[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 46527]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-335, OMB Control No. 3235-0381]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 40-F

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 40-F (17 CFR 249.240f) is used by certain Canadian issuers to
register a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78l) or
as an annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)). The information required in the Form
40-F is used by investors in making investment decisions with respect
to the securities of such Canadian companies. We estimate that Form 40-
F takes approximately 429.93 hours per response and is filed by
approximately 132 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 429.93 hours
per response (107.48 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a total
reporting burden of 14,187 (107.48 hours per response x 132 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: September 7, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19879 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56477-56480]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19813]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95707; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Cboe Rule 5.6 and Cboe Rule
5.33 To Allow Delta-Adjusted at Close Orders To Be Submitted in FLEX
Equity Options

September 8, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On July 8, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to allow the Delta-Adjusted at Close (``DAC'') Order Instruction
to be submitted in FLEX equity options on the Exchange. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
27, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95344 (July 21,
2022), 87 FR 45138 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Cboe Rule 5.6 (for simple DAC
orders) and Cboe Rule 5.33 (for complex DAC orders) to allow DAC orders
to be submitted in any FLEX option, including equity options, except
that a simple DAC order submitted in a single stock equity option may
not be submitted until 45 minutes prior to the market close and may not
be submitted on its expiration day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange notes that references to equity options and
equity securities within this proposed rule change refers to options
on securities that are not exchange-traded products (``ETPs'') and
equity securities that are not ETPs (i.e., single stock securities),
respectively. Under this proposal, DAC orders will continue to be
available only for FLEX options. For a more detailed description of
the proposed rule change, see Notice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A DAC order is an order for which the System \5\ delta-adjusts its
execution price after the market close.\6\ Currently,

