[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56601-56604]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1203]

Draft FAA Policy Regarding Processing Land Use Changes on
Federally Acquired or Federally Conveyed Airport Land

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed policy; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is directed to airport sponsors, consultants, and
other stakeholders regarding a proposed update of the FAA policy and
practice regarding processing land use changes on federally acquired or
federally conveyed airport land. The updated policy confirms and
clarifies the appropriate methods to document FAA's review and approval
or consent for such changes, in light of amendments made by Section 163
of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This policy clarifies: When
reviewing proposed land use changes on federally acquired or federally
conveyed airport land, the FAA will review the proposal in its entirety
without individually examining components of the proposal as
aeronautical or non-aeronautical; a letter of approval or consent is
required for a non-aeronautical use or mixed use and the approval or
consent will remain in effect for the duration of the lease term; the
determination of whether the non-aeronautical use is significant will
be based on the primary use of the project; FAA will only release
Federal obligations when the airport sponsor proposes the sale or
conveyance of federally acquired or federally conveyed airport land
that meets FAA release requirements; and, FAA letters of approval or
consent and releases will be documented on an airport's Exhibit A in
accordance with the ARP SOP 3.00--FAA Review of Exhibit `A' Airport
Property Inventory Maps. This policy should be used in conjunction with
FAA Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Manual, Chapter 22, Releases from
Federal Obligations; and FAA Order 5100.38, Airport Improvement
Handbook; and any related policy implemented in conjunction and
complementary with Airports Planning and Programming (APP) guidance.
Additionally, compliance specialists will consult with FAA
Environmental Protection Specialists to determine what, if any,
environmental obligations under relevant statutes or regulations may
apply to specific land use changes at specific airports.

DATES: The FAA will accept public comments on the proposed policy
statement for 30 days. Comments must be submitted on or before October
17, 2022. The FAA will consider comments on the proposed policy
statement. Any necessary or appropriate revisions resulting from the
comments received will be adopted as of the date of a subsequent
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number, FAA
2022-1203] using any of the following methods:
     Government-Wide Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorraine Herson-Jones, Manager, Office
of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-100, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Airport Sponsor Obligations

    Congress authorized the conveyance of federal surplus property and
financial assistance for the acquisition of land where the land is
needed for ``airport purposes.'' See 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(1). Under the
Airport Improvement Act, ``airport purpose'' means land that ``may be
needed for an aeronautical purpose (including runway protection zone)
or serves as noise buffer land.'' Id. Federally conveyed or federally
acquired land must be used for airport purposes until the FAA approves
or consents to a non-aeronautical use and thereby discharges the
sponsor of that obligation. 49 U.S.C. 47153(a), 49 U.S.C. 47125(a), and
49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B). In addition, Congress requires the FAA to
submit an annual report listing airports not in compliance with airport

land use restrictions and identifying necessary corrective action. 49
U.S.C. 47131(a)(5).
    Airport sponsors that have accepted federally conveyed or federally
acquired airport land have agreed to comply with certain obligations
and policies included in the federal grant agreement or the federal
conveyance documents regarding the use of the land. Those obligations
derive from multiple statutes, deed covenants and the grant assurances.
    Airport sponsors must request FAA written approval or consent to
allow federally conveyed or federally acquired land to be used for non-
aeronautical purposes. 49 U.S.C. 47153(a), 49 U.S.C. 47125(a), 49
U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B). The FAA's authority to approve or consent to a
non-aeronautical land use or to release obligations depends upon the
obligating documents, the current and future aeronautical need of the
property, and the proposed use. For example, residential use on airport
property is incompatible with the needs of civil aviation, is
prohibited by FAA policy, and is also contrary to federal obligations.
    Limiting the use of aeronautical facilities to aeronautical
purposes ensures that airport facilities are available to meet aviation
demand at the airport. Aviation tenants and aircraft owners should not
be displaced by non-aviation commercial uses that could be conducted
off airport property.\1\ The FAA must consider both the existing and
future aviation demand. Over time, the definition of aeronautical use
has remained relatively unchanged, except when changes were needed to
reflect necessary access for sky diving, and new entrants, such as
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and commercial space. Aeronautical use
accommodates an aeronautical activity. Aeronautical use lands receive
additional benefits. They are afforded the protection of the grant
assurances and may be charged favorable below market aeronautical
rates. The aeronautical use definition protects the federal investment
in aviation and ensures that non-aeronautical uses cannot easily
displace aeronautical uses and thereby diminish the safety, efficiency
and utility of the entire airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars
(81 FR 38906-38907), June 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implications of FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254),
Section 163

