UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 30, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-04-16923

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.   filed   1/15/2004  for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Honolulu, Hawaii, on the one hand, and Sydney, Australia, on the
other, and points beyond the gateway in Australia

Applicant rep:   Jonathan B. Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Gerald Caolo,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The above action was effective when taken:  January 30, 2004, through
January 30, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Australia.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the extent not
granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend,
modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department
of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other
U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United
States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

08/2003

 Hawaiian Airlines plans to offer initial service between Honolulu and
Sydney.

 Hawaiian's authority for service beyond Sydney is limited to the
Australian cities available for service by U.S. carriers under the
U.S.-Australia bilateral agreement.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: August 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 50661]
[DOCID:fr27au08-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on August 27, 2008 at
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to its
rules regarding the circumstances under which a foreign private issuer
is required to register a class of equity securities under Section
12(g) of the Exchange Act.
    2. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to the
forms and rules applicable to foreign private issuers that are intended
to enhance the information that is available to investors.
    3. The Commission will consider whether to adopt revisions to the
current exemptions for cross-border business combination transactions
and rights offerings to expand and enhance the usefulness of the
exemptions, and to adopt changes to the beneficial ownership reporting
rules to permit certain foreign institutions to file reports on a
shorter form. The Commission also will consider whether to publish
interpretive guidance on issues related to cross-border transactions.
    4. The Commission will consider whether to propose a Roadmap for
the potential use by U.S. issuers for purposes of their filings with
the Commission of financial statements prepared in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards (``IFRS'') as issued by the
International Accounting Standards Board. As part of the Roadmap, the
Commission will also consider whether to propose amendments to various
rules and forms that would permit early use of IFRS by a limited number
of U.S. issuers.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19857 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12393-12394]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04544]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0988; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface for Falmouth Airpark, Falmouth, MA, to
accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace for Falmouth Airpark, Falmouth, MA.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 71601, December 17, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0988
to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface for Falmouth Airpark, Falmouth, MA.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile
radius of Falmouth Airpark, Falmouth, MA, providing the controlled
airspace required to support RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE MA E5 Falmouth, MA [New]

Falmouth Airpark, MA
    (Lat. 41[deg]35'08' W'' N, long. 70[deg]32'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Falmouth Airpark.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 28, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-04544 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35173-35176]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 12

[Docket No. USCG-2003-14500]
RIN 1625-AA81

Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance
of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Documents (MMDs)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is advising the public of its intent to
finalize regulations previously published as an interim rule on January
6, 2004. The interim rule (IR) was published to enhance the application
procedures for the Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation
program, which were necessary to improve maritime safety and promote
the national security interest of the United States, but was never
published as a final rule. Because of the lapse in time since the
interim rule publication, the Coast Guard is seeking comments from the
public on one remaining section of the interim rule that has remained
unfinalized. The Coast Guard intends to finalize this one section of
the interim rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2003-14500 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel
Qualifications

Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2003-14500), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Select Document Type'' drop down menu
select ``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2003-14500'' in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape
in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' box insert ``USCG-2003-14500''
and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the
``Actions'' column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before July 6, 2011 using one of the four methods
specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public
meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this
rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division,
Coast Guard; at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

Abbreviations

Sec.  Section symbol
FR Federal Register
MMD Merchant Mariner's Document
NMC National Maritime Center
REC Regional Examination Center
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential
U.S.C. U.S. Code

Basis and Purpose

    On January 6, 2004, the Coast Guard published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 526) an interim rule with request for comments. The
interim rule described enhancements to the application procedures for
the Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation program, which were
necessary to improve maritime safety and promote the national security
interest of the United States. However, subsequent rulemakings have
addressed the majority of the interim rule provisions. As a result, the
Coast Guard intends to finalize the single remaining section that has
not been addressed in subsequent rulemakings.
    The most recent significant rulemaking documents for rulemakings
addressing the interim rule provisions are as follows \1\: (1)
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation
in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a
Commercial Driver's License (74 FR 13114); (2) Seafarer's Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) (75 FR 13715); (3)
Maritime Identification Credentials (74 FR 2865); (4) Consolidation of
Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials (74 FR 11196); (5) Training
and Service Requirements for Merchant Marine Officers (73 FR 52789);
(6) Large Passenger Vessel Crew Requirements (74 FR 47729); and (7)
Crewmember Identification Documents (74 FR 19135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To find all the rulemaking documents associated with the
rulemakings listed here, you can view each rulemaking's docket on
http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one section of the January 6, 2004 interim rule that has
remained unfinalized is 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules in this
part, which states the rules are to provide a ``comprehensive and
adequate means of determining and verifying the identity, citizenship,
nationality, and professional qualifications an applicant must possess
to be eligible for certification to serve on merchant vessels of the
United States''. Our intent is to finalize this one remaining section
of the interim rule, and we are asking for comment on this section
only. You may submit a comment to the docket using one of the methods
specified under ADDRESSES.

