[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42143-42145]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17911]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64863; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to the Options Floor Broker Subsidy

July 12, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section VII of its Fee Schedule
entitled the ``Options Floor Broker Subsidy.''
    The Exchange also proposes to make an amendment to Section III of
the Fee Schedule entitled ``Singly Listed Options.''
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on July 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the computation
for eligible contracts. The Exchange proposes to amend the eligible
contract computation to limit the eligible contracts where a Firm is
also obtaining the benefit of the Firm Related Equity Option Cap
(``Cap'').\3\ The Exchange believes that the benefit of the Cap should
be taken into account in the eligible contract computation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Firm Related Equity Option Cap is currently $75,000.
Firm equity option transaction charges and QCC Transaction Fees, in
the aggregate, for one billing month will not exceed the Firm
Related Equity Option Cap per member organization when such members
are trading in their own proprietary account. The Firm equity
options transaction charges will be waived for members executing
facilitation orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 1064 when such members
are trading in their own proprietary account. Members and member
organizations must notify the Exchange in writing of all accounts in
which the member is not trading in its own proprietary account. The
Exchange will not make adjustments to billing invoices where
transactions are commingled in accounts which are not subject to the
Firm Related Equity Option Cap. In addition, Firms that (i) Are on
the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer
complex order; and (ii) have reached the Firm Related Equity Option
Cap will be assessed a $0.05 per contract fee. See Section II of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently pays an Options Floor Broker Subsidy
(``Subsidy'') to member organizations with Exchange registered floor
brokers that enter eligible contracts into the Exchange's Floor Broker
Management System (``FBMS'').\4\ The Subsidy is paid based on the
contract volume on Customer-to-non-Customer as well as non-Customer-to-
non-Customer transactions for that month. Only the volume from orders
entered by floor brokers into FBMS and subsequently executed on the
Exchange qualifies. The Exchange pays a Subsidy based on a monthly
total of all eligible contracts as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FBMS is designed to enable floor brokers and/or their
employees to enter, route, and report transactions stemming from
options orders received on the Exchange. FBMS also is designed to
establish an electronic audit trail for options orders represented
and executed by floor brokers on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1080, commentary .06.

                              Per Eligible Contract Monthly Volume Subsidy Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Tier I                         Tier II                  Tier III                 Tier IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 1,250,000.......................  1,250,001 to 2,250,000.  2,250,001 to 5,250,000.  5,250,001 and greater.
$0.00 per contract...................  $0.03 per contract.....  $0.05 per contract.....  $0.09 per contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In computing the monthly eligible contracts, the Exchange currently
excludes: (i) Customer-to-Customer executions; (ii) dividend,\5\ merger
\6\ and short stock interest \7\ strategies; and (iii) firm
facilitation transactions.\8\ The Subsidy applies to contracts that are
executed as part of a Complex Order.\9\ Where two or more member
organizations with Exchange registered floor brokers each enter one
side of a transaction into FBMS, the executed contracts are divided
equally among qualifying member organizations that participate in that
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A dividend strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a dividend arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and
exercise of in-the-money options of the same class, executed the
first business day prior to the date on which the underlying stock
goes ex-dividend. See Section II of the Fee Schedule.
    \6\ A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to achieve
a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, executed the first
business day prior to the date on which shareholders of record are
required to elect their respective form of consideration, i.e., cash
or stock. See Section II of the Fee Schedule.
    \7\ A short stock interest strategy is defined as transactions
done to achieve a short stock interest arbitrage involving the
purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money options of the same
class. See Section II of the Fee Schedule.
    \8\ A facilitation occurs when a floor broker holds an options
order for a public customer and a contra-side order for the same
option series and, after providing an opportunity for all persons in
the trading crowd to participate in the transaction, executes both
orders as a facilitation cross. See Exchange Rule 1064.
    \9\ A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on
the relative prices of the individual components, for the same
account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment
strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option
order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of
an underlying stock or ETF coupled with the purchase or sale of
options contract(s). See Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .08(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the computation of eligible
contracts to also exclude: (i) Firm-to-Customer executions, where the
Firm has reached the Cap; and (ii) Firm-to-Firm executions, where both
sides have reached the Cap. The Exchange also proposes to amend Section
VII to capitalize the word ``Customer'' and make other technical
amendments.
    Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to amend Section III of the
Fee Schedule entitled ``Singly Listed Options.'' Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to remove the list of Alpha Index Options symbols
(``Alpha Symbols''). The Alpha Symbols are subject to change.\10\ The
Exchange provides a list of Alpha Symbols, which are subject to the
Alpha Index Options Fee, at http://