    In addition, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018'' (Pub. L. 115-
254), Section 163, changed the FAA's authority to regulate non-
federally acquired or conveyed airport land. The FAA's authority over a
proposed land use change may be limited when it does not impact safe
and efficient operation of aircraft or safety of people and property on
the ground related to aircraft operations or does not adversely affect
the value of prior Federal investments to a significant extent. See
Public Law 115-254 Sec.  163(b)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B). Section 163(a)
limits the FAA's authority to directly or indirectly regulate an
airport owner or operator's acquisition, use, lease, encumbrance,
transfer, or disposal of land, any facility upon such land, or any
portion of such land or facility. However, Section 163(b) contains
three exceptions and provides the limitations on when Section 163(a) do
not apply:
    1. Any regulation ensuring the safe and efficient operation of
aircraft or safety of people and property on the ground related to
aircraft operations; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section 163(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Any regulation imposed with respect to land or a facility
acquired or modified using Federal funding; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Section 163(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Any authority contained in a Surplus Property Act instrument of
transfer,\4\ or Section 40117 of title 49 United States Code (Passenger
Facility Charge statute).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FAA may retain approval authority over proposed changes
in the use of lands granted to an airport sponsor from the United
States, including under the Surplus Property Act, 49 U.S.C. 47125,
section 16 of the Federal Airport Act of 1946 Public Law 79-377,
section 23 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, Public
Law 91-258, section 516 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of
1982, and former military airports conveyed to local public entities
under the congressionally authorized Base Realignment and Closure
program because lands granted under these statutes constitute
federal investments in the airport.
    \5\ See Section 163(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In cases covered by 163(b), FAA retains land use approval authority
over the project. The FAA will follow this policy guidance and FAA
Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Manual.
    When FAA lacks approval authority over a particular change in land
use or sale of land, all of the airport sponsor's federal statutory and
grant assurance obligations remain in full force and effect, including
over its remaining airport property. Airport sponsors remain obligated
under the Grant Assurances, FAA's Policies and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenue (64 FR 7696, February 16, 1999) (Revenue Use
Policy), and FAA's Policy Regarding Rates and Charges (78 FR 55330,
September 10, 2013).
    The sale or lease of the land must be accomplished per the FAA's
Appraisal Standards for the Sale and Disposal of Federally Obligated
Airport Property (Compliance Guidance Letter 2018-3). The land must be
sold or leased at fair market value and the funds must be used in
accordance with the FAA's Revenue Use Policy. See 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B). The sponsor should retain sufficient authority over the
disposed land to prevent uses that conflict with its federal
obligations and related requirements or create conditions resulting in
violations of the assurances. To retain this authority, sponsors should
consider using subordination clauses, reservations, covenants, or other
restrictions in a deed or other instrument to protect the public's
right to fly over the land, prohibit obstructions to air navigation or
interference with the flight of aircraft, or assure compatible land
use. The deed or other instrument containing the restrictions should be
recorded in local land records.
    The FAA may verify compliance with these requirements through a
financial compliance review, review of supporting documentation, land
use inspection, the enforcement of grant assurances, or other
enforcement mechanisms. The sponsor also has the responsibility to
comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws and
regulations.

Explanation of Terms

    Aeronautical Use--The FAA considers the aeronautical use of an
airport to be any activity that involves, makes possible, is required
for the safety of, or is otherwise directly related to, the operation
of aircraft. Aeronautical use includes services provided by air
carriers related directly and substantially to the movement of
passengers, baggage, mail and cargo on the airport. FAA's Policy
Regarding Rates and Charges, 78 FR 55330 (September 10, 2013).
    Examples of aeronautical use include:
    1. operational uses such as aerial approaches, navaids, runways,
taxiways, aprons, or other aircraft movement areas;
    2. future developmental uses to reserve property interests for
foreseeable aeronautical development (e.g., a planned runway extension
or a planned terminal building development); and
    3. essential services that directly support flight operations
(e.g., aircraft maintenance, fueling, and servicing; mail, passenger
and cargo processing facilities; communications and air traffic
control; crash rescue, firefighting, and airport maintenance).

