[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72808-72809]
[DOCID:fr07de05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-108-000]

Enbridge Pipelines (KPC); Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

November 29, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 23, 2005, Enbridge Pipelines (KPC)

tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 31C, to become effective on
December 23, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6950 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22242-22243]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09065]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74729; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing
and Trading of Shares of the SPDR SSgA Global Managed Volatility ETF
Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600

April 15, 2015.
    On September 5, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares (``Shares'') of the SPDR SSgA Global Managed Volatility ETF
(``Fund'') under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the
listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 24,
2014.\3\ On November 4, 2014, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On December 22, 2014, the Commission
instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission solicited
responses to specified matters related to the proposal.\8\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. The
Exchange subsequently filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
on January 20, 2015.\9\ On March 20, 2015, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\10\ the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\11\ On April 7, 2015, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\12\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons on
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73141 (Sept. 18,
2014), 79 FR 57161 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73515, 79 FR 66758
(Nov. 10, 2014). The Commission designated a longer period within
which to take action on the proposed rule change and designated
December 23, 2014, as the date by which it should approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73914, 79 FR 78524
(Dec. 30, 2014) (``Order Instituting Proceedings''). Specifically,
the Commission instituted proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' See id., 79 FR at 78530.
    \8\ See id. (soliciting public comment on the statements of the
Exchange contained in the Notice, including the statements made in
connection with information sharing procedures with respect to
certain non-U.S. equity security holdings and the Exchange's
arguments regarding the applicability of the definition of
``Actively-Traded Securities'' under Regulation M (``Reg M'')).
    \9\ The text of Amendment No. 1, which amends and replaces the
proposed rule change in its entirety, is available on the Exchange's
Web site, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room. The text of Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's Web
site. See Letter from Martha Redding, Senior Counsel and Assistant
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy
Secretary, Commission (Jan. 22, 2015), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2014-100/nysearca2014100-1.pdf.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74559, 80 FR 16047
(Mar. 26, 2015). The Commission designated a longer period within
which to take action on the proposed rule change and designated May
7, 2015 as the date by which it should determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change. See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 74559A (Apr. 13, 2015) (correcting the date by which
the Commission must take action on proceedings to determine whether
to disapprove the proposed rule change to May 22, 2015).
    \12\ See Amendment No. 2, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2014-100/nysearca2014100-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change

    As noted above, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change on January 20, 2015. Amendment No. 1 replaced the original
proposed rule change in its entirety, but made only certain, specific
changes to the proposed rule change as published in the Notice. The
changes effected by Amendment No. 1 are described below.
    First, Amendment No. 1 deletes the statement in the original filing
that the exchange-listed and traded equity securities in which the Fund
would be permitted to invest would be limited to: (1) Equity securities
that trade in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance
Group (``ISG'') or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement (``CSSA'') with the Exchange; or (2) ``Actively-Traded
Securities,'' as defined in Reg M under the Act that are traded on U.S.
and non-U.S. exchanges with last sale reporting.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Amendment No. 1 replaces the deleted language described
above with the requirement that the Fund's non-U.S. equity securities
holdings would be subject to quantitative criteria that are
substantially identical to the ``generic'' listing criteria in NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(B), relating to an
index or portfolio of U.S. and non-U.S. stocks underlying a series of
Investment Company Units. Specifically, the Exchange states that, under
normal circumstances, the non-U.S. equity securities in the Fund's
portfolio would be required to meet the following criteria at time of
purchase: (1) Non-U.S. equity securities each shall have a minimum
market value of at least $100 million; (2) non-U.S. equity securities
each shall have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 250,000
shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of
$25,000,000, averaged over the last six months; (3) the most heavily
weighted non-U.S. equity security shall not exceed 25% of the weight of
the Fund's entire portfolio, and, to the extent applicable, the five
most heavily weighted non-U.S. equity securities shall not exceed 60%
of the weight of the Fund's entire portfolio; and (4) each non-U.S.
equity security shall be listed and traded on an exchange that has
last-sale reporting.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Amendment No. 1 clarifies that the Fund's non-U.S. equity
securities holdings would be common stocks and preferred securities of
foreign corporations; non-U.S. exchange-traded real estate investment
trusts; and ``Depositary Receipts'' (excluding Depositary Receipts that
are registered under the Act).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 7. According to the Exchange, Depositary Receipts
are defined to include investments in common stock of foreign
corporations in the form of American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''),
Global Depositary Receipts (``GDRs''), and European Depositary
Receipts (``EDRs''). Depositary Receipts are receipts, typically
issued by a bank or trust company, which evidence ownership of
underlying securities issued by a foreign corporation. For ADRs, the
depository is typically a U.S. financial institution and the
underlying securities are issued by a foreign issuer. For other
Depositary Receipts, the depository may be a foreign or a U.S.
entity, and the underlying securities may have a foreign or a U.S.
issuer. Depositary Receipts will not necessarily be denominated in
the same currency as their underlying securities. Generally, ADRs,
in registered form, are designed for use in the U.S. securities
market, and EDRs, in bearer form, are designated for use in European
securities markets. GDRs are tradable both in the United States and
in Europe and are designed for use throughout the world. The Fund's
portfolio may invest in unsponsored Depositary Receipts. The issuers
of unsponsored Depositary Receipts are not obligated to disclose
material information in the United States, and, therefore, there may
be less information available regarding such issuers and there may
not be a correlation between such information and the market value
of the Depositary Receipts. Unsponsored Depositary Receipts will not
exceed 10% of the Fund's net assets. See Notice, supra note 3, at
57162, n.10.