the DAC order instruction is available for simple \7\ and complex \8\
FLEX orders in options on ETPs and indexes for execution in a FLEX
electronic auction or open outcry auction on the Exchange's trading
floor pursuant to Rule 5.72.\9\ A DAC order allows Users to incorporate
into their options pricing the closing price or value of the underlying
on the transaction date based on how much that price or value changed
during the trading day. After the close of trading and upon receipt of
the official closing price or value for the underlying ETP or index
from the primary listing exchange or index provider, as applicable, the
System adjusts the original execution price of the order based on a
pre-determined delta value applied to the change in the underlying
reference price between the time of execution and the market close.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``System'' means the Exchange's hybrid trading
platform that integrates electronic and open outcry trading of
option contracts on the Exchange, and includes any connectivity to
the foregoing trading platform that is administered by or on behalf
of the Exchange, such as a communications hub. See Cboe Rule 1.1.
    \6\ See Cboe Rule 5.6(c) and Cboe Rule 5.33(b)(5). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90319 (November 3, 2020), 85 FR
71361 (November 9, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-014) (``DAC Approval
Order'').
    \7\ See Cboe Rule 5.6(c).
    \8\ The DAC order instruction would apply to each leg of a
complex order. See Cboe Rule 5.33(b)(5).
    \9\ In addition, pursuant to the definition of a DAC order under
Cboe Rule 5.6(c) and Cboe Rule 5.33(b)(5), a DAC order submitted for
execution in open outcry may only have a Time-in-Force of Day. A
User may not designate a DAC order as All Sessions.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45138, for a more detailed
description of a DAC order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that DAC orders are designed to allow investors
to incorporate any upside market moves that may occur following
execution of the order up to the market close while limiting downside
risk. The Exchange states that significant numbers of market
participants interact in the equity markets near the market close,
which may substantially impact the price of an underlying equity
security at the market close. For example, the Exchange understands
that market makers and other liquidity providers seek to balance their
books before the market close and contribute to increased price
discovery surrounding the market close. The Exchange also understands
it is common for other market participants to seek to offset intraday
positions and mitigate exposure risks based on their predictions of the
closing underlying prices. The Exchange notes that this substantial
activity near the market close may create wider spreads and increased
price volatility, which may attract further trading activity from those
participants seeking arbitrage opportunities and further drive prices.
The significant liquidity and price/value movements in securities,
including equity securities, that can occur near the market close may
cause option closing and settlement prices to deviate significantly
from option execution prices earlier that trading day. As such, the
Exchange wishes to provide its investors with the same opportunities to
incorporate any upside market moves that may occur following execution
of the order up to the market close while limiting downside risk in
their equity options trading as currently provided for their ETP and
index options trading by making DAC orders available in equity options.
    The Exchange states that DAC orders are intended to benefit
investors that participate in defined-outcome strategies,\11\ which, at
the time the DAC order was adopted, existed only for indexes and ETPs.
Particularly, DAC orders allow such funds to employ certain FLEX
options strategies that enable their investors to mitigate risk at the
market close while also participating in beneficial market moves at the
close.\12\ The Exchange states that it has recently been made aware
that defined-outcome investment strategies are being created to provide
exposure to individual equity securities and as a result has received
growing customer demand to make DAC orders available in equity options.
The Exchange understands that, like defined-outcome strategies for ETPs
and indexes, such funds for single stock equity securities would seek
to use multi-leg strategy orders when seeding their funds,\13\ and,
like for any defined-outcome strategy, the goal of the strategies used
by defined-outcome funds for single stock securities would be to price
the execution of multi-leg strategy orders at the close of the
underlying. Also, the Exchange understands that funds for multiple
single stock equity securities would seek to use single-leg (i.e.,
simple) orders to create a strategy when seeding their funds.\14\
However, there is operational execution risk in attempting to fill an
order near the close to capture the underlying closing price. A DAC
complex order currently allows the User to execute a strategy order in
connection with a fund for an ETP or an index prior to the close and
have its price adjusted at the close. The proposed rule change would
allow a User to execute strategy orders in connection with seeding a
fund for an equity security in the same manner.\15\ Like DAC complex
orders for strategy orders in ETP and index options currently, DAC
orders in equity options, either simple or complex depending on the
structure of the fund, would allow the strategy order or orders to be
executed at a time before the close, eliminating the execution risk,
while realizing the objective of pricing based on the exact underlying
close for those strategies that require pricing at the close or a
defined amount of market exposure through the close. The Exchange
states that the proposed rule change would allow Users to participate
in the same benefits--eliminating execution risk while realizing
objective pricing--for their strategies in equity options as they
currently may for their strategies in ETP and index options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Including defined-outcome ETFs, other managed funds, unit
investment trusts, index funds, structured annuities, and other such
funds or instruments that are indexed managed funds.
    \12\ See DAC Approval Order, supra note 6.
    \13\ The Exchange understands that, like defined-outcome ETFs
for ETPs and indexes, issuers of defined-outcome ETFs for equity
securities would not buy stocks directly, but instead, use options
contracts to deliver the price gain or loss of the underlying over
the course of a year, up to a preset cap.
    \14\ The Exchange notes that funds for multiple single stock
equity securities would seek to use simple orders across multiple
single stock equity options when seeding their funds as multi-leg,
multi-class strategies in single stock options are not available for
trading on the Exchange.
    \15\ The Exchange states that because multi-leg strategies
themselves may have delta offsets, the User is hedged, meaning that
the User may realize a negative movement versus the initial
execution on some legs, which is offset by a positive move in other
legs. The Exchange notes that the strategies may or may not define
an exact delta offset (``delta neutrality'' occurs where the
strategy defines an exact delta offset). Given the delta neutral
nature of an order with exact offset, a User is indifferent to any
movement in the underlying from the time of execution to the close.
Whether a User defines an exact delta offset, a User anticipates a
given amount of market exposure, either partial or none, depending
on the strategy and combinations of buy/sell, call/put and quantity.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 45139 n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the foregoing rationale, the Exchange proposes to
make the DAC order instruction available for orders submitted in any
FLEX option, including equity options. In particular, the proposed rule
change amends the definition of a DAC order (simple and complex)\10\ to
allow for DAC orders to be submitted in equity options by removing the
restriction that a DAC order may only be submitted in options on ETPs
and indexes.\16\ In addition, the amended definition of a simple DAC
order under Cboe Rule 5.6(c) provides that a DAC order in a single
stock equity option may not be submitted (1) until 45 minutes prior to
the market close and (2) on its expiration day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The amended definition of a simple DAC order under Cboe
Rule 5.6(c) also provides that a DAC order may only be submitted for
execution in a FLEX electronic auction or open outcry auction on the
Exchange's trading floor pursuant to Cboe Rule 5.72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to limit the use of the DAC orders in equity
options until 45 minutes prior to the market close and on its
expiration day to