    Airport Purpose: Uses of land that are directly related to the
actual operation or the foreseeable aeronautical development of a
public airport. These are situations where a primary aeronautical
facility has some non-aeronautical components that support that
facility's core aeronautical function within its operation. Examples of
this are:
    1. A terminal complex: All components of a terminal complex
(including the building, terminal concessions, terminal parking, and
roads) serve an airport purpose.
    2. A fixed base operator (FBO) facility that includes parking and
classrooms. All components serve an airport purpose.
    An aeronautical facility serving an airport purpose does not
include certain uses such as aircraft manufacturing plants and
warehouse distribution facilities, which are considered as mixed-use as
defined below.
    Non-Aeronautical Use: All other uses that are not considered
aeronautical. Non-aeronautical uses commonly occur on airports, but
these uses do not have the priority or protection of the grant
assurances. There is no federal requirement that obligated airport
sponsors accommodate non-aeronautical uses. This differentiation
between aeronautical and non-aeronautical is intended to protect the
Federal investment in aviation and ensure that non-aeronautical uses
cannot easily displace aeronautical uses and thereby diminish the
safety, efficiency, and utility of the airport.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FAA has provided guidance on the temporary non-aeronautical
use of a hangar in FAA's Hangar Use Policy, Policy on the Non-
Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars, 81 FR 38906, (June 15, 2016)
(www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-06-15/pdf/2016-14133.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of these include:
    1. Car rental facility (stand-alone). All components will be
considered a non-aeronautical use.
    2. Hotel and associated parking lot.
    3. Warehouse and distribution center.
    Mixed Uses--A mixed-use facility contains both aeronautical and
non-aeronautical uses, but the non-aeronautical use is significant and
could be located off airport property. Examples of mixed uses are:
    1. Mail distribution centers that are connected to an air cargo
operation.
    2. Cargo operations containing non-aeronautical elements such as
office building complexes, sorting facilities, long-term storage
(warehousing), freight forwarders and third-party logistics providers,
certain access infrastructure, or certain truck parking/trailer
facilities (stalls). Most of these are related to other transportation
modes or aspects of the cargo business, but not directly and
substantially to its ``aeronautical activity''.
    3. Aircraft manufacturing facility that includes final assembly,
but also significant non-aeronautical uses such as engineering
facilities, research and development facilities, parts manufacturing
and storage, employee parking, or office buildings.
    Federally acquired land--This is land that was acquired with
Federal funds, including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP),
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act, Federal Aid to Airports Program (FAAP),
Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), and as part of an AP-4
agreement.\7\ It also includes sponsor-acquired land that was used for
the sponsor match on a federally funded project or was swapped for land
purchased with federal funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In some instances, an AP-4 Agreement included a Federal land
purchase. The original agreement and funding should be reviewed to
confirm the source of the funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federally conveyed land--This is land conveyed to the sponsor by
the Federal government through a written deed of conveyance (also
called a patent) that contained specific restrictions or allowances for
the use of the land. It includes land transferred under:
    1. Surplus Property Act, codified in 49 U.S.C. 47151-47153,
including former military airports conveyed to local public entities
under 10 U.S.C. 2687 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
(BRAC) program or any other Federal laws; and,
    2. Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act of 1946, 119 Public Law
79-377, Section 23 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970,
Public Law 91-258, and Section 516 of the Airport and Airway
Development Act of 1982, codified in 49 U.S.C. 47125. These are
sometimes referred to as non-surplus property transfers.
    Release of Federal obligations--The formal, written authorization
discharging and relinquishing all or part of the FAA's right to enforce
an airport's contractual or deeded obligations. FAA's authority to
release, waive or amend an obligation is contained in 49 U.S.C.
47153(a) and 47107(h)(2).
    Letter of approval or consent--FAA's action on a proposed land use
change may be documented in the form of a letter of approval or a
letter of consent, depending upon the obligating deeds or documents and
the land at issue.\8\ The approval or consent should run concurrent
with the lease term. At the end of the non-aeronautical lease term, the
land reverts to the airport sponsor for aeronautical use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Surplus Property Act deeds often require the FAA's written
consent for a non-aeronautical use, so a letter of consent would be
appropriate. Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers,
requires prior written approval of the Secretary for the sell or
transfer of any property upon which Federal funds have been
expended, which would require a letter of approval. In both cases,
the letters serve the equivalent purpose of documenting the FAA's
action on the sponsor's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Policy and Request for Comments

    In accordance with the above, the FAA proposes to adopt the
following policy statement on processing land use changes on federally
acquired and federally conveyed land. The agency requests public
comments on the proposed policy statement. Comments can be submitted as
described in the ADDRESSES and DATES information in this notice.
Comments received by the due date will be considered in the development
of a final agency policy statement.