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

    Finally, Amendment No. 1 deletes the section in the Notice titled
``Information Sharing Procedures,'' in which the Exchange stated that
its ability to monitor trading in the Fund would not be affected by the
listing and trading of Actively-Traded Securities on non-ISG-member
markets, or by the absence of CSSAs with markets on which ``Actively-
Traded Securities'' are listed or traded.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 57167-57169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all other material respects, the proposed rule change as set
forth in Amendment No. 1 is otherwise identical to the original
proposed rule change set forth in the Notice.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Amendment 2 to the Proposed Rule Change

    As noted above, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed
rule change on April 7, 2015. The specific changes effected by
Amendment No. 2 are described below.
    First, Amendment No. 2 adds a statement to the proposed rule change
requiring, under normal circumstances, the Portfolio \18\ to include a
minimum of 20 exchange-listed and -traded equity securities. Second,
Amendment No. 2 (a) deletes the statement in the original filing that
pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund or
Portfolio will invest will generally be available through nationally
recognized data service providers through subscription arrangements,
and (b) replaces the deleted language described in (a) above with a
statement clarifying that pricing information regarding each asset
class in which the Fund or Portfolio will invest, including Rule 144A
securities, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, and
securities of investment companies (other than ETFs registered under
the 1940 Act), will generally be available through nationally
recognized data service providers through subscription arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The ``Portfolio'' is defined as SSgA Global Managed
Volatility Portfolio, a separate series of the SSgA Master Trust
with an identical investment objective as the Fund. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 57162. In general, the Portfolio (i.e., the master
fund) will be where investments will be held, which investments will
primarily consist of equity securities, and may, to a lesser extent,
include other investments as described under ``Non-Principal
Investment Policies.'' The Fund (i.e., the feeder fund) will invest
in shares of the Portfolio and will not invest in investments
described under ``Non-Principal Investment Policies,'' but may be
exposed to such investments by means of the Fund's investment in
shares of the Portfolio. In extraordinary instances, the Fund
reserves the right to make direct investments in equity securities
and other investments. See Notice, supra note 3, at id., n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information regarding the Trust, Fund, Portfolio, and
the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and
redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies,
trading halts, dissemination and availability of information,
distributions, and taxes can be found in Amendment No.1 to the proposed
rule change and the Registration Statement, as applicable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 9; see also Notice, supra note 3, at 57161
n.6 (referring to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A relating
to the Fund (File Nos. 333-173276 and 811-22542)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the filing, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-100. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-2014-100 and should
be submitted on or before May 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09065 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 45008]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18599]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Friday, July 31,
2015, at 1 p.m., in the Auditorium (L-002) at the Commission's
headquarters building, to hear oral argument in an appeal by the
Respondents Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (``RJLC'') and Raymond J.
Lucia, Sr. (``Lucia''), and a cross-appeal by the Division of
Enforcement, from an initial decision of an administrative law judge.
    On December 6, 2013, the law judge found that RJLC violated
Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 by misleading prospective clients about its Buckets of Money
retirement wealth management strategy, and that Lucia aided and abetted
and caused RJLC's violations. For these violations, the law judge
barred Lucia from associating with an investment adviser, broker, or
dealer; revoked RJLC's and Lucia's investment adviser registrations;
ordered RJLC and Lucia to cease and desist from further violations of
the Advisers Act; and imposed civil penalties of $250,000 on RJLC and
$50,000 on Lucia. The law judge also found that RJLC did not violate,
and Lucia did not aid and abet and cause a violation of, Advisers Act
Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) concerning fraudulent advertisements by investment
advisers.
    The Respondents appealed the law judge's findings of violation and
the sanctions imposed, and the Division cross-appealed the law judge's
Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) findings. The issues likely to be considered at
oral argument include, among other things, whether Respondents violated
the antifraud provisions as alleged and, if so, the extent to which
they should be sanctioned for those violations.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: July 24, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18599 Filed 7-24-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30274-30278]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL12-1-000]