mitigate manipulation concerns. Specifically, the Exchanges notes that
single stock equity securities tend to be less liquid and experience
greater price sensitivity and larger market moves than indexes or ETPs
and increased trading volume generally makes it more difficult to
manipulate the price of a security. The Exchange notes that on
expiration day in particular, underlying equity securities may
experience more price sensitivity and may be more susceptible to
manipulation than on non-expiration days.\17\ Similarly, the Exchanges
proposes that simple DAC orders in single stock options be required to
be submitted no earlier than 45 minutes before the market close in
order to reduce the amount of time that the underlying price could
potentially move in order to mitigate the risk upon price adjustment at
close to holders of DAC options.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Options holders on expiration day, whether their positions
were taken via a DAC execution, are subject to the risk of price
swings in the underlying prior to the final close; however, options
holders of positions taken via a DAC execution may potentially be
more susceptible to such risk given the price adjustment at the
close. For example, if a market participant executes a DAC order to
buy calls on expiration day and a large price swing follows, in
that, the underlying price is pushed significantly higher before the
close, the DAC option holder would be forced to pay a much higher
premium upon adjustment, and ultimately expiration. Therefore, in
order to mitigate the potential risk associated with expiration day
price swings, which may potentially expose DAC order users the gamma
effect of options as they become more sensitive to underlying price
changes as they approach expiration, particularly in options
overlying less liquid securities, the proposed rule change restricts
trading (regardless of opening or closing) in simple DAC orders in
single stock options on expiration day. See Notice, supra note 3, at
45139.
    \18\ The Exchange notes that the same potential incentive to
``push'' the price of the underlying on expiration day in connection
with the exercise price of an option is greatly diminished for
multi-leg orders given that parties to multi-leg transactions are
focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for
each of the legs (i.e., the net price of the entire complex trade).
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, the current rules regarding the entry,
execution and processing of DAC orders submitted in ETP and index
options would apply to DAC orders submitted in equity options.\19\ In
addition, unadjusted and adjusted DAC trade information for DAC orders
in equity options would be sent to the transacting parties, Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') and Options Price Reporting Agency
(``OPRA'') in the same manner as such trade information for DAC orders
in ETP and index options is sent today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Cboe Rule 5.6(c) (definition of simple DAC order), Cboe
Rule 5.33(b)(5) (definition of complex DAC order), and Rule
5.34(c)(11) (DAC order reasonability check). The Exchange notes too
that all DAC orders, currently and as proposed, are entered, priced,
prioritized, allocated and execute as any other FLEX Order would
when submitted into any FLEX electronic or open outcry auction and,
like any FLEX Order, a FLEX DAC order may only be submitted into
FLEX Options series eligible for trading pursuant to the FLEX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Cboe represents that it has analyzed its capacity and that
it believes that OPRA and it have the necessary systems capacity to
handle any additional order traffic, and the associated restatements,
that may result from the submission of DAC orders in equity options and
represents that it continues to have an adequate surveillance program
in place to monitor orders with DAC pricing, including such orders in
equity options. The Exchange also represents that it has not observed
any impact on pricing or price discovery at or near the market close as
a result of DAC orders submitted in ETP and index options and does not
believe that making DAC orders available in equity options will have
any impact on pricing or price discovery at or near the market close.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\20\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\21\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, 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, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to expand the DAC order instruction,
currently available for FLEX options on ETPs and indexes, to any FLEX
option, including equity options. As with existing DAC orders for ETPs
and indexes, DAC orders on single stock equity options will be
available for use with both simple and complex orders in electronic or
open outcry auctions. In addition, simple DAC orders submitted in a
single stock equity option may not be submitted until 45 minutes prior
to the market close and may not be submitted on its expiration day. In
all other material respects, DAC orders in single equity options will
operate the same way as DAC orders on ETPs and indexes. The Exchange
states that the same rules regarding the entry, execution and
processing of DAC orders submitted in ETP and index options will apply
to DAC orders submitted in equity options.\22\ The Exchange states that
the DAC order instruction will allow market participants to incorporate
into the pricing of their FLEX options the closing price of the
underlying on the transaction date, based on the amount in which the
price or value of the underlying changes intraday.\23\ The Exchange
also states that the DAC order will be useful to investors that engage
in defined-outcome strategies and that certain defined-outcome
strategies are being created to provide exposure to individual equity
securities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45139-45140.
    \23\ See id. at 45140.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably
designed to allow market participants to more effectively incorporate
the closing price of the underlying into the execution price of the
FLEX equity option, which should facilitate the ability of market
participants to execute certain investment strategies. Specifically, as
the Exchange notes, the DAC order instruction would allow FLEX equity
option orders to be executed at a time before the close, eliminating
execution risk near the market close and thereby realizing the
objective of pricing based on the exact underlying closing prices.
    The Commission notes that all DAC orders, including DAC orders in
single stock equity options, will be entered and processed pursuant to
the existing FLEX rules like any other order that is submitted into a
FLEX electronic or open outcry auction.\25\ The Commission believes
that certain market participants already use the DAC order instruction
for options on ETPs and indexes to achieve certain investment
strategies, and that market participants should have familiarity with
the use of the DAC order instruction on single stock equity options for
similar purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cboe Rule 5.72(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed
restrictions in connection with the submission of simple DAC orders in
equity options are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices and protect investors by mitigating the potential risk
associated with expiration day price swings, which may potentially

expose DAC order users to the gamma effect of options as they become
more sensitive to underlying price changes as such options approach
expiration, and reducing the amount of time during which the underlying
price could potentially move. As described in the Notice,\26\ single
stock securities may experience greater price sensitivity and may
experience larger price swings than compared to indexes and ETPs, and
DAC options holders particularly may potentially be subject to a
greater risk of paying much higher premiums given the price adjustment
at close. The Commission believes the proposed restrictions are
designed to minimize any potential incentive to attempt to manipulate
the equities that may underlie a DAC order, particularly those
securities that may experience relatively lower volume, and are
designed to mitigate potential risk to holders of DAC options on single
stock securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 45139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes that the Exchange represents that:
(1) it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any additional order traffic, and the associated
restatements, that may result from the submission of DAC orders in
equity options; (2) it continues to have an adequate surveillance
program in place to monitor orders with DAC pricing, including such
orders in equity options; (3) it intends to further enhance its
surveillances to, among other things, monitor for certain changes in
delta and stock price between an original order and the final terms of
execution and to generally monitor activity in the underlying
potentially related to DAC trades; (4) it has not observed any impact
on pricing or price discovery at or near the market close as a result
of DAC orders submitted in ETP and index options and does not believe
that making DAC orders available in equity options will have any impact
on pricing or price discovery at or near the market close; and (5) it
has not identified an impact on pricing or price discovery at or near
the close as a result of exercise prices for FLEX Equity Options series
formatted as a percentage of the closing value of the underlying
security, which is similar to a DAC order instruction and currently
permitted on the Exchange.
    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes
that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2022-036) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19813 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9229-9230]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3661]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14152-000]