The FAA's Policy

    The FAA confirms and clarifies its prior policy and practice
regarding the implementation of its statutory responsibility to review
and approve or consent to, or deny, requests for land use changes on
federally acquired or federally conveyed land: \9\ (1) The FAA will
review the sponsor's proposal in its entirety without individually
examining components of the proposal as aeronautical or non-
aeronautical; (2) A letter of approval or consent is required for a
non-aeronautical use or mixed use and the approval or consent will
remain in effect only for duration of the lease term; \10\ (3) the
determination of whether the non-aeronautical use is significant will
be based on the primary use of the project; (4) FAA will only release
federal obligations when the airport sponsor proposes the sale or
conveyance of federally acquired or federally conveyed airport land
that meets FAA release requirements; \11\ and (5) FAA letters of
approval or consent and releases will be documented on the Exhibit A in
accordance with ARP SOP 3.00--FAA Review of Exhibit `A' Airport

Property Inventory Maps. FAA Order 5190.6, Airport Compliance Manual,
will be updated to reflect this policy guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This will also apply in situations where a land use change
impacts the safe and efficient operation of aircraft or safety of
people and property on the ground related to aircraft operations.
    \10\ This process will supersede the existing interim and
concurrent use process that was limited to 3-5 years; FAA Order
5190.6, Chapter 22 will be updated to reflect this revised process.
    \11\ Sponsors should follow the existing release process in 14
CFR part 155, Release of Airport Property from Surplus Property
Disposal Restrictions and FAA Order 5190.6, Chapter 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process for Evaluating Land Use Changes

    Uses of airport land will fall into one of four categories: (1)
Aeronautical use, (2) Airport Purpose, (3) Non-Aeronautical Use, or (4)
Mixed-Use.
    FAA must approve or consent to all non-aeronautical and mixed uses
of federally acquired and federally conveyed land. If the FAA
determines that the proposed use serves an aeronautical use or airport
purpose as defined above, then FAA approval or consent is not required.
The following explains the process when an airport sponsor requests a
change in land use on federally conveyed or federally acquired land:

1. What Sponsors Must Submit

    The sponsor's request needs to include the following:
    a. documentation on how the land was acquired (i.e., federal
conveyance documents, Federal grant agreements, Exhibit A, etc.);
    b. current and future aeronautical demand of the airport and the
land; and
    c. proposed non-aeronautical use, including the length of the
lease.

2. FAA's Evaluation of the Request

    FAA's determination of whether the non-aeronautical use is
significant, consistent with the term ``mixed uses'' in ``Explanation
of Terms'' in this document, will be made based on the primary use of
the project. The process involves a certain level of discretion by the
FAA and the airport sponsor. Major considerations in granting approval
or consent include:
    a. reasonableness and practicality of the sponsor's request,
    b. effect of the request on needed aeronautical facilities, and
    c. compatibility of the proposal with the needs of civil aviation.
(Note: The residential use of airport property is incompatible with the
needs of civil aviation, is prohibited by FAA policy, and is also
contrary to Federal obligations.)
    The distinctions may vary slightly depending on the circumstances
of the situation, such as intermodal functionality, proponent's
business model, project integrity, available airport land, project size
and location, airport planning priorities, and funding requirements and
restrictions. The proposal must benefit the airport and its functions
in support of aeronautical uses and not adversely affect the value of
the Federal investment in the airport and its facilities. 49 U.S.C.
47107(a)(16)(B), 49 U.S.C. 47125(a), and 49 U.S.C. 47152(1).
    The use should be compatible with the airport's current or future
aeronautical use or demand. FAA approval shall not be granted if the
FAA determines that an aeronautical demand for the land is likely to
exist within the period of the proposed use, or it compromises the
safety and operation of the airport. FAA consent to or approval of a
non-aeronautical use should only extend for duration of the lease term
and must provide that the land will be returned to aeronautical use at
the end of the term.