 The Commission's Role Regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; Policy Statement on the
Commission's Role Regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

    1. The Commission issues this Policy Statement to explain how it
will provide advice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for it
to rule on requests for Administrative Orders (AO) to operate in
noncompliance with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).\1\ As
noted below, this Policy Statement does not represent the entirety of
the Commission's efforts to monitor the impact of EPA regulations
generally on bulk-power system reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and
Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility,
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    2. On December 21, 2011, the EPA released the MATS final rule
pursuant to its authority under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).\2\ The MATS final rule limits mercury, acid gases and other
toxic emissions from power plants. Pursuant to Section 112(i)(3)(A) of
the CAA, affected sources are required to comply within three years of
the MATS effective date. Pursuant to CAA Section 112(i)(3)(B), some
affected sources are eligible for a one-year extension (i.e. for a
total of four years).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(A) (2006).
    \3\ See id. Sec.  7412(i)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
released a policy memorandum (EPA Policy Memorandum) dated December 16,
2011 describing its intended approach regarding the use of CAA Section
113(a) AOs with respect to sources that must operate in noncompliance
with the MATS for up to a year to address a specific and documented
reliability concern (i.e. for a total of five years).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Environmental Protection Agency's Enforcement Response
Policy For Use Of Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Administrative Orders
In Relation To Electric Reliability And The Mercury and Air Toxics
Standard (Dec. 16, 2011), http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/erp/mats-erp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On January 30, 2012, Commission staff issued a White Paper
seeking comment concerning staff's position on how the Commission
should advise the EPA on requests for extension of time to comply with
EPA's MATS. The Commission has considered all comments received in the
formulation of this Policy Statement, which is limited in scope to how
the Commission will handle an AO filing under CAA Section 113(a) for
noncompliance with the MATS. This Policy Statement does not address the
entirety of the Commission's efforts to monitor the impact of EPA
regulations generally on bulk-power system reliability.

II. Background

A. Compliance With EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

    5. Under Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA, affected sources must be
compliant with MATS within three years, with an extension of up to one
year available in certain cases.\5\ In addition to the up to four-year
compliance period contemplated in Section 112(i)(3), the EPA Policy
Memorandum describes a process by which certain affected sources can
obtain an AO to operate in noncompliance for an additional year
pursuant to Section 113(a) of the CAA. Specifically, the EPA Policy
Memorandum contemplates that the EPA will receive AO requests: (1)
Concerning electric generating units (EGUs) that may affect reliability
due to deactivation; and (2) concerning EGUs