 Reliable Storage 1 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Monterey, in Putnam
County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued,
is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following:
(1) A 70-foot-high, 7,500-foot-long earth embankment dam; (2) an upper
reservoir with a surface area of 100 acres and an 7,100 acre-foot
storage capacity; (3) a 120-foot-high, 920-foot-long earth embankment
dam creating; (4) a lower reservoir with a surface area of 220 acres
and an 7,300 acre-foot storage capacity; (5) one 30-foot-diameter,
3,200-foot-long penstock; (6) a bifurcation to three penstocks each 16-
foot-diameter, and 100-foot-long; (7) an underground powerhouse/pumping
station containing three pump/generating units with a total generating
capacity of 600 megawatts; (8) a 30-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long
tailrace tunnel; (9) a 24-foot-diameter, 2,000-foot-long access tunnel;
(10) a substation; (11) a 1.4-mile-long, 500 kV transmission line to an
existing distribution line; and (12) a 6,300-foot-long access road. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1,500,000
megawatt-hours (MWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street Suite 300, Boston MA 01244; phone
(978) 252-7631.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14152-000) in the docket number

field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3661 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16291-16296]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06847]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804; FRL-9925-13-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing its
proposal to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) and Dallas Fort Worth
(DFW) 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment areas. The HGB area consists of
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller counties. The DFW area consists of Collin, Dallas,

Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant
counties. Specifically, we are approving portions of multiple revisions
to the Texas SIP submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) as meeting Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) requirements. The RACT requirements apply to sources of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) in these areas.
This action is in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act,
CAA).

DATES: This rule will be effective on April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file
will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the
Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
weekdays except for legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar (6PD-L), telephone (214)
665-2164, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To schedule an appointment contact
Alan Shar.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Background
II. Public Comments
III. Submittals
IV. Negative Declarations
V. Final Actions
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On January 21, 2014 (80 FR 2846) we proposed to approve revisions
to the Texas SIP that the TCEQ submitted to EPA in multiple RACT-
related rule revisions dated December 6, 2013, January 17, 2012, June
13, 2007, as well as the RACT analysis portions of attainment
demonstration plans of January 17, 2012, April 6, 2010, and June 13,
2007 for the DFW and HGB areas. Details of these submittals and their
evaluation were explained in our proposal, and its corresponding
Technical Supporting Document. A summary of these submittals is
described in section III.
    On August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45105) we approved RACT for the Offset
Lithographic Printing Operations in the DFW (Serious) and HGB (Severe)
areas. See docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332 at www.regulations.gov.
Also, on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53299) we approved revisions to 30
TAC Chapter 115 for control of VOC emissions for storage tanks in the
DFW (Serious) and HGB (Severe) areas. See docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-
0096 at www.regulations.gov.

II. Public Comments

    The public comment period for the January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846)
proposal expired on February 20, 2015, and we did not receive any
comments on the proposed actions during this period. Therefore, we are
approving the January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846) proposal without any
changes into the Texas SIP.

III. Submittals

    The December 6, 2013 submittal concerned rule revisions to 30 TAC,
Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds
for solvent using processes and surface coating application systems. We
are approving all of this submittal into the Texas SIP.
    The January 17, 2012 submittal concerned rule revisions to 30 TAC,
Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds
intended to implement RACT for both HGB and DFW areas. The submittal
will limit VOC content of coatings and solvents used in Flexible
Package Printing, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Large Appliance
Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings,
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Assembly Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
operations. We are approving all of this submittal into the Texas SIP.
    Another submittal also dated January 17, 2012 contained a
corresponding analysis to demonstrate RACT is in place for multiple
source categories in the HGB area. We are approving that RACT is in
place for the source categories listed in the paragraph above, and we
are approving the Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing sector for the
HGB area of the RACT-related rule revisions which had not been
previously approved.
    A third SIP submittal dated January 17, 2012 contained RACT
analysis for the DFW area. As a result of this submittal, and
consistent with section 182(c) of the Act, the VOC or NOx major source
threshold in the DFW area is lowered to 50 Tons Per Year (TPY) from 100
TPY for RACT purposes under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard. See EPA-
R06-OAR-2012-0098 at www.regulations.gov. We are approving the RACT
analysis portion of this submittal.
    The April 6, 2010 attainment demonstration submittal, among other
things, concerned revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air
Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds for control of ozone
pollution in the HGB area. Appendix D of this attainment demonstration
plan was titled ``Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis,''
and included source categories affected by the newly EPA-issued Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTGs), and NOx emissions sources. We are
approving the RACT analysis portion of this submittal.
    The June 13, 2007 attainment demonstration submittal concerned
revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile
Organic Compounds. The June 13, 2007 submittal included an analysis
intended to demonstrate RACT was being implemented in the HGB area as
required by the CAA (Appendix B of the submittal). We are approving the
RACT analysis portion of this submittal.
    The submittals concerning these nonattainment areas are available
at www.regulations.gov, docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804 under the
``supporting and related materials.''
    We are approving the above-mentioned revisions, as well as
confirming the RACT finding for revisions previously approved for
Texas, into the Texas SIP. We are approving Texas' RACT analysis as
meeting the RACT requirements for all affected VOC and NOx sources for
the DFW and HGB areas for the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