www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange would file a proposed rule change with the
Commission each time it proposes to amend the Alpha Symbols which
are subject to the Alpha Index Options Fee in Section III of the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on July 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Subsidy
are equitable and reasonable because member organizations with Exchange
registered floor brokers would continue to be provided an equal
opportunity to receive a Subsidy. The Exchange believes that amending
the computation to exclude Firm-to-Customer executions and Firm-to-Firm
executions where the Firm sides have reached the Cap is reasonable
because the Exchange would not be paying a Subsidy on executions that
incur no transaction fees. In addition, the Exchange believes that
amending the computation to exclude Firm-to-Customer executions and
Firm-to-Firm executions where the Firm sides have reached the Firm
Related Equity Option Cap is equitable because the exclusions apply
uniformly to all member organizations. Finally, the Exchange does not
believe that this Subsidy is unreasonable or discriminatory because any
floor broker is afforded the opportunity of meeting the volume
criteria.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Section III of the
Fee Schedule to remove the list of Alpha Symbols is both reasonable and
equitable because the list of symbols is readily available on the
Exchange's Web site. Since the Alpha Symbols are subject to change, the
Exchange believes that the list of current symbols on the Exchange's
Web site is the most appropriate and current source of information for
the complete list of Alpha Symbols subject to the Alpha Index Options
Fee.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This list is kept up to date and current with any rule
changes that are filed with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-94. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-94 and
should be submitted on or before August 8, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17911 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49801-49803]
[DOCID:fr29se09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0574; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-028-AD;
Amendment 39-16030; AD 2009-20-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTAHRT GmbH Models Dornier
228-100, Dornier 228-101, Dornier 228-200, Dornier 228-201, and Dornier
228-202 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:

    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent installation of
A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main landing gear with
P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not approved for
installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD D-1994-042 or
Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 3, 2009.
    On November 3, 2009, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2009 (74 FR
30247). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent

installation of A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main
landing gear with P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not
approved for installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD
D-1994-042 or Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 15 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,200 or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $23,734, for a cost
of $25,014 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 AD:

2009-20-07 Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Amendment 39-16030; Docket No.
FAA-2009-0574; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-028-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
3, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models Dornier 228-100, Dornier 228-101,
Dornier 228-200, Dornier 228-201, and Dornier 228-202 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A stub axle failure of the main landing gear on a Dornier 228-
200 aeroplane was reported to RUAG Aerospace. Investigations
revealed that the fracture of the axle--manufacturer Part Number (P/
N) A-511000B28B was due to fatigue. Already in the year 1993 two
failures of P/N A-511000B28B axles occurred. Those events led in
1994 the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt--Germany's National Aviation
Authority--to publish Airworthiness Directive (AD) D-1994-042 to
mandate the replacement of A-511000B28B axles by improved-design
axle with P/N A-511000C28B (Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Service bulletin
228-214).
    It is believed that a misinterpretation of the Dornier 228
repair/maintenance documentation caused inadvertent installation of
A-511000B28B axle on the accident aeroplane's main landing gear with
P/N A-511000C00F. This configuration was not approved for
installation and was therefore not addressed by LBA AD D-1994-042 or
Dornier SB-228-214.
    The actions specified in this Airworthiness Directive are
intended to prevent main landing gear failure, which could result in
loss of control of the aeroplane during landing operations.

The MCAI requires inspection of the main landing gear (MLG) and, if
applicable, replacement of the MLG stub axle.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions following RUAG
Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin SB-228-
276, dated October 16, 2008:

    (1) Within the next 14 days after November 3, 2009 (the
effective date of this AD), inspect the main landing gear (MLG) stub
axle.
    (2) If any P/N A-511000B28B stub axle is found, before
accumulation of 9,500 total landings on the axle, or before further
flight if total landings on the axle exceed 9,500 total landings on
November 3, 2009 (the effective date of this AD), replace the axle
or the housing assembly with a new axle P/N A-511000C28B. If the
total number of landings accumulated by the stub axle cannot be
positively determined, the stub axle must be considered to have
accumulated more than 9,500 total landings.
    (3) Operators that do not have landing (or cycle) records may
determine the number of landings (or cycles) by dividing the number
of hours time-in-service of each airplane by the time of the average
flight for the aircraft of that type in the operator's fleet.