that may affect reliability due to delays related to the installation
of controls.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA Policy Memorandum refers to the date by which
affected sources must comply under Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA
(which includes the possible one-year extension under Section
112(i)(3)(B)) as the ``MATS Compliance Date.''
    \6\ EPA Policy Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The EPA Policy Memorandum states that an AO cannot be issued
under Section 113(a) prior to the MATS Compliance Date in Section
112(i)(3).\7\ However, provided an owner/operator has timely submitted
a complete request and provided appropriate cooperation, the EPA
expects to give an owner/operator ``as much advance written notice as
practicable of the [EPA's] plans with regard to such an AO.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 5.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The EPA Policy Memorandum states that in evaluating a request
for an AO, the EPA will seek advice, on a case-by-case basis, from the
Commission and/or other entities with relevant reliability
expertise.\9\ However, the EPA's issuance of an AO is not conditioned
upon the approval or concurrence of the Commission or any other entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The EPA Policy Memorandum states that ``in light of the
complexity of the electric system and the local nature of many
reliability issues, the EPA will, for purposes of using its Section
113(a) AO authority in this context, rely for identification and/or
analysis of reliability risks upon the advice and counsel of
reliability experts, including, but not limited to, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (`FERC'), Regional Transmission
Operators (`RTOs'), Independent System Operators (`ISOs') and other
Planning Authorities as identified herein, the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (`NERC') and affiliated regional
entities, and state public service commissions (`PSCs') and public
utility commissions (`PUCs'). The EPA will work with these and other
organizations, as appropriate, to ensure that any claims of
reliability risks are properly characterized and evaluated.'' EPA
Policy Memorandum at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. General Requirements for AO Requests
    8. The EPA Policy Memorandum provides that within one year after
the MATS effective date, an owner/operator should submit written notice
of its compliance plans (Notice of Compliance Plans) with regard to
each EGU it owns or operates to the planning authority for the area in
which the relevant EGU is located. According to the EPA, the Notice of
Compliance Plans should identify: (1) The units the owner/operator
plans to deactivate and the anticipated dates of deactivation; and (2)
the units for which it intends to install pollution control equipment
or otherwise retrofit and the anticipated schedule for completion of
that work.
    9. The EPA Policy Memorandum states that an owner/operator should,
generally no less than 180 days prior to the MATS Compliance Date,\10\
submit a written request to the EPA \11\ for an enforceable compliance
schedule in an AO for the unit. An owner/operator should submit the
following information for all AO requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA Policy Memorandum also has provisions for an owner/
operator to, in certain circumstances, provide less notice to the
EPA and the Commission.
    \11\ This request is to be submitted electronically to the
Director of the Air Enforcement Division in the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Regional Administrator
of the EPA region in which the EGU is located, with a copy to the
Commission. At the same time, an owner/operator should provide
notice that it is seeking an AO to: (1) The planning authority, (2)
any state public utility commissions or public service commissions
with regulatory jurisdiction with regard to the relevant EGU, and
(3) any state, tribal or local environmental agency with permitting
authority under Titles I and V of the CAA, and any tribal
environmental agency that does not have such authority, with
jurisdiction over the area in which the EGU is located
(collectively, ``AO Notice Recipients'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Copies of the Notice of Compliance Plans provided to the
planning authority or an explanation why it was not practicable to have
provided such notice and a demonstration that such notice was provided
as soon as it was practicable;
    (2) Written analysis of the reliability risk if the EGU were not in
operation, which demonstrates that operation of the unit after the MATS
Compliance Date is critical to maintaining electric reliability, and
that failure to operate the unit would: (a) Result in the violation of
at least one of the reliability criteria required to be filed with the
Commission, and, in the case of the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas, with the Texas Public Utility Commission; or (b) cause reserves
to fall below the required system reserve margin;
    (3) Written concurrence with the reliability risk analysis, or a
separate and equivalent analysis, by the planning authority for the
area in which the relevant EGU(s) are located, or, in the alternative,
a written explanation of why such concurrence or separate and
equivalent analysis cannot be provided, and, where practicable, any
related system wide analysis by such entity;
    (4) Copies of any written comments from third parties directed to,
and received by, the owner/operator in favor of, or opposed to,
operation of the unit after the MATS Compliance Date;
    (5) A plan to achieve compliance with the MATS no later than one
year after the MATS Compliance Date, and, where practicable, a written
demonstration of the plan to resolve the underlying reliability problem
and the steps and timeframe for implementing it, which demonstrates
that such resolution cannot be effected on or before the MATS
Compliance Date; and
    (6) Identification of the level of operation of the EGU that is
required to avoid the documented reliability risk and, consistent with
that level, a proposal for operational limits and/or work practices to
minimize or mitigate any hazardous air pollutant emissions to the
extent practicable during any operation not in full compliance with the
MATS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA Policy Memorandum at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Specific Requirements for AO Requests
    10. As stated above, the EPA Policy Memorandum states that the
owner/operator of an EGU that wants to obtain an AO must, no less than
180 days prior to the MATS Compliance Date, submit electronically a
written request for an enforceable compliance schedule. To request an
AO for any EGU that is required to run for reliability purposes that,
due to factors beyond the control of the owner/operator, have delays in
installation of controls or need to operate because another EGU has had
such a delay, the EPA Policy Memorandum states that an owner/operator
should: (1) Within a reasonable time of learning of a delay that it
believes may result in an EGU being unable to comply by the MATS
Compliance Date, provide to the planning authority for the area in
which the relevant EGU(s) are located, written notice of the EGU(s)
impacted by the delay, the cause of the delay, an estimate of the
length of time of the delay, and the timeframe during which the owner/
operator contemplates operation in non-compliance with the MATS; (2)
within a reasonable time of learning that it is critical to reliability
to operate the identified EGU(s) in non-compliance with the MATS after
the MATS Compliance Date, submit electronically to the AO Request
Recipients a written request for an enforceable compliance schedule in
an AO for the EGU(s), which includes information responsive to as many
of the general requirements discussed above as it is possible to
provide at that time; and (3) at the same time the owner/operator
submits its request for an AO, provide notice that it is seeking such
an AO to the AO Notice Recipients.

B. Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    11. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires a
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which provide for the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, subject to Commission
review

and approval.\13\ On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No.
672 to implement the requirements of section 215 of the FPA governing
electric reliability.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \14\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Policy for Advice to the EPA Under the EPA's Policy
Memorandum

    12. The EPA Policy Memorandum indicates that the EPA intends to
seek advice, as necessary and on a case-by-case basis from the
Commission, among others, as the EPA decides whether it will grant an
AO to an owner/operator. The EPA Policy Memorandum makes clear that the
EPA decision as to whether to grant an AO to an owner/operator is
solely the decision of the EPA and that the concurrence or approval of
any entity is not a condition for approval or denial of an AO
request.\15\ The Commission believes that it is important to provide as
much guidance to industry as possible as to how the Commission intends
to provide advice to the EPA on any AO request. In developing this
process, the Commission considered how to provide a fair and
transparent process for communicating the Commission's expertise on
reliability issues, while respecting that the EPA will seek the
Commission's advice in a timely manner so that EPA can decide whether
to grant certain AOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA Policy Memorandum at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Commission Process for Advising the EPA Under the EPA's Policy
Memorandum

Submittal of Information to the Commission
    13. The EPA Policy Memorandum explains that when an owner/operator
submits an AO request: (1) for EGUs that may affect reliability due to
deactivation; and (2) for EGUs that may affect reliability due to
delays related to the installation of controls, the owner/operator must
provide a copy of the request to the Commission. This AO request must
include an owner/operator's ``written analysis of the reliability risk
if the unit were not in operation, which demonstrates that operation of
the unit after the MATS Compliance Date is critical to maintaining
electric reliability, and that failure to operate the unit would * * *
result in the violation of at least one of the reliability criteria
required to be filed with [the Commission] * * *.'' \16\ In addition,
the AO request will include the Planning Authority's written
concurrence with the owner/operator's analysis, or a written
explanation of why the Planning Authority's concurrence cannot be
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. As an initial matter, each AO request should be filed with the
Commission. The Commission will treat any AO request filed with the
Commission as an informational filing. The Commission will assign each
informational filing a separate Administrative Docket (AD) number. The
Commission's Office of Electric Reliability will be designated as the
lead office tasked with processing an owner/operator's informational
filing.
    15. Each informational filing should include the same information
that the owner/operator submitted to the EPA pursuant to the EPA Policy
Memorandum. While the Commission does not propose mandating that
Planning Authorities undertake specific types of analyses, the
Commission identifies below certain types of information that are
already available today and that the Commission commonly reviews when
examining potential violations of Reliability Standards.\17\ Including
this information as part of the materials an owner/operator submits to
the EPA, and therefore to the Commission, would aid in the Commission's
review of the informational filing. It is essential that the Commission
receive enough information to review the claims made by a requesting
owner/operator so that the Commission can provide timely comments to
the EPA. These types of information include, but are not limited to,
system planning and operations studies, system restoration studies or
plans, operating procedures, and mitigation plans required by the
Reliability Standards.\18\ By suggesting what information would aid the
Commission in its review, the Commission is not requiring any specific
analysis be done or indicating that this information must be submitted
or what the EPA should consider, but rather what the Commission would
find informative when reviewing potential violations of Reliability
Standards.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission does not believe it is necessary to identify
specific factors that each planning authority must take into account
in assessing system reliability outside of the NERC planning
standards. The existing processes used by the Planning Authorities
to conduct reliability assessments, which are based on the NERC
planning standards and performed under NERC's oversight, appear to
be sufficient. We encourage NERC to continue to work closely with
the Planning Authorities to ensure that these existing processes
adequately assess system reliability in the specific circumstances
presented by compliance with EPA regulations. In addition,
Commission staff is available to Planning Authorities and
participants in these processes for consultation on these matters.
Also, we expect Commission staff to monitor these processes through
periodic outreach to Planning Authorities.
    \18\ The Commission reviews power flow, dynamic, or other
simulation results that support the Reliability Standards as well as
the modeling assumptions used in these simulations. Modeling
assumptions may include factors such as the base case used, demand
levels, modifications made to the base case, system transfers
modeled, scheduled outages modeled, and contingencies tested.
    \19\ We understand that these types of information are readily
available today so that their submission should not impose a burden
on the owner/operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The Commission generally anticipates it would not have to seek
additional information. The Commission is concerned that seeking
additional information from an owner/operator of an EGU could delay or
prevent the Commission from issuing timely comments to the EPA.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ However, the Commission reserves the right to seek
additional information regarding a filing when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Scope and Standard of Review for Informational Filings