IV. Negative Declarations

    The January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846) proposal included a list of
source categories that do not operate within these nonattainment areas.
    For the DFW area, Texas declared that there were no fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, ship building and ship repair coating, leather
tanning and finishing, surface coating for flat wood paneling,
vegetable oil manufacturing, plywood veneer dryers,

rubber tire manufacturing, and batch processes operations. We are
approving the VOC RACT negative declaration for these operations in the
DFW area.
    For the HGB area, on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21144), we approved the
VOC RACT negative declarations for fiberglass boat manufacturing
materials, leather tanning and finishing, surface coating for flat wood
paneling, letterpress printing, automobile and light-duty truck
assembly coating, rubber tire manufacturing, and vegetable oil
manufacturing operations. See 40 CFR 52.2270(e).
    However, if a major source of these categories locates in these
nonattainment areas in future, then TCEQ will need to take appropriate
regulatory measures.

V. Final Actions

    We are approving rule revisions to sections 30 TAC chapter 115.422,
115.427, 115.429, 115.430, 115.432, 115.433, 115.435, 115.436, and
115.439 implementing controls on the following source categories: Flat
Wood Paneling Coatings, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials,
Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset Lithographic and Letterpress
Printing, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, Paper,
Film, and Foil Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.
    We are approving new sections 30 TAC chapter 115.431, 115.450,
115.451, 115.453-115.455, 115.458-115.461, 115.463-115.465, 115.468-
115.471, 115.473-115.475, 115.478, and 115.479 implementing controls on
the source categories listed above.
    We are approving repeal of section 30 TAC chapter 115.437.
    We are approving to find that for VOC CTG categories identified
above, Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW areas
under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
    We are approving to find that Texas has RACT-level controls in
place for the Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing operations for the
HGB area.
    We are approving the negative declarations as explained in section
IV of this action.
    We are approving NOx RACT for the DFW area under the 1997 8-Hour
ozone standard.
    In consideration of the above rule revisions, as well as the rule
revisions previously approved and the rules in 30 TAC Chapters 115 and
117, we are approving that, Texas is implementing RACT for all affected
VOC and NOx sources in the HGB and DFW areas under the 1997 8-Hour
ozone standard.
    We are approving these revisions in accordance with sections 110,
182, and 183 of the federal CAA.
    The EPA had previously approved RACT for all affected NOx sources
for the HGB area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
    The EPA had previously approved RACT for all affected VOC and NOx
sources into Texas' SIP under the 1-Hour ozone standard.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.4, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulation.gov, Docket
ID. No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the
Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this final action approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act;
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
     Does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270:
0
a. In paragraph (c), the table is amended under Chapter 115 (Reg 5) as
follows:
0
i. Revising the entries for Sections 115.422, 115.427, and 115.429
under ``Subchapter E--Solvent Using--Process,'' ``Division 2: Surface
Coating Processes''.
0
ii. Adding new entry for Section 115.431 in numerical order under
``Subchapter E--Solvent Using--Process,'' ``Division 3: Flexographic
and Rotogravure Printing''.
0
iii. Removing the entry for Section 115.437 under ``Subchapter E--
Solvent Using--Process,'' ``Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure
Printing''.
0
iv. Revising the entries for Sections 115.430, 115.432, 115.433,
115.435, 115.436, and 115.439 under ``Subchapter E--Solvent Using--
Process,'' ``Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing''.
0
v. Adding new entries for Sections 115.450, 115.451, 115.453, 115.454,
115.455, 115.458, 115.459 under ``Subchapter E--Solvent Using--
Process,'' ``Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating
Processes''.
0
vi. Adding new entries for Sections 115.460, 115.461, 115.463, 115.464,
115.465, 115.468, and 115.469, under ``Subchapter E--Solvent Using--
Process,'' ``Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents''.
0
vii. Adding new entries for Sections 115.470, 115.471, 115.473,
115.474, 115.475, 115.478, and 115.479 under ``Subchapter E--Solvent
Using--Process,'' ``Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives''.
0
b. In paragraph (e), the table titled ``EPA approved nonregulatory
provisions and quasi-regulatory measures in the Texas SIP'' is amended
by adding four new entries at the end.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State approval/
         State citation              Title/Subject     submittal date    EPA Approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Chapter 115 (Reg 5)--Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Subchapter E--Solvent-Using Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Division 2: Surface Coating Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 115.422.................  Control                    01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 115.427.................  Exemptions.........        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                                                        citation].
Section 115.429.................  Counties and               01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Compliance                           citation].
                                   Schedules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.430.................  Applicability and          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Definitions.                         citation].
Section 115.431.................  Exemptions.........        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                                                        citation].
Section 115.432.................  Control                    01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.433.................  Alternate Control          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.435.................  Testing                    01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.436.................  Monitoring and             01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Recordkeeping                        citation].
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.439.................  Counties and               01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Compliance                           citation].
                                   Schedules.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.450.................  Applicability and          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Definitions.                         citation].
Section 115.451.................  Exemptions.........        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                                                        citation].
Section 115.453.................  Control                     12/6/13  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.454.................  Alternate Control          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.455.................  Approved Test              01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Methods and                          citation].
                                   Testing
                                   Requirements.