    Note 1: P/N A-511000C28B axle together with the housings P/N A-
511000C27B and P/N A-521000C27B form the Axle Assemblies P/N
AD511010A00C and P/N AD521010A00C, which are life limited to 48,000
landings per the Dornier 228 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual
(TLMCM) Chapter 05-10-10.

    (4) As of November 3, 2009 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install MLG assemblies P/N A-511000C00F and P/N A-521000C00F
fitted with a P/N A-511000B28B stub axle on any airplane.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to EASA AD No.: 2009-0062, dated March 13, 2009; and
RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin SB-
228-276, dated October 16, 2008, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228
Service Bulletin SB-228-276, dated October 16, 2008, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box
1253, 82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany, telephone: +49
(0)8153-30-2280; fax: +49 (0) 8153-30-3030; E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.ruag.com/.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 21, 2009.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23211 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57660-57663]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0717; Product Identifier 2019-NM-133-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 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 Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -
112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211,
-212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -
112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report of cracking found on the frame of the right-
hand side sliding window in the flight deck. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the vertical stiffeners
of the left- and right-hand sides of the window frames and corrective
actions if necessary, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. 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 December
12, 2019.

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 the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, at Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0717.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0717; 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 regulatory evaluation, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0717;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-133-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0173, dated July 18, 2019,
(``EASA AD 2019-0173'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and
Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Model A320-215 airplanes are not on the U.S. Register; this AD
therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking found on the
frame of the right-hand side sliding window in the flight deck. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address cracking of the vertical stiffeners of
the left- and right-hand sides of the window frames, which could affect
the structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0173 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
for cracking of the vertical stiffeners of the left- and right-hand
sides of the window frame, and corrective actions if necessary.
Corrective actions include modification, rework and repair.
    This material 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
The FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0173 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD. This proposed AD also would require sending
the inspection results to Airbus.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0173
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0173 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2019-0173 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-
0173 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0717 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 988 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Cost per
                  Labor cost                      Parts cost        product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 work-hours x $85 per hour = $935...........              $0            $935  $923,780 per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, The FAA
estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S.
operators to be $83,980, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition modifications that would be required based on the results of
any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition modification:

              Estimated Costs of On-Condition Modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425....               *           * $425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition modification
  specified in this proposed AD.

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the other on-condition actions
specified in this proposed AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Forth Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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 (AD):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2019-0717; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
133-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by December 12, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2019-0173, dated July 18, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0173'').
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking found on the frame
of the right-hand side sliding window in the flight deck. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address cracking of the vertical stiffeners of
the left- and right-hand sides of the window frames, which could
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0173.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0173

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this AD:
    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0173 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0173 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2019-0173 specifies to report
inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0173 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD; the nature and extent of confidentiality to be
provided, if any. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0173, contact the EASA,
at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0173 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0717.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 18, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-23429 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69106-69109]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27503]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9919-55-OAR]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent
Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles
and Engines; Request for Waiver Determination; Opportunity for Public
Hearing and Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA
that it has adopted amendments to regulations entitled ``Malfunction
and Diagnostic System Requirements--2004 and Subsequent Model-Year
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and
Engines'' (OBD II Requirements) and amendments to regulations entitled
``Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for
2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines'' (OBD II Enforcement Regulation).
CARB adopted amendments to the OBD II Requirements through rulemakings
in 1997, 2003, 2007 and 2010, and to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II
Enforcement Regulation in 2012 and 2013. These amendments are
collectively referred to herein as the OBD II Amendments. EPA
previously granted California a waiver for the original OBD II
Requirements, as last amended in 1995. EPA has also previously given
notice and taken comments on the 1997 and 2003 OBD II amendments, but
did not act on California's waiver requests for those amendments. CARB
now requests that EPA confirm that all the OBD II Amendments be found
within the scope of the previously granted waiver or, alternatively,
that EPA grant a full waiver of preemption for the various amendments.
This notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public
hearing to consider California's requests for the 2007, 2010, 2012, and
2013 OBD II Amendments, and that EPA is additionally accepting written
comment on California's waiver requests, and on the effect of the 2007,
2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD II Amendments on the prior 1997 and 2003 OBD
II Amendments for which EPA previously took comments.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's
request on January 14, 2015 at 10 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing only
if any party notifies EPA by December 15, 2014 to express interest in
presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Parties that wish to present
oral testimony at the public hearing should provide written notice to
David Read at the email address noted below. If EPA receives a request
for a public hearing, that hearing will be held at the William
Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5530 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive a request for a
public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and will instead
consider CARB's request based on written submissions to the docket. Any
party may submit written comments until February 16, 2015.
    Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may
call David Read at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or after December 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0573, by one of the following methods:
     On-Line at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the On-Line
Instructions for Submitting Comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0573, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    On-Line Instructions for Submitting Comments: Direct your comments
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573. EPA's policy is that all
comments we receive will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
email address will automatically be captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted
by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any
testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this
proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government work days
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic
mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: a-and-r-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the fax
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through the federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573, in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-
in box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web
page that contains general information on its review of California
waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver and
authorization Federal Register notices. The page can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Read, Attorney, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. California's OBD II Requirements and Enforcement Regulation

