to the second trading day
following January 1, 2018.\5\ The Exchange believes that extending the
Pilot would allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a
determination of how the Pilot Program should be structured in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80989 (June 21,
2017), 82 FR 29130 (June 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-36).
    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., December) would not be used for
purposes of the analysis for determining the replacement class.
Thus, a replacement class to be added on the second trading day
following January 1, 2018 would be identified based on The Option
Clearing Corporation's trading volume data from June 1, 2017 through
November 30, 2017. The Exchange will announce the replacement issues
to the Exchange's membership through a Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot
Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and
all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the
benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be
able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been
demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \6\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to
participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders,
investors and

public customers and viewed as successful by the other options
exchanges participating in it. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the
Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration on
December 31, 2017. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not
propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but
instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that
operates on a pilot basis.
    The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and
equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other
market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell
options to the benefit of all market participants.
    The proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of
the Pilot Program while also allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program
is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges.
The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for
continued competition between Exchange market participants trading
similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the
same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow
with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot
Program.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\11\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the
Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to continue without
interruption in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's prior
approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will
allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the
impact of the Pilot Program. Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-38 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-NYSEAMER-2017-38. 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 website (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 website 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2017-38 and should
be submitted on or before January 16, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27698 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47198]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-2510-000]

Odom Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Odom Solar
LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying
rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 18, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 29, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16944 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P