Section 115.458.................  Monitoring and             01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Recordkeeping                        citation].
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.459.................  Compliance                 01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Schedules.                           citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.460.................  Applicability and          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Definitions.                         citation].
Section 115.461.................  Exemptions.........        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                                                        citation].
Section 115.463.................  Control                    01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.464.................  Alternate Control          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.465.................  Approved Test              01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Methods and                          citation].
                                   Testing
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.468.................  Monitoring and             01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Recordkeeping                        citation].
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.469.................  Compliance                 01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Schedules.                           citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.470.................  Applicability and          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Definitions.                         citation].
Section 115.471.................  Exemptions.........        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                                                        citation].
Section 115.473.................  Control                    01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.474.................  Alternate Control          01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Requirements.                        citation].
Section 115.475.................  Approved Test              01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Methods and                          citation].
                                   Testing
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.478.................  Monitoring and             01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Recordkeeping                        citation].
                                   Requirements.
Section 115.479.................  Compliance                 01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR
                                   Schedules.                           citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State approval/
     Name of SIP provision        Applicable  geographic     submittal     EPA Approval date       Comments
                                  or non-attainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
NOX RACT finding for the 1997 8- Collin, Dallas, Denton,        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR  DFW as Moderate
 hour ozone NAAQS.                Tarrant, Ellis,                          citation].          and Serious.
                                  Johnson, Kaufman,
                                  Parker, and Rockwall
                                  Counties, TX.
VOC RACT finding of negative     Collin, Dallas, Denton,        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR  DFW as Moderate
 declaration for Fiberglass       Tarrant, Ellis,                          citation].          and Serious.
 Boat Manufacturing Materials,    Johnson, Kaufman,
 Ship Building and Ship Repair    Parker, and Rockwall
 Coating, Leather Tanning and     Counties, TX.
 Finishing, Surface Coating for
 Flat Wood Paneling, Vegetable
 Oil Manufacturing, Letterpress
 Printing, Plywood Veneer
 Dryers, Rubber Tire
 Manufacturing, and Batch
 Processes Operations.
VOC RACT finding for all         Collin, Dallas, Denton,        01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR  DFW as Moderate
 sectors under the 1997 8-hour    Tarrant, Ellis,                          citation].          and Serious.
 ozone NAAQS, including the       Johnson, Kaufman,
 2006-2008 EPA-issued CTG         Parker, and Rockwall
 series and non-CTG major         Counties, TX.
 sources.
VOC RACT finding for all         Brazoria, Chambers,            01/17/12  3/27/15 [Insert FR  HGB as Severe.
 sectors under the 1997 8-hour    Fort Bend, Galveston,                    citation].
 ozone NAAQS, including the       Harris, Liberty,
 2006-2008 EPA-issued CTG         Montgomery and Waller
 series and non-CTG major         Counties, TX.
 sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06847 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 29746]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12208]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 [File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of QPC Lasers, Inc., Sweet Success Enterprises,
Inc., Trinsic, Inc., Veridicom International, Inc., Windswept
Environmental Group, Inc., and Wyndstorm Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

May 16, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
QPC Lasers, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended June 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Sweet Success Enterprises, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Trinsic, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Veridicom International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Windswept Environmental Group, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Wyndstorm Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the
period ended October 31, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on May 16, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 30, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12208 Filed 5-16-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18957-18960]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0515; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above.
This action revises the earlier NPRM by expanding the scope. 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:

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.

* * * * *
The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. 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 May 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S
1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket 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: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2010-0515;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-196-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://www.regulations.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

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an earlier NPRM for the
specified products, which was published in the Federal Register on May
18, 2010 (75 FR 27665). That earlier NPRM proposed to require actions
intended to address the unsafe condition for the products listed above.
    In paragraph (f)(2) of the original NPRM, we referred to Task 05-
51-27-210-801 of Part 2, Volume 1, of the Bombardier CRJ Series
Regional Jet Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), CSP B-001, Revision 28,
dated January 20, 2009, as a source of information for doing the
inspection of the transcowl assembly. Revision 28 of the AMM does not
include the inspection. We have revised paragraph (h) of the
supplemental NPRM (referenced as paragraph (f)(2) in the original NPRM)
to specify the inspection procedure.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-33, dated July 28, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
    This directive mandates inspection, repair (if necessary) and
reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies.

The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or emergency
landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway. This debris,
if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other airplanes during
take-off or landing, as those airplanes could impact debris on the
runway and sustain damage. The inspection is a detailed visual
inspection of the outboard edge of the transcowl joint extrusion for
evidence of cracking. The repair consists of doing an eddy current or
liquid penetrant inspection for cracking, and depending on the results,
either removing the affected joint extrusion area and replacing with
packers, or contacting Bombardier for repair instructions and doing the
repair. The reinforcement of the transcowl assemblies includes
installing new support channels. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B,
dated December 22, 2010; and Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C,
dated November 10, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments received on the earlier
NPRM.