    CARB initially adopted the OBD II Requirements in July 1990 and
then adopted amendments in 1992, 1993, and 1995. The OBD II
Requirements direct motor vehicle manufacturers to incorporate vehicle
onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems meeting particular requirements on all
new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles and
engines. Specifically, manufacturers are required to install OBD II
systems that effectively monitor all emission-related components and
systems on the motor vehicle for proper operation and for deterioration
or malfunctions that cause emissions to exceed specific thresholds. The
regulations also require that OBD II systems provide specific
diagnostic information in a standardized format through a standardized
serial data link on-board the vehicles to ensure that service and
repair technicians can properly and promptly repair identified
malfunctions.
    In October 1996,\1\ EPA issued a waiver under section 209(b) of the
Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'') for the OBD II Requirements
adopted in 1990 and as amended in 1992, 1993, and 1995. CARB
subsequently adopted further amendments to the OBD II Requirements in
1997 and 2003 \2\ and requested that EPA confirm those amendments to be
within the scope of the previously granted OBD II waiver.\3\ EPA
published a notice of opportunity for hearing and comment on the 1997
and 2003 California requests on February 5, 2004.\4\ The 1997 and 2003
waiver requests are currently pending a determination by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The decision was signed on October 2, 1996, and published at
61 FR 53371 (October 11, 1996).
    \2\ The Board initially approved the amendments at rulemakings
held respectively on December 12, 1996, April 25, 2002, and
September 28, 2006.
    \3\ On December 24, 1997, CARB requested that the 1997
amendments be found within the scope of the previously granted
waiver. On October 30, 2003, CARB requested that the 2003 amendments
be found within the scope of the previously granted waiver. The
October 30, 2003, request further asked that the OBD II Enforcement
Regulation be found within the scope of the previously granted
waiver for ``California's Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle
Standards,'' title 13, Cal. Code Regs. Section 2100 et seq. (see 61
FR 53371 (October 11, 1996), 43 FR 9344 (March 7, 1978), and 43 FR
25729 (June 14, 1978)).
    \4\ See 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2007, CARB adopted additional amendments to the OBD II
Requirements and minor amendments to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation.
The amendments became operative on November 9, 2007. The 2007 OBD II
Requirements amendments were made, inter alia, to address manufacturer

compliance concerns and to align the monitoring requirements with those
adopted by CARB in 2005 for heavy duty diesel engines. By letter dated
January 22, 2008, CARB requested that EPA find that the 2007 amendments
fall within the scope of the previous waiver.
    On April 5, 2010, CARB adopted additional amendments to the OBD II
Requirements, but not to the OBD II Enforcment Regulation. The
amendments became operative on June 17, 2010. The 2010 OBD II
Requirements amendments were made primarily to harmonize the medium-
duty diesel vehicle requirements with proposed revisions to monitoring
requirements for heavy duty diesel engines. By letter dated December
15, 2010, CARB requested that EPA find that the 2010 OBD II
Requirements amendments fall within the scope of the previous waiver
or, alternatively, that a new waiver be granted for the amendments.
    On March 12, 2012, and on June 26, 2013, CARB adopted additional
amendments to the OBD II Requirements and to the OBD II Enforcement
Regulation. The 2012 OBD II amendments became operative August 7, 2012.
The 2013 OBD II amendments became operative on July 31, 2013. The 2012
OBD II amendments were primarily made to relax and/or clarify OBD II
requirements in response to manufacturer concerns. The 2013 OBD II
amendments primarily affect medium-duty vehicles, to align the OBD II
monitoring requirements with those adopted by CARB for heavy duty
diesel engines. By letter dated February 12, 2014, CARB requested that
EPA find that the 2012 and 2013 OBD II amendments fall within the scope
of the previous waiver or, alternatively, that a full waiver be granted
for the amendments.
    The various amendments to the OBD II Requirements are codified at
title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.2. The various
amendments to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation are codified at title
13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.5.
    CARB seeks a determination that the 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD
II Amendments are within the scope of the previous waiver or,
alternatively, that EPA grant California a full waiver of preemption
for the OBD II Amendments.