3. Documentation of FAA Decision

    Upon completion of the review, the FAA will either issue a letter
of approval or letter of consent for the non-aeronautical use or mixed-
use, or deny the request.
    The letter of approval or letter of consent must document the FAA's
approval of a non-aeronautical land use on federally acquired or
federally conveyed airport land. This letter will outline the
conditions of the approval or consent and include a requirement that
the land must be available for aeronautical use at the end of the
approval or consent period. Generally, the approval or consent will
remain for the duration of the lease agreement. The letter of approval
or letter of consent does not affect or negate the sponsor's federal
obligations.
    The requirement for NEPA should be coordinated with FAA
Environmental Protection Specialists.
    All land use changes should be shown on the Exhibit A in accordance
with ARP SOP 3.00--FAA Review of Exhibit `A' Airport Property Inventory
Maps. This includes depicting in a table format the type of use for a
facility, (e.g.: aeronautical, non-aeronautical, mixed-use), and the
approval and expiration dates.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on September 7, 2022.
Kevin C. Willis,
Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2022-19665 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 27164-27165]
[DOCID:fr14my07-69]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55723; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1
Thereto Relating to Rule 6.80 Governing Accommodation Transactions
(Cabinet Trades)

May 8, 2007.
    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 April 17, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On May 7, 2007, NYSE
Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 NYSE Arca Rule 6.80 governing
Accommodation Transactions, also referred to as Cabinet Trades. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE Arca, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nysearca.com.

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
    An ``accommodation'' or ``cabinet'' trade refers to trades in
listed options on the Exchange that may be considered worthless or
which are not actively traded. Exchange Rule 6.80, Accommodation
Transactions (Cabinet Trades), which sets forth specific procedures for
engaging in cabinet trades, currently (i) permits cabinet trades to
occur via open outcry at a cabinet price of $1 per option contract when
the class does not trade on the NYSE Arca automated electronic trading
system,\3\ and (ii) requires Market Makers and Floor Brokers who wish
to conduct a cabinet transactions to place their orders with a Trading
Official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cabinet orders were previously eligible for automated
electronic trading on the PCX Plus system. NYSE Arca decommissioned
the PCX Plus electronic trading system during the fourth quarter of
2006 and replaced it with the OX electronic trading system. As a
result, the Exchange proposes to delete the name ``PCX Plus'' from
the text of Rule 6.80. At this time no issues have been designated
for cabinet trading on OX or any other Exchange sponsored electronic
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary purpose of this rule change is to amend Exchange Rule
6.80 to authorize Floor Brokers and Market Makers to initiate cabinet
trades. Under the existing procedures, Market Makers and Floor Brokers
are only permitted to (i) place cabinet orders with a Trading Official
and (ii) respond at a cabinet price to a request for a quote from a
Trading Official. Pursuant to the proposed amendment, Market Makers and
Floor Brokers will also be permitted to initiate a cabinet trade in the
trading crowd on their own, without the need to first place the order
with a Trading Official. This will save the additional time and process
involved in a Market Maker or Floor Broker needing to first place a
cabinet order that they are initiating, with a Trading Official, who
would then in turn represent and execute the order on behalf of the
Market Maker or Floor Broker. Permitting Market Makers and Floor
Brokers to initiate cabinet orders and trades on their own accord will
provide Market Makers and Floor Brokers with additional flexibility and
will facilitate the fair, orderly and efficient handling of cabinet
transactions on the Exchange. Permitting Market Makers and Floor
Brokers to represent cabinet orders is

similar to and consistent with Rule 6.54 of the Chicago Board Option
Exchange.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53808 (May 16,
2006), 71 FR 29371 (May 22, 2006) (File no. SR-CBOE-2006-33)
(permitting Floor Brokers to represent cabinet orders); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55081 (January 10, 2007), 72 FR 2317
(January 18, 2007) (File no. SR-CBOE-2007-02) (permitting Market
Makers to represent cabinet orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second purpose of this rule change is to make clear that Floor
Brokers and Market Makers who enter into either opening or closing
cabinet transactions may do so as long as they first yield priority to
all corresponding orders in the cabinet book. Rule 6.80 currently
provides that all bids and offers for cabinet transactions, both
opening and closing, must be placed with a Trading Official, and that
opening orders must yield to closing orders in the cabinet. The
Exchange now proposes that both opening and closing transactions may be
represented by Floor Brokers and Market Makers, so long as they first
yield priority to all corresponding orders in the cabinet.
    The Exchange also proposes to include a provision in Rule 6.80
stating that the rules governing cabinet trading do not apply to issues
that trade as part of the Penny Pilot program. Although cabinet trades
involve orders priced at $1 per option contract, the specific terms and
conditions for cabinet trading are not applicable to option classes
participating in the Penny Pilot.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change (i) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which
it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). Rule 19b-4(f)(6) (iii) requires
the Exchange to give written notice to the Commission of its intent
to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior
to filing. The Exchange complied with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-38. 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 Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
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-NYSEArca-2007-38 and should be submitted on or before
June 4, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9195 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59213-59216]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344; FRL-8484-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Mercer County Portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base
Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the
Mercer County portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (``Youngstown Area'' or ``Area'') be
redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). The Area is comprised of Mercer County, Pennsylvania
and Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. EPA is approving
the ozone redesignation request for Mercer County. In a separate
rulemaking action (72 FR 32190, June 12, 2007) EPA approved the ozone
redesignation request for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties,
Ohio. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Mercer County that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for
Mercer County which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the
adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
that are identified in the Mercer County maintenance plan for purposes
of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is
approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and the
2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on November 19,
2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic

docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41246), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for Mercer County that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007. Other
specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request SIP
revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA's proposed
actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPR.
    However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for
rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related
to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of
Title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
attainment dates and

the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the
Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard
in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under
the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment
area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS.
    In addition the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's
reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was
limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is
already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
    In its proposal, EPA proposed to find that the area had satisfied
the requirements under the 1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard
was deemed to be reinstated or whether the Court's decision on the
petition for rehearing were modified to require something less than
compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements. Because EPA
proposed to find that the area satisfied the requirements under either
scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation and to
conclude that the area met the requirements under the 1-hour standard
applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard.
These include the provisions of EPA's anti-backsliding rules, as well
as the additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court
in its rulings. In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its
vacatur so as to uphold those provisions of the anti-backsliding
requirements that were not successfully challenged. Therefore, EPA
finds that the area has met the anti-backsliding requirements, see 40
CFR 51.900 et seq.; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005) which apply by
virtue of the area's classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well
as the four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the
Court, or that such requirements are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, with respect to the requirement for
transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its
June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-
backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-
hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity
regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. The court clarified that 1-hour
conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding
purposes.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on
March 27, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the
redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that Mercer
County has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of
this redesignation request will change the designation of Mercer County
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for Mercer County submitted on March 27,
2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the
MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request.
In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory
submitted by PADEP on March 27, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in Mercer County for the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes.\1\
As a result of our finding, Mercer County must use the MVEBs from the
submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA found the MVEBs for Trumbull, Mahoning, and Columbiana
Counties, Ohio adequate in a Notice of Adequacy on April 18, 2007
(72 FR 19491).

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer
                               Day (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Budget year                         VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................................      4.2     11.2
2018..................................................      2.6      4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercer County is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not

have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
    This action, approving the redesignation of Mercer County to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

    Dated: October 10, 2007.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry to the end of the table to read as follows:

 52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA  approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and  Mercer County......        03/27/07  10/19/07 [Insert
 2002 Base Year Emissions                                                page number where
 Inventory.                                                              the document
                                                                         begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Youngstown-Warren-
Sharon, OH-PA: Mercer County to read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                                          Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Designationa                                           Category/Classification
        Designated Area         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                        Type                        Date \1\                        Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA
 Area:
    Mercer County..............  11/19/07                       Attainment

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E7-20567 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8008]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2879-012]

Green Mountain Power; Notice of Meeting

    a. Project Name and Number: Bolton Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
2879-012.
    b. Applicant: Green Mountain Power (GMP).
    c. Date and Time of Meeting: February 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EST.
    d. FERC Contact: Michael Tust,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    e. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will hold a teleconference
with staff from GMP and the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office
to discuss the status of pending revisions to GMP's Historic Properties
Management Plan and a projected schedule for finalizing and signing a
Programmatic Agreement.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to attend the meeting. Please call or
email Michael Tust at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected] by
February 18, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. EST, to RSVP and to receive specific
instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02954 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29699]
[DOCID:fr23my06-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53811; File No. SR-NSCC-2005-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Modify Its Rules
and Procedures Related to the Collection of Commission Payments