Requests To Refer to Latest Task Revision of AMM

    Comair, Inc. (Comair) and Mesa Airlines (Mesa) both requested that
we include the latest revision of the AMM task or a statement to
account for the current AMM release for the task proposed in the
original NPRM. Comair explained that the latest AMM task revisions are
at Revisions 29 and 30, and Mesa explained that the AMM task is up to
Revision 31, dated March 20, 2010.
    We partially agree with the request to refer to the latest revision
of the AMM task. We agree that later revisions of the AMM task are more
appropriate to the actions proposed in the original NPRM. However,
instead of referring to the latest revisions of the AMM task in the
supplemental NPRM, we have revised paragraph (h) of the supplemental
NPRM to spell out the required actions, thus eliminating the need to
request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) every time the AMM
is updated. A reference to Revision 34, dated November 20, 2010, to the
AMM task as an additional source of guidance is provided in Note 1 of
the supplemental NPRM.

Request To Require Only Part 3 of the AMM Task

    Comair requested that we revise the original NPRM to refer only to
Part 3 of AMM Task 05-51-27-210-810. Comair reasoned that Part 1 and
Part 2 do not pertain to the subject of the unsafe condition addressed
by the original NPRM and should not be mandated through the AD process.
    We assume Comair is referring to AMM Task 05-51-27-201-801. While
we disagree with the request to refer to ``Procedure--Part 3,'' in the
required actions in the supplemental NPRM, we have included this
reference in Note 1 of the Supplemental NPRM. As discussed above, the
supplemental NPRM specifies the required actions instead of referring
to a specific AMM task revision, thus eliminating the need for section
identification as new revisions to the AMM are released. We have not
revised the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Define High-Energy Stop (HES) or Rejected Take-Off (RTO)

    Comair requested that we define the terms HES and RTO in the
original NPRM because inspections should not be mandated if the RTO/HES
occurs outside certain parameters. Comair explained that an RTO might
occur at any speed and not require any braking or deployment of the
thrust reverser. Comair stated that Revision 30 of AMM Task 05-51-27-
210-807, defines when the joint extrusion of the transcowl assemblies
need to be inspected as follows:
     If an RTO occurs and thrust reversers are deployed above
68% N1.
     If during an HES, the thrust reversers are deployed above
68% N1.
    We infer that Comair is referring to AMM Task 05-51-27-210-801,
which calls out the conditions to proceed, as Comair suggests, in Part
3 of the AMM task, ``Examination of the Joint Extrusion of the
Transcowl Assemblies.'' We agree with the request to define RTO and HES
for the reasons Comair stated. We have revised paragraph (h) of the
supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f)(2) of the original NPRM) accordingly.

Request for Inclusion of Post-Serviceable Part Numbers

    Mesa requested that we revise the original NPRM to include post-
serviceable part numbers KCN624-2003-4, -6, or -8.
    We agree to include post-serviceable part numbers KCN624-2003-4, -
6, or -8 in the supplemental NPRM. Part numbers KCN624-2003-4, -6, and
-8 are listed in paragraph 1.N., ``Relationship Chart,'' of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010,
which is an additional source of service information for the actions
specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B,
dated December 22, 2010. We have revised paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the
supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request for Inclusion of Credit Service Information

    Mesa requested that we revise paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(3),
(f)(4), and (f)(5) of the original NPRM to include Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670SH-78-029, dated July 3, 2008; Revision A, dated June 30,
2009; and Revision B, dated November 25, 2009; as a source of service
information.
    We agree to revise the supplemental NPRM to give credit to those
operators who have done the actions in accordance with Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, dated July 3, 2008; Revision A, dated
June 30, 2009; and Revision B, dated November 25, 2009. We have revised
paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f)(4) of the
original NPRM), accordingly. Paragraphs (g)(2), (i), and (k) of the
supplemental NPRM (paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(3), and (f)(5) of the
original NPRM) refer to the latest revisions of the service
information. While Mesa and Bombardier referred to Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision A, dated July 29, 2009, June 30, 2009,
is the appropriate date for Revision A of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029.

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.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this proposed AD.

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.

Explanation of Additional Paragraph in the Supplemental NPRM

    We have added a new paragraph (f) to this supplemental NPRM to
clarify the responsibility for performing the

proposed actions within the specified compliance times. We have re-
identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 361 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $245,480, or $680 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take between 4 and 8 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a
cost between $340 and $680 per product. We have no way of determining
the number of products that may need these actions.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0515; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-196-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10265 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial
numbers 15001 through 15192 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78: Engine
exhaust.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Several cases have been reported of cracks in the joint
extrusions securing the outer bondment to the acoustic panel of the
nacelle transcowl assemblies. Although there is no effect on flight
safety (thrust reverser stowed), thrust reverser deployment under
rejected take-off or emergency landing load conditions could
potentially result in acoustic panel failure and possible runway
debris.
* * * * *
    The loss of an acoustic panel during rejected take-off or
emergency landing load conditions could leave debris on the runway.
This debris, if not removed, creates an unsafe condition for other
airplanes during take-off or landing, as those airplanes could
impact debris on the runway and sustain damage.