Discussion of Comments

    As a result of our request for comments in the interim rule
published on January 6, 2004 in the Federal Register, (69 FR 526), the
Coast Guard heard from eight respondents representing mariners and the
industry. The respondents submitted numerous comments addressing a wide
range of issues related to the interim rule. A discussion of the
comments follows.
    One commenter requested a public hearing in order to ``develop a
complete and accurate record regarding the provisions and consequences
of the interim rule.''
    The Coast Guard believes a public hearing is unnecessary. This
rulemaking qualifies as an informal rulemaking

under Sec. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and as such does
not require formal hearing procedures. The Coast Guard believes that
the commenter's desire for a complete and accurate record of rulemaking
actions related to this interim rule is available in the public docket
USCG-2003-14500, available online by going to http://regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2003-14500 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''
    One commenter looked favorably on the removal of the term
``shipping commissioner'' and the removal of social security numbers
from the Merchant Mariners Documents (MMDs).
    At each revision, the Coast Guard attempts to update terminology in
its regulations. In this rulemaking specifically, we removed social
security numbers from MMDs to safeguard mariners' personally
identifiable information. We believe that changes such as these better
serve the mariners.
    One commenter said that the Coast Guard does not understand and
fails to communicate with lower-level mariners.
    The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard communicates with all
branches of the maritime community through publications, Web sites,
responses to inquiries, and other personal and mass media efforts. In
fact, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee has several
``limited-service'' mariners as members while several other members
represent companies that employ these mariners. MERPAC periodically
studies and discusses issues pertinent to limited-service mariner
employment and advancement, such as Able Seamen Qualifications and
ratings attaining Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch and Officer
in Charge of an Engineering Watch coming up through the hawsepipe.
    One commenter warned that ``adding extra and vague requirements to
the already burdensome ones'' will only serve to drive more people away
from the maritime industry.
    The Coast Guard agrees that excessive regulatory burdens must be
avoided. However, extra security measures are a reality for all
transportation sectors. Making ports, facilities, and vessels more
secure is a part of doing business in today's world that cannot be
avoided. New security measures take extra effort from all parties--
government, industry, and the individual mariner--and we believe these
measures are not excessive.
    The Coast Guard also agrees with the commenter that ``vague
requirements'' should be avoided. To make our requirements more clear,
we have provided definitions of ``safe and suitable person'',
``criminal record check'', and ``National Driver Register (NDR)'' with
specific language in 46 CFR 10.107. Mariners who feel they were
unfairly denied a credential can appeal under the process available
from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (49 CFR 1515)
and/or the Coast Guard (46 CFR 1.03). Those mariners who are not
required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.
    Five commenters stated that, in addition to the current 17 Regional
Examination Centers (RECs), additional locations were needed for
mariners to show proof of identity and be fingerprinted.
    This comment has been overcome by events with the establishment of
the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a
TWIC must still undergo another vetting process, which requires a
showing of proof of identity and provision of fingerprints. The Coast
Guard agrees that maximizing the number of locations where this may be
accomplished is best, and is evaluating the options available for how
to best meet mariners' identification needs. However, this is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking finalizing one remaining section: 46 CFR
12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules in this part.
    One commenter said the RECs are unable to provide adequate services
to mariners while performing current duties and that the RECs' attempt
``to accomplish even more with fewer resources is the basis of the
current problem with the RECs.''
    One commenter predicted that the RECs will be unable to provide
timely identification and fingerprinting services.
    These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment
of the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a
TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.
    One of these commenters also stated that evaluators should be
trained, temporary licenses and documents should be issued, a hotline
should be set up to receive credential-related inquiries, and that the
licensing procedures should be simplified.
    These subjects are not directly related to this rulemaking but were
considered during subsequent revisions of the entire subchapter, 46 CFR
subchapter B.
    As part of documentation centralization at the National Maritime
Center (NMC) in West Virginia, evaluators are being trained, and extra
evaluators may be applied to any surges that might occur.
    One commenter stated that 5-year renewals of MMDs and licenses
should be good for 5 full years with renewal dates falling on the
mariner's birthday, and that current documents should be extended as
necessary to implement this change.
    Title 46 U.S.C. 7302(f) currently states that an MMD is valid for 5
years and may be renewed for an additional 5-year period. To help
alleviate the problem created by the 5-year validity period, the NMC is
issuing credentials that have a delayed start-date to coincide with the
expiration date of the previous credential.
    One commenter pointed out that the interim rule is unrealistic
because it focuses on only one aspect of security without addressing
other areas where enhanced security is necessary.
    Two commenters expressed concern that mariners on deep-draft U.S.
flag vessels pose the least risk to national security and that threats
to national security lie in exceptions to documentation requirements
for mariners on inland waters and/or those serving on vessels of less
than 100 gross tons (GRT). The commenters recommended that persons on
all types of vessels be required to undergo a security screening.
    These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment
of the TWIC rulemaking. In addition, there are approved courses
available for company, facility, and vessel security officer training
as well as security familiarization for other crewmembers.
    One commenter pointed out that the Coast Guard should require
criminal record disclosure in applications for mariner credentials, but
should not continuously require repeated documentation of previously
disclosed information.
    The Coast Guard agrees that the application process should be
updated and simplified. As one major step, the Coast Guard has
centralized all mariners' credential records at the NMC. This new
process may, in the future, negate the need for repeated collection of
established reporting.
    Two commenters called for a clear and workable appeals process in
the event that a mariner is denied a credential. One of these
commenters stated the Coast Guard can withhold any explanation of the
reason for disproving an MMD.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the commenters and has comprehensively
revised the regulation. The Coast Guard has developed an appeals
process for mariners who believe they were wrongly denied a credential.
The appeal process is available from the TSA (See 49 CFR 1515) and/or
the Coast Guard (See 46 CFR 1.03). Those mariners who