May 16, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On December 29, 2005, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') and on February 3, 2006, amended proposed rule change
SR-NSCC-2005-17 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published in the
Federal Register on March 13, 2006.\2\ No comment letters were
received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53424 (March 6, 2006),
71 FR 12759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    As part of ongoing efforts to increase processing efficiencies,
NSCC is modifying its Rule 16, ``Settlement of Commissions,'' to
further standardize and automate the processing of commission bill
payments.
    In 2001, NSCC modified Rule 16 to implement the use of Automated
Clearing House (``ACH'') wire transfers when making payments to non-
clearing members utilizing NSCC's Commission Bill Service. As a part of
NSCC's move to payment of credits by ACH wire transfer, all non-
clearing members were required to execute appropriate ACH documentation
in order to receive their credit payments.\3\ While NSCC automated the
payment of funds from NSCC to non-clearing members, the collection of
monies owed to NSCC by non-clearing members was not automated. Non-
clearing members continued to pay commission bill settlement funds to
NSCC by checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44550 (July 12, 2001),
66 FR 37509 (July 18, 2001) [File No. SR-NSCC-2001-08].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC is now further modifying Rule 16 to require the use of ACH
preauthorized payments in the collection of funds from those non-
clearing members that are indebted to NSCC as a result of their
utilization of the Commission Bill Service. Accordingly, at the time as
determined and announced to users of the Commission Bill Service by
NSCC, NSCC will debit the bank account designated by each non-clearing
member an amount equal to the amount owed by the non-clearing member to
NSCC.\4\ All non-clearing members will be required to execute
appropriate ACH documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, commission bill settlement takes place on the
15th day of each month or on the next preceding business day if the
15th is not a business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above change, NSCC is also making a technical
correction to Rule 16(3) to conform the Rule to practice. NSCC will
eliminate text that provides that non-clearing members must deliver
information to NSCC on the 10th day of each month. NSCC is eliminating
this text because this practice has been discontinued.

Implementation

    NSCC will work with New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') and American
Stock Exchange (``AMEX'') staff to obtain new ACH documentation from
all non-clearing members that currently utilize the Commission Bill
Service. Within two weeks of approval by the SEC of this rule filing,
NSCC will begin implementing the ACH debit process on a rolling-basis.
NSCC anticipates that collection of funds by check from non-clearing
members to NSCC will be discontinued in its entirety by the end of the
second quarter of 2006.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a national system for prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\5\ By requiring
electronic payment of funds from non-clearing members utilizing its
Commission Bill Service, NSCC should reduce processing errors and
delays that are typically associated with the manual processing of
checks. As such, the proposed rule change is consistent with NSCC's
statutory obligation to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a national system for prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2005-17) be and
hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7798 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54126-54128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0838; Project Identifier AD-2020-01590-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honda Aircraft Company, LLC 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 Honda Aircraft Company, LLC (Honda) Model HA-420 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of in-flight smoke and fire
that initiated from the windshield heat power wire braid. This proposed
AD would require incorporating temporary revisions into the airplane
flight manual (AFM) and the quick reference handbook (QRH) that modify
procedures for windshield heat operation until the affected windshield
assemblies are replaced. The FAA proposes this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
15, 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 proposed rule, contact
Honda Aircraft Company, LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, NC 27410;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://www.hondajet.com. 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 (816)
329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0838; 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, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Long, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2021-0838; Project Identifier
AD-2020-01590-A'' 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 Bryan Long, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA received a report of inflight smoke and fire that initiated
from the windshield heat power wire braid on a Honda Model HA-420
airplane. An investigation identified that certain Honda Model HA-420
airplanes could have a severed windshield heat power wire braid from
installation of the windshield heat wiring during manufacture. The
severed windshield heat power wire braid could cause arcing that
ignites the wire sheathing and sealant and the windshield acrylic. This
condition, if not addressed, could lead to cockpit smoke and fire.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following temporary revisions.
     Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated
March 4, 2020, for Airplane Flight Manual HJI-29001-003-001 Rev C.
     HondaJet Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated March 4, 2020,
for Quick Reference Handbook HJ1-29000-007-001 Rev C.
     Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated
March 4, 2020, for Airplane Flight Manual HJ1-29001-003-001 Rev E.
     HondaJet Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated March 4, 2020,
for Quick Reference Handbook Normal Procedures Rev E, HJ1-29001-007-
001.
    These temporary revisions provide modified procedures for
windshield heat operation to reduce exposure to potential windshield
heat for the applicable serial numbers specified on the documents.
    The FAA also reviewed Honda Service Bulletin SB-420-56-002,
Revision B, dated April 19, 2021 (Honda SB-420-002B). The service
bulletin specifies identifying and replacing affected windshield
assemblies. The service bulletin also specifies removing the temporary
revisions to the AFM, QRH, and electronic checklist (ECL) after the
affected windshield assemblies have been replaced.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require incorporating the temporary
revisions to the AFM and QRH that modify procedures for windshield heat
operations until the affected windshield assemblies are replaced. This
proposal would allow the owner/operator (pilot) to revise the AFM and
QRH. These revisions are not considered maintenance actions and may be
done by a pilot holding at least a private pilot certificate. These
actions must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records to show
compliance with this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    Honda issued temporary revisions to the AFM, QRH, and ECL prior to
issuing Honda SB-420-002B, which specifies replacement of the
windshield assemblies. Honda SB-420-002B does not specify incorporating
the temporary revisions to the AFM, QRH, and ECL but addresses removal
if the temporary revisions were incorporated. The proposed AD would not
require incorporating or removing the temporary revisions to the ECL
because the ECL is not part of the approved type design of the
airplane. All pertinent requirements would be addressed through the
AFM.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are 475 affected
windshield assemblies worldwide, and the FAA has no way of knowing the
number of affected windshield assemblies installed on U.S. airplanes.
The estimated cost on U.S. operators reflects the maximum possible cost
based on the 156 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost             Parts cost             product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert revised procedures in the   1 work-hour x $85    Not applicable..........             $85         $13,260
 AFM and QRH.                       per hour = $85.
* Windshield assembly replacement  154 work-hours x     $153,286................         166,376      25,954,656
 (both left and right assemblies).  $85 per hour =
                                    $13,090.
Remove revised procedures from     1 work-hour x $85    Not applicable..........              85          13,260
 the AFM and QRH.                   per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* On most airplanes, both the left and right windshield assemblies have a serial number affected by the unsafe
  condition, and the above costs represents replacement of both the left and right windshield assemblies.
  However, some airplanes may only have one affected windshield assembly and not require replacement of both.