II. Clean Air Act Waivers of Preemption

    Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act preempts states and local
governments from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and
engines. It provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this
part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.

Through operation of section 209(b) of the Act, California is able to
seek and receive a waiver of section 209(a)'s preemption. If certain
criteria are met, section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to
waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a). Section
209(b)(1) only allows a waiver to be granted for any state that had
adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the
control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that its
standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards (i.e., if such state
makes a ``protectiveness determination''). Because California was the
only state to have adopted standards prior to 1966, it is the only
state that is qualified to seek and receive a waiver.\5\ The
Administrator must grant \6\ a waiver unless she finds that: (A)
California's above-noted ``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary
and capricious; \7\ (B) California does not need such state standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; \8\ or (C)
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\9\ EPA has previously stated
that consistency with section 202(a) requires that California's
standards must be technologically feasible within the lead time
provided, giving due consideration to costs, and that California and
applicable Federal test procedures be consistent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \6\ EPA's review of California regulations under section 209 is
not a broad review of the reasonableness of the regulations or its
compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the
Clean Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny California requests for
waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As
a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's
requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA
decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not
found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA's
determination. See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v.
Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir. 1998), Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20
(D.C. Cir. 1979). See also 78 FR 58090, 58120 (September 20, 2013).
    \7\ CAA Sec.  209(b)(1)(A).
    \8\ CAA Sec.  209(b)(1)(B).
    \9\ CAA Sec.  209(b)(1)(C).
    \10\ See, e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1126
(D.C. Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If California amends regulations that were previously granted a
waiver, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the
scope of the previously granted waiver. Such within-the-scope
amendments are permissible without a full waiver review if three
conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine
California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency
with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not
raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior waivers.

III. EPA's Request for Comments

    EPA invites public comment on each of CARB's requests, including
but not limited to the following issues.

A. 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD II Amendments Within-the-Scope or
Full Waiver

    First, we request comment on whether CARB's 2007, 2010, 2012, and
2013 OBD II Amendments, whether individually or collectively assessed,
should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or whether
they should be considered under the full waiver criteria. Specifically,
we request comment on whether California's 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013
OBD II Amendments (1) undermine California's previous determination
that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of
public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (2) affect
the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the
Act, and (3) raise any other ``new issue'' affecting EPA's previous
waiver or authorization determinations.

B. Whether 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD II Amendments Meet the
Criteria for Full Waiver

    Should any party believe that the 2007, 2010, 2012, or 2013 OBD II
Amendments do not merit consideration as within-the-scope of the
previous waiver, EPA also requests comment on whether those amendments
meet the criteria for full waiver. Specifically, we request comment on:
(a) whether

CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least
as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether California needs
such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c)
whether California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

C. Effect of Newer OBD II Amendments on 1997 or 2003 Amendments

    As stated above, EPA has previously given notice and taken comments
on CARB's requests for within-the-scope determinations related to
CARB's 1997 and 2003 OBD II amendments. As those requests are still
pending, EPA will additionally take comment on any relevant effects of
the 2007 and 2010 amendments on the prior 1997 and 2003 OBD II
amendments. EPA will consider such comments in any decision on CARB's
1997 and 2003 OBD II amendments as well.

IV. Procedures for Public Participation

    If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a record of the
proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the
hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense.
Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the
record open until February 16, 2015. Upon expiration of the comment
period, EPA will render a decision on CARB's request based on the
record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant written
submissions, and other information that the Agency deems pertinent. All
information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent
possible and label it as ``Confidential Business Information''
(``CBI''). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision
on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the
document that summarizes the key data or information should be
submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information
is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions
containing such information should be sent directly to the contact
person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered
by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when
EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without
further notice to the person making comments.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-27503 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71349-71350]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-55-000]

Silver Peak Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Silver Peak Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 30, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22766 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P