are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting
process.
    We received many comments relating to our estimates of costs in the
interim final rule. Three commenters stated that applicant visits to an
REC for the purposes of showing identification and fingerprinting could
not be accomplished in 1 hour, and that the 1-hour approximation was
underestimated.
    Two commenters stated that 1-day round-trip travel does not
constitute close proximity to an REC, and that the 100-mile average was
unreasonable for 1-day round-trip travel to an REC.
    Three commenters disagreed with the Coast Guard's travel cost
estimate that most mariners live within 1-day round trip travel of an
REC.
    One commenter stated that several mariners in the Great Lakes Basin
did not live in close proximity to an REC.
    Another commenter stated that the assumptions used by the Coast
Guard in calculating travel costs for applicants did not adequately
reflect real travel costs in the Great Lakes.
    One commenter stated that the cost in the interim rule looked at
the cost on a 5-year basis, but in the long term, there was an enormous
cost impact for all mariners given the multiple renews required during
the course of a career.
    One commenter stated that the Coast Guard's analysis was not
correct to say, ``not all mariners will incur costs from this rule.''
The commenter further stated that every mariner seeking a new or
reissue MMD was going to incur costs.
    One commenter stated that the hours spent traveling should be
acknowledged as the opportunity cost of the individual's wages.
    Five commenters said the costs to mariners and the total cost of
this rulemaking were underestimated.
    One commenter wanted clarification on the application of
convictions for misdemeanors and was concerned about its effect on
recruitment and retention.
    One commenter suggested that anyone who was denied a credential
because of a safety and security check should be advised in writing as
to the reason without exception.
    One commenter said that an administrative law judge should make
final decisions on appeals.
    One commenter argued that the definition of the term ``safety and
security check'' should include a statement on the extent of the check
that may be performed.
    These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment
of the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a
TWIC must still undergo another vetting process. However, we note that
the regulatory evaluations which accompanied the TWIC rulemaking
considered many of the comments regarding cost estimation we received
here.
    One commenter believed that regulations in effect prior to the
interim rule create a presumption of adequacy, and that further safety
and security checks were unnecessary.
    The Coast Guard does not agree. As part of the Coast Guard's goal
of increasing security in all aspects of the maritime domain, all
mariners who then held an MMD were screened to determine if they
presented a potential security risk to our nation. As a result, the
Coast Guard found instances where an applicant had been issued a
credential and was later found to pose a threat to security. The prior
regulations did not require mariners to have their fingerprints taken
at the RECs, and it allowed a candidate to submit a fingerprint card
from an uncontrolled location. Similarly, the prior regulations allowed
renewal of documents by mail and an applicant's identity could not be
verified. The new regulations require a candidate's presence before the
Coast Guard or its authorized agent to be certain that the person
applying for the document can validate his or her identity and the
fingerprints are indeed those of the applicant.
    Three commenters believed that the regulation concerning a ``safe
and suitable person'' and one's ``character and habits of life'' was
vague, lacked criteria for making this determination, and did not
provide adequate safeguards to the mariner. Additionally, one of these
commenters added that the ``character and habits of life'' standard
would infringe on the mariners' First Amendment rights and ignored the
Supreme Court's limiting construction.
    The Coast Guard agrees and changes to the terms were made with the
Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials final rule.
74 FR 11196.
    One commenter believed that the requirement in 46 CFR 12.02-4(a)
was too harsh.
    One commenter wanted clarification regarding 46 CFR 12.02-4(c) as
it related to applicants who have been arrested but not convicted.
    One commenter suggested revising 46 CFR 12.02-9(a), which read,
``The Coast Guard may refuse to process an incomplete MMC
application.'' by replacing the word ``process'' with the words ``issue
a credential based upon''.
    One commenter asked for a definition for the word ``incomplete'' in
46 CFR 12.02-9(a).
    These subjects are not directly related to this rulemaking but were
addressed with the Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification
Credentials final rule, which removed and reserved 46 CFR 12.02-4 and
12.02-9. (74 FR 11196). Application regulations for all endorsements
are now contained in 46 CFR 10.209.