Compliance

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

Inspection, Repair, and Reinforcement

    (g) Within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for the part number
and serial number of each transcowl assembly, and, as applicable,
the repair status of each transcowl assembly.
    (1) If all transcowl assemblies installed on any airplane meet
one of the conditions listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or
(g)(1)(iii) of this AD, no further action is required by this AD,
except paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD must be complied with.
    (i) Having part number (P/N) KCN624-2003-3, -4, -5, -6, -7, or -
8, as listed in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision
C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (ii) Having P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean
various dash numbers), with serial number (S/N) SB0965 or higher.
    (iii) Having P/Ns CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X
mean various dash numbers), and repaired in accordance with one of
the Bombardier repair engineering orders (REOs) listed in paragraph
1.D. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated
December 22, 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (2) If one or more of the transcowl assemblies have P/N CN624-
2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX and X mean various dash numbers),
with S/N SB0964 or lower, and have not been repaired in accordance
with one of the Bombardier REOs listed in paragraph 1.D. of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December
22, 2010; or paragraph 1.A. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; do the actions specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, if any high-energy stop
occurs and the thrust reversers are deployed above 68% N1; or if a
rejected take-off (RTO) occurs and the thrust reversers are deployed
above 68% N1; perform a detailed inspection for cracks of each
transcowl assembly (left, right, upper, and lower) before further
flight, by doing the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing the requirements of paragraph (i) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Open the cowling on the left and right engines.

    (2) Do a detailed inspection for cracks of the joint extrusion
of the upper and lower transcowl assembly on the left and right
engines at the location of the joint piece. If no cracks are found,
close the cowlings on the left and right engines.
    (3) If any crack is found on one or more transcowl assemblies
during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD,
before further flight, repair and reinforce the cracked part(s) in
accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    Note 1:  Procedure-Part 3 of Task 05-51-27-210-801 of Part 2,
Volume 1, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet AMM, CSP B-001,
Revision 34, dated November 20, 2010, gives guidance for opening and
closing the cowling on the left and right engines.

    (i) For transcowl assemblies identified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, within
5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever comes first, do a detailed inspection for cracking on each
transcowl assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010. Accomplishment of the
actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD for all
transcowl assemblies identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD
terminates the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) If any cracking of the joint extrusion is found, before
further flight, repair and reinforce the joint extrusion on each
transcowl assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008, Revision
B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-
029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.
    (2) If no cracking is found, before further flight, reinforce
the joint extrusion on each transcowl assembly, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; or Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance with Previous Service
Information

    (j) Inspections, repairs, and reinforcement of the joint
extrusion on each transcowl is also acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD if done
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service
information listed in table 1 of this AD.

                                          Table 1--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Document                            Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008.  Original....................  September 19, 2008.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008.  A...........................  July 10, 2009.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  Original....................  July 3, 2008.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  A...........................  June 30, 2009.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029.  B...........................  November 25, 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts Installation

    (k) As of the effective date of this AD, no replacement or spare
transcowl assembly having P/N CN624-2001-XXX or KCN624-2001-X (XXX
and X mean various dash numbers), with S/N SB0964 or lower, may be
installed on any airplane, except for a transcowl assembly on which
any repair listed in paragraph 1.D. of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-78-008, Revision B, dated December 22, 2010, or paragraph 1.A.
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated
November 10, 2010, has been done; and except for a transcowl that
has been inspected as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD and all
applicable actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
AD, as applicable, have been done.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, 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: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 40,
Westbury, N.Y. 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-33,
dated July 28, 2009; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-78-008,
Revision B, dated December 22, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin
670SH-78-029, Revision C, dated November 10, 2010; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-8197 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 46773]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2019-39]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Helinet
Aviation Services, LLC

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0463
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2019.
John Linsenmeyer,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0463.
    Petitioner: Helinet Aviation Services, LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.23(a) & (c);
61.101(e)(4) & (5); 61.113(a); 61.315(a); 91.7(a); 91.119(c); 91.121;
91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); & 91.417(a)
& (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the petitioner to operate the BFD Systems GD40 (110 pounds
(lbs.)); DJI Storm/X8 (99 lbs.); and Periscope MK-IV (117 lbs.)
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), in support of closed-set motion
picture and television filming operations. The petitioner intends to
operate the UAS closer than 200 feet to production personnel and other
individuals participating in the intended purposes of the operation who
are located on the closed set; however, the UAS will never be operated
over people. The operations will take place below 400 feet above ground
level and within visual line of sight of the pilot and a visual
observer. Operations will occur during daylight hours on private
property with permission from the property owner/controller. Operations
will be limited to Class G airspace unless an appropriate Air Traffic
Organization Certificate of Waiver or Authorization has been obtained
that authorizes operations in other classes of airspace.

[FR Doc. 2019-19128 Filed 9-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P