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 proposing 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:

Honda Aircraft Company LLC: Docket No. FAA-2021-0838; Project
Identifier AD-2020-01590-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 15, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honda Aircraft Company LLC Model HA-420
airplanes, serial numbers 42000011 through 42000179, 42000182, and
42000187, certificated in any category, with a windshield assembly
installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 5
of the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda Aircraft Company Alert
Service Bulletin No. SB-420-56-002, Revision B, dated April 19, 2021
(Honda SB-420-56-002, Revision B).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3040, Windshield/
Door Rain/Ice Removal.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of in-flight smoke and fire
that initiated from the windshield heat power wire braid. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent arcing of the windshield heat power wire
braid, which could ignite the wire sheathing and sealant and the
windshield acrylic. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to
cockpit smoke and fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Temporary Revisions to the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFMs) and Quick
Reference Handbooks (QRHs)

    (1) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the existing AFM and QRH for your airplane by inserting the pages
identified in the applicable temporary revisions listed in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this AD.
    (i) Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated
March 4, 2020, for Airplane Flight Manual HJI-29001-003-001 Rev C.
    (ii) HondaJet Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated March 4, 2020,
for Quick Reference Handbook HJ1-29000-007-001 Rev C.
    (iii) Honda Aircraft Company Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated
March 4, 2020, for Airplane Flight Manual HJ1-29001-003-001 Rev E.
    (iv) HondaJet Temporary Revision TR 04A-1, dated March 4, 2020,
for Quick Reference Handbook Normal Procedures Rev E, HJ1-29001-007-
001.
    (2) The actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be
performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private
pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records
showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)
through (4), and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be
maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(h) Windshield Assembly Replacement

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, for each
windshield assembly with a part number and serial number listed in
table 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda SB-420-56-002,
Revision B, replace the windshield assembly in accordance with step
(2) or (3) of the Accomplishment Instructions in Honda SB-420-56-
002, Revision B.

(i) Removal of Revisions to the AFMs and QRHs

    Before further flight after replacing the windshield assemblies
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, remove the AFM and QRH pages
that were required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO 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
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (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.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as ``Required for Compliance'' (RC), the following provisions apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled 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 RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bryan Long,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404)
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honda
Aircraft Company LLC, 6430 Ballinger Road, Greensboro, NC 27410;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://www.hondajet.com. You may
view 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 September 23, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-21104 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P