Intent To Finalize; Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard invites further comments related to this Notice of
Intent to finalize the one section of the January 6, 2004 interim rule
that has remained unfinalized, 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules
in this part. Written comments and responses related to finalizing 46
CFR 12.01-1(a)(1) will be added to the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2003-14500). Upon close of the comment period, the
Coast Guard will consider all comments received. We anticipate that we
will be able to finalize 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1) soon thereafter.

    Dated: June 9, 2011.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-14921 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59213-59215]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24882]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75984; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding to the Rules of
the Exchange the Third Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of NYSE Market, Inc., and the Eighth Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of New York Stock Exchange LLC

September 25, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 22, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\5\ which renders it
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the (1)
the Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE
Market (DE), Inc. (``NYSE Market (DE)''), and (2) the Eighth Amended
and Restated Operating Agreement of New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE
LLC''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the (1)
Third Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Market
(DE) (the ``Certificate of Incorporation''), and (2) the Eighth Amended
and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE LLC (the ``NYSE LLC Operating
Agreement'').
Background and Proposed Rule Change
    NYSE Market (DE), a Delaware corporation, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of NYSE LLC, which is an affiliate of the Exchange.\6\ NYSE
Market (DE), in turn, owns a majority interest in NYSE Amex Options LLC
(``NYSE Amex Options''), a facility of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 70210 (August 15, 2013) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-50), 78 FR 51758 (August 21, 2013) (approving proposed
rule change relating to a corporate transaction in which NYSE
Euronext will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. (now Intercontinental Exchange,
Inc.)). The Exchange and NYSE Market (DE) are the only members of
NYSE Amex Options. See Exchange Act Release No. 75301 (June 25,
2015), 80 FR 37695 (July 1, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-44) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change amending
the members' schedule of the Amended and Restated Limited Liability
Company Agreement of NYSE Amex Options LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is filing as a ``rule of the exchange'' under Section
3(a)(27) of the Act \7\ the Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Market
(DE) because NYSE Market DE has a majority ownership interest in a
facility of the Exchange. The Certificate of Incorporation contains
restrictions on the ability of NYSE Market (DE)'s parent, NYSE LLC, to
transfer or assign any interest in NYSE Market (DE) without Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') approval.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27).
    \8\ Article IV, Section 2 of the Certificate of Incorporation
provides that the:
    New York Stock Exchange LLC may not transfer or assign any
shares of stock of [NYSE Market (DE)], in whole or in part, to any
entity, unless such transfer or assignment shall be filed with and
approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission . . . under
Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, because of NYSE LLC's ownership of NYSE Market (DE), the
Exchange is filing the NYSE LLC Operating Agreement as a ``rule of the
exchange'' under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(1)
\11\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so organized
as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act
and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its exchange members and
persons associated with its exchange members, with the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable
the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out
the purposes of the Act and comply and enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act because, by making the Certificate of Incorporation a rule of
the Exchange, no amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation,
including its restrictions on the ability of NYSE LLC to transfer or
assign any interest in NYSE Market (DE), could be made without the
Exchange filing a proposed rule change with the Commission. Similarly,
the Exchange would be required to file as a proposed rule change any
changes to the NYSE LLC Operating Agreement with the Commission.\12\ In
addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are
consistent with and will facilitate an ownership structure of the
Exchange's facility NYSE Amex Options that will provide the Commission
with appropriate oversight tools to ensure that the Commission will
have the ability to enforce the Act with respect to NYSE Amex Options
and its direct and indirect parent entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes that any amendment to the NYSE LLC
Operating Agreement would also require that NYSE LLC file a proposed
rule change with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ because the proposed rule change
would be consistent with and facilitate a governance and regulatory
structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
The Exchange believes that making the Certificate of Incorporation and
NYSE LLC Operating Agreement rules of the Exchange will remove
impediments to the operation of the Exchange by ensuring that no
amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation or NYSE LLC Operating
Agreement could be made without the Exchange filing a proposed rule
change with the Commission. For the same reasons, the proposed rule
change is also designed to protect investors as well as the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned
solely with ensuring that the Commission will have the ability to
enforce the Act with respect to NYSE Amex Options and its direct and
indirect parent entities.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is appropriate because the
Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Market (DE) and the NYSE LLC
Operating Agreement will become ``rules of the exchange'' of NYSE MKT
without delay. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that the
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\15\ The Commission hereby grants the
waiver and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-71. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-71 and should be submitted on or before
October 22, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24882 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53437-53439]
[DOCID:fr11se06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 5, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC06-155-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC; Consumers Energy
Company.
    Description: Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, et al. submits a joint
application for approval under section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: August 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-156-000.
    Applicants: BBPOP Wind Equity LLC; Caprock Wind LLC; Bank of
America.
    Description: BBPOP Wind Equity LLC et al submits filing of an Joint
Application for Order Authorizing the Indirect Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER97-2801-014.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp informs FERC of a change in status with
regard to the characteristics previously relied upon in granting its
market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: August 28, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2330-043.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits proposes to file changes
to Market Rule 1 in compliance with FERC's May 31, 2006 Order under
ER02-2330.
    Filed Date: August 28, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1119-002.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits corrected
Revised Tariff Sheets 130 et al pursuant to the Commission's August 7,
2006 letter order.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1218-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendment to its
initial July 3, 2006 filing of its Restated Operating Agreement and
Open Access Transmission Tariff pursuant to the Commission's July 20,
2006 Final Rule.
    Filed Date: August 28, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 11, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1293-001.
    Applicants: Southern Companies Services Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc submits its First
Revised Service Agreement 487 along with its revised cover page.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1420-000.

    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
on behalf of Midwest CRSG Parties submits its Midwest Contingency
Reserve Sharing Group Agreement in compliance with NERC standards.
    Filed Date: August 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 15, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1421-000.
    Applicants: The Clearing Corporation.
    Description: The Clearing Corp submits an application for order
authorizing market-based rates for Electric Tariff Original Volume 1,
waivers, blanket authorizations and request for expedited action.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060831-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1422-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Co et al submit a request
that FERC find that sales of energy directly or indirectly to Big
Rivers Electric Corp in order to satisfy automatic reserve sharing
agreement obligations or accept its section 205 application.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1423-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Gulf Power Company submits materials in support of
updated depreciation rates in the calculation of charges for service
etc pursuant to certain jurisdictional contracts and rate schedules.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060830-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1424-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Co of New Mexico submits its Second
Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Second
Revised Network Operating Agreement with Incorporated County of Los
Alamos, NM.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1425-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities submits a notice of cancellation of
its transmission agreement with Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative,
effective August 31, 2006.
    Filed Date: August 16, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060825-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1426-000.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co submits its Notice of
Cancellation of Rate Schedule 125, Power Exchange Agreement with KAMO
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1427-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corp submits its Rate Schedule 247,
Agreement for Distribution Level Electric Interconnection Services with
Missoula Electric Coop, Inc.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1428-000.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc submits its Notice
of Cancellation of its Market-Based Rate Tariff, FERC Electric Original
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1429-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits Rate Schedule FERC 171
Energy Management Agreement with Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1430-000.
    Applicants: SP Newsprint CO.
    Description: SP Newsprint CO submits its Petition for Order
Accepting Market-Based Rate Schedule for Filling and Granting Waivers
and Blanket Approvals.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1431-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Co submits its Engineering and
Procurement for Oleander Unit 5 Interconnection with Southern Company
Services, Inc Original Service Agreement 252.
    Filed Date: August 29, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 19, 2006.