    17. EPA states that the analysis provided in an AO request should
demonstrate ``that operation of the unit after the MATS Compliance Date
is critical to maintaining electric reliability, and that failure to
operate the unit would: (a) result in the violation of at least one of
the reliability criteria required to be filed with the Commission, and,
in the case of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, with the
Texas Public Utility Commission; or (b) cause reserves to fall below
the required system reserve margin.'' Commission review of an
informational filing will be conducted pursuant to section 307(a) of
the FPA, the Commission's general investigative authority. The review
will examine whether, based on the circumstances presented, there might
be a violation of a Commission-approved Reliability Standard.\21\ In
addition, the Commission's comments to the EPA could also identify
issues, pursuant to our other areas of authority, raised by the AO
request for the EPA to consider as critical to reliability.\22\
Further, an

EGU's continued operation may have reliability impacts beyond those
implicated by the Commission's jurisdiction. The EPA should look to
NERC and state commissions, among the other entities it has enumerated,
for guidance in those areas.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A statement by the Commission indicating that circumstances
presented ``might'' result in the violation of a Reliability
Standard would not constitute a final determination under section
215 of the FPA that a Reliability Standard has or will be violated.
That is, the Commission comments will reflect our preliminary view
based on information presented about a possible hypothetical
circumstance in the future, not a final agency action triggering
civil penalties or other enforcement actions.
    \22\ For example, the Commission may determine that the
potential closure of an EGU could trigger the Commission's
jurisdiction outside of section 215 of the FPA. See e.g., Exelon
Generation Co., LLC, 132 FERC ] 61,219 (2010).
    \23\ Commission staff will also be available to communicate with
the EPA on any reliability-related issues to aid the EPA in its
consideration of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Commission's jurisdiction under section 215 is over the
ERO, Regional Entities, and all users, owners and operators of the
bulk-power system ``for purposes of approving Reliability Standards
established under [section 215] and enforcing compliance with [section
215].'' \24\ Further, section 215 states that ``this section does not
authorize the ERO or the Commission to order the construction of
additional generation or transmission capacity or to set and enforce
compliance with standards for adequacy or safety of electric facilities
or services.'' \25\ In addition, section 215 specifically preserves
authority of states over safety, resource adequacy, and even
reliability as long as the latter does not conflict with the
Commission's Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(b).
    \25\ Id. Sec.  824o(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. While our comments to the EPA are largely limited to whether
the issue in question may result in the violation of a Reliability
Standard, we recognize that the EPA is not so limited in what it may
consider in reviewing a request for an AO. Indeed, the EPA Policy
Memorandum indicates that the EPA may also seek advice and counsel of
reliability experts, including, state public service commissions and
public utility commissions, RTOs and ISOs, Planning Authorities, NERC
and affiliated regional entities--and we encourage them to do so.
Nothing in this Policy Statement precludes NERC, state agencies or
others from providing the EPA with information regarding resource
adequacy and other local reliability concerns that are not addressed in
the Commission's comments to the EPA.
    20. The Commission will review the Planning Authority's analysis
included in each informational filing to ensure that it was reasonable
and sufficiently supported by the information supplied, recognizing the
Planning Authority's knowledge of, and expertise on, local and regional
conditions. The Commission would focus on whether the Planning
Authority's reliability analysis has identified and supported, in a
detailed and reasoned fashion, whether there might be a violation of a
Commission-approved Reliability Standard.
    21. The Commission will advise the EPA, as contemplated by the EPA
Policy Memorandum, by submitting written Commission comments to the EPA
based on the Commission's review of the information provided in the
informational filing.\26\ The Commission's comments would provide
advice to the EPA on whether, based on the Commission's review of the
informational filing, there might be a violation of a Commission-
approved Reliability Standard. As noted above, the Commission's
comments may also identify issues within its jurisdiction other than a
potential violation of a Commission-approved Reliability Standard. The
Commission comments will not address the appropriateness of granting or
denying an AO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Commission will vote on the Commission comments before
submission to the EPA. Commission comments submitted to the EPA will
be publicly posted on the Commission's eLibrary system under the
applicable AD docket number. Differing views by any Commissioner
will also be submitted to the EPA in writing and will be publicly
posted on the Commission's eLibrary system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Intervention and Other Procedures