    Docket Number: ER06-1432-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company submits Interconnection
Agreement and Construction Agreement with the City of Batavia and PJM
Interconnection, LLC under ER06-1432.
    Filed Date: August 30, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060901-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They

are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room
in Washington, DC.
    There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14951 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75883-75885]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26303]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79167; File Nos. SR-FICC-2016-006; SR-NSCC-2016-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Changes To Describe the Backtesting Charge and the
Holiday Charge That May Be Imposed on Members

October 26, 2016.
    On September 2, 2016, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
and National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC,'' collectively
``Clearing Agencies'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-FICC-2016-006 and
SR-NSCC-2016-004, respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule changes were published for comment in
the Federal Register on September 15, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comment letters on the proposed rule changes. For the
reasons discussed

below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78807 (September 9,
2016), 81 FR 63538 (September 15, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-006); 78808
(September 9, 2016), 81 FR 63511 (September 15, 2016) (SR-NSCC-2016-
004) (``Notices'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The proposed rule changes provide transparency in the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules''), the
FICC Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules
(``MBSD Rules''), and the NSCC Rules and Procedures (``NSCC Rules,''
collectively ``Clearing Agency Rules'') \4\ with respect to certain
margin charges that the Clearing Agencies may temporarily impose on a
Clearing Agency member (``Member'') as part of such Member's Required
Deposit. The charges proposed are the FICC Backtesting Charge and the
NSCC Backtesting Charge (collectively, ``Backtesting Charge''), and the
FICC Holiday Charge and the NSCC Bank Holiday Charge (collectively,
``Holiday Charge'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The GSD Rules, MBSD Rules, and NSCC Rules are available at
http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. Capitalized terms
used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning
assigned to such terms in the Clearing Agency Rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Clearing Agency may impose the Backtesting Charge on a Member
when the Clearing Agency has observed deficiencies in the backtesting
of such Member's Required Deposit over the prior 12-month period, such
that the Clearing Agency determines the value-at-risk (``VaR'') margin
charge being calculated for that Member may not fully address the
projected liquidation losses estimated from that Member's settlement
activity.
    The Holiday Charge addresses the risk exposure that occurs on
certain Holidays \5\ when the Clearing Agency is unable to collect
Required Deposit from its Members because the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and banks are closed. The Clearing Agencies may
impose the Holiday Charge on all Members to cover the additional day of
exposure that is not contemplated in the prior day's VaR charge.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For NSCC, ``Holiday'' means any day on which equities
markets are open for trading, but the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System observes a holiday and banks are closed.
Exhibit 5 for SR-NSCC-2016-004, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2016/34-78808-ex5.pdf. For FICC, ``Holiday'' means
any day on which FICC is closed, but the day is not observed as a
holiday by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
and the bond markets are open. Exhibit 5 for SR-FICC-2016-006,
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ficc/2016/34-78807-ex5.pdf.
    \6\ The description of the proposed rule changes herein is based
on the statements prepared by the Clearing Agencies in the Notices.
Notices, supra note 3, 81 FR at 63538-40 and 63512-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Calculation of the Backtesting Charge

    The objective of the Backtesting Charge is to increase Required
Deposits for Members that are likely to experience backtesting
deficiencies by an amount sufficient to maintain such Member's
backtesting coverage above the 99 percent confidence threshold. Because
the settlement activity and size of the backtesting deficiencies varies
among impacted Members, the Clearing Agencies must assess a Backtesting
Charge that is specific to each impacted Member. To do so, the Clearing
Agencies examine each impacted Member's historical backtesting
deficiencies observed over the prior 12-month period to identify the
three largest backtesting deficiencies that have occurred during that
time. The presumptive Backtesting Charge amount equals that Member's
third largest historical backtesting deficiency, subject to adjustment
as further described below. The Clearing Agencies stated in the Notices
that they believe that applying an additional margin charge equal to
the third largest historical backtesting deficiency to a Member's
Required Deposit would bring the Member's historically-observed
backtesting coverage above the 99 percent target.\7\ If assessed, the
resulting Backtesting Charge is added to the Required Deposit for such
Member determined pursuant to each Clearing Agency's risk-based
margining methodology, and is imposed on a daily basis for a one-month
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Each occurrence of a backtesting deficiency reduces a
Member's overall backtesting coverage by 0.4 percent (1 exception/
250 observation days). Accordingly, an increase equal to the third
largest backtesting deficiency would bring backtesting coverage up
to 99.2 percent. Notices, supra note 3, 81 FR at 63539 and 63512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This charge is only applicable to those Members whose overall 12-
month trailing backtesting coverage falls below the 99 percent coverage
target.
    Although the third largest historical backtesting deficiency for a
Member is used as the Backtesting Charge in most cases, each Clearing
Agency retains discretion to adjust the charge amount based on other
circumstances that may be relevant for assessing whether an impacted
Member is likely to experience future backtesting deficiencies and the
estimated size of such deficiencies. Examples of relevant circumstances
that would be considered in calculating the final, applicable
Backtesting Charge amount include material differences in the three
largest backtesting deficiencies observed over the prior 12-month
period, variability in the net settlement activity after the collection
of the Member's Required Deposit, seasonality in observed backtesting
deficiencies and observed market price volatility in excess of the
Member's historical VaR charge. Based on the Clearing Agencies'
assessment of the impact of these circumstances on the likelihood of,
and estimated size of, future backtesting deficiencies for a Member,
the Clearing Agencies may, in their discretion, adjust the Backtesting
Charge for such Member in an amount that the Clearing Agencies
determine to be more appropriate for maintaining such Member's
backtesting results above the 99 percent coverage threshold (including
a reasonable buffer).

B. Communication With Members and Imposition of the Backtesting Charge

    If the Clearing Agencies determine that a Backtesting Charge should
apply to a Member that was not assessed a Backtesting Charge during the
immediately preceding month or that the Backtesting Charge applied to a
Member during the previous month should be increased, the Clearing
Agencies will notify the Member on or around the 25th calendar day of
the month prior to the assessment of the Backtesting Charge, or prior
to the increase to the Backtesting Charge.
    Each Clearing Agency imposes the Backtesting Charge as an
additional charge applied to each impacted Member's Required Deposit on
a daily basis for a one month period, and reviews each applied
Backtesting Charge each month. If an impacted Member's trailing 12-
month backtesting coverage exceeds 99 percent (without taking into
account historically-imposed Backtesting Charges), the Backtesting
Charge is removed.

C. Holidays and the Required Deposit

    As described above, the Clearing Agencies determine their Members'
Required Deposit amounts in each Clearing Agency using a risk-based
margin methodology that is intended to capture market price risk,
assuming that a portfolio would take three days to liquidate or hedge
in normal market conditions.
    The Holiday Charge may be applied on the business day prior to any
Holiday. This charge approximates the exposure that a Member's trading
activity on the applicable Holiday could pose to the Clearing Agency.
Because the Clearing Agencies cannot collect margin on the Holiday, the
Holiday Charge is due on the business day prior to the applicable
Holiday.

D. Calculation and Notification of the Holiday Charge

    Each Clearing Agency would determine the appropriate methodology
for calculating the Holiday Charge in advance of each applicable
Holiday. Potential methodologies for calculating the Holiday Charge
include, for example, time scaling of the VaR charge \8\ or application
of stress scenarios that cover potential market price risk exposure
that may not be appropriately covered by scaling the VaR charge. The
Clearing Agencies would establish a methodology for calculating each
Holiday Charge that would take into consideration the market conditions
prevailing at that time in order to permit the Clearing Agencies to
calculate a Holiday Charge that appropriately estimates the risk that
may be presented to the Clearing Agency on the applicable Holiday, when
Members' Required Deposit cannot be collected. The Holiday Charge would
represent a percentage increase of the volatility charge on the
business day prior to the Holiday, and such percentage increase applies
uniformly to all Members. This means that if the Holiday Charge is
levied, the same methodology (i.e., formula) is applied to all Members
(that is, the Holiday Charge is not a set dollar amount applied to all
Members).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Market price risk and volatility increase with time as there
is a greater potential for loss. This additional risk exposure is
often approximated by time scaling of volatility by multiplying
square root of the additional period of risk (e.g., if the VaR
charge is calibrated to a 3-day risk horizon, an additional day of
exposure could be approximated by [radic]\4/3\ VaR charge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members would be notified of the applicable methodology by an
Important Notice issued no later than 10 business days prior to the
application the Holiday Charge, and the charge is collected on the
business day prior to the applicable Holiday. The Holiday Charge is
removed from the Required Deposit on the business day following the
Holiday.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \9\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1)
and (b)(2),\10\ as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1); 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are within the custody or control of the
clearing agency.\11\ By incorporating the Backtesting Charge and
Holiday Charge into the Rules, the proposed changes help protect the
Clearing Agencies from potential losses in the event that a Member
defaults. Specifically, the Backtesting Charge enables the Clearing
Agencies to collect additional funds when their current margin
collections may be insufficient, as indicated by backtesting
deficiencies. Meanwhile, the Holiday Charge enables the Clearing
Agencies to collect margin in advance of Holidays when the Clearing
Agencies would be unable to collect margin. Therefore, by enabling the
Clearing Agencies to better assess and collect funds, as the Clearing
Agencies deem necessary, the charges would promote the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are within the custody or control of the
clearing agency, consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act,
in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires a clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to its
participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential
losses from defaults by its participants under normal market
conditions, so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be
disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to
losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\12\ The Backtesting
Charge and Holiday Charge are enhancements to the way the Clearing
Agencies measure their credit exposure to Members and, ultimately,
account for potential increases in exposure by collecting additional
margin, as deemed necessary by the Clearing Agencies, to help limit
potential losses from a Member default in normal market conditions.
Therefore, the proposed rule changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(1) under the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act requires a clearing agency to
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions.\14\ The Backtesting Charge
and Holiday Charge are components of the margin requirement that the
Clearing Agencies collect from Members, in the form of Required
Deposits, to help limit the Clearing Agencies' credit exposure to
Members in normal market conditions. Therefore, the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \16\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule changes SR-FICC-2016-006 and SR-NSCC-2016-004 be,
and hereby are, APPROVED.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-26303 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38615-38617]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0576; Project Identifier 2019-CE-008-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by 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 installation of the
wing leading edge tank fuel pickup assembly in a pre-stressed
condition, which could cause cracks in the wing spar web or the fuel
pickup assembly pipe. This proposed AD would require inspecting the
angle of the support bracket on the wing leading edge tank fuel pickup
assembly and taking any necessary corrective actions. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For
service information identified in this AD, contact the Civil Aviation
Authority of New Zealand, Level 15, Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston
Street, Wellington 6011; phone: +64 4 560 9400; fax: +64 4 569 202;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0576; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aviation Safety Engineer,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; phone: (816) 329-
4144; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0576; Project Identifier
2019-CE-008-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mike
Kiesov, Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand, has issued AD No. DCA/

750XL/36, effective date February 7, 2019 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Pacific
Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:

    DCA/750XL/36 is prompted by a review of the installation of the
wing leading edge fuel pickup assemblies. It was found that the fuel
pickup assemblies could have been installed in a pre-stressed
condition, which could result in cracks in the wing spar web, or
cracks in the fuel pickup pipe. The [CAA] AD is issued to introduce
the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) PACSB/XL/109 issue 1, dated 16 January 2019.

    The MCAI requires inspecting the installation of the fuel pickup
assembly and the wing spar web on both wings and, if any defects are
found, taking all necessary corrective actions. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0576.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin
PACSB/XL/109, Issue 1, dated January 16, 2019. The service information
contains procedures for inspecting the wing leading edge tank fuel
pickup assembly to determine if the assembly is under stress and for
additional inspections and corrective actions if necessary. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described.

 Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it
would take about 1 work-hour per airplane to comply with the inspection
that would be required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the inspection cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,955, or $85 per airplane.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that any necessary follow-on actions
would take 4 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of
$840 per airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that may need these actions.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2021-0576; Project
Identifier 2019-CE-008-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 7, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL
airplanes, serial numbers 177, 186 through 213, 220, 8001, and 8002,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3600, Pneumatic
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as installation of
the wing leading edge tank fuel pickup assembly in a pre-stressed
condition, which could cause cracks in the wing spar web or the fuel
pickup assembly pipe. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent cracks
in the wing spar web and the fuel pickup pipe. This condition could
result in reduced structural integrity of the wing spar or cause a
fuel leak, which could result in an engine fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

 (g) Required Actions

    Within 165 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, inspect the angle of the support bracket on the wing
leading edge

tank fuel pickup assembly and, before further flight, take any
necessary additional actions and corrective actions by following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service
Bulletin PACSB/XL/109, Issue 1, dated January 16, 2019.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in Related Information or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD contact Mike Kiesov,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of New Zealand AD
No. DCA/750XL/36, dated February 7, 2019, for more information. You
may examine the CAA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0578.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact the
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Level 15, Asteron Centre,
55 Featherston Street, Wellington 6011; phone: +64 4 560 9400; fax:
+64 4 569 202; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 15, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15474 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P