    The Commission's process will not provide for entities to intervene
in the AD dockets.\27\ The EPA Policy Memorandum generally anticipates
that an AO request will be filed 180 days prior to the MATS Compliance
Date and the Commission is concerned that allowing interventions may
inhibit the Commission's ability to timely provide advice to the EPA.
In addition, interventions are not available generally in a matter
under investigation pursuant to Section 307(a) of the FPA. Yet the lack
of a formal intervention procedure does not preclude an interested
entity from being heard. The EPA Policy Memorandum requires an owner/
operator requesting an AO to submit ``[c]opies of any written comments
from third parties directed to, and received by, the owner/operator in
favor of, or opposed to, operation of the unit after the MATS
compliance date.'' \28\ These materials should also be included as part
of the informational filing an owner/operator submits to the Commission
under the requirements in the EPA Policy Memorandum.\29\ While the
Commission is not imposing any additional requirements, we anticipate
that owners/operators will, consistent with the EPA Policy Memorandum,
provide third parties with an opportunity to offer ``written comments *
* * in favor of, or opposed to, operation of the unit after the MATS
compliance date'' before they submit their AO request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ While the Commission will not seek comments on these
informational filings, if comments are received by the Commission,
these would be placed in the associated AD docket. Because these
would be informational dockets, while the Commission may consider
these comments, it would not be required to do so. Due to the nature
of the Commission's comments as non-final agency action and the
limited time for the Commission to act, the Commission does not
anticipate responding to any comments that may be submitted in an AD
docket.
    \28\ EPA Policy Memorandum at 7.
    \29\ Id. at 5, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    22. This Policy Statement explains how the Commission plans to
advise the EPA under the EPA's Policy Memorandum. The Commission
believes the process appropriately takes into account the need for
timeliness, fairness, and transparency, while respecting the
Commission's jurisdiction over electric reliability. As stated in the
EPA Policy Memorandum, whether or to what extent the EPA considers or
relies on the Commission's comments, and whether to grant an AO to an
owner/operator, will rest entirely with the EPA.
    23. Additionally, we emphasize that this Policy Statement does not
represent the entirety of the Commission's efforts to monitor the
impact of EPA regulations generally on bulk-power system reliability.
For example, the Commission intends to continue addressing these issues
with state commissions in a regular public forum, the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners/FERC Forum on
Reliability and the Environment. The Commission and its staff will also
continue to review plans, reports and other information generated by
the Planning Authorities, industry and other stakeholders regarding the
impact of compliance with EPA regulations. To the extent additional
analysis or evidence would aid the Commission's efforts to monitor
these issues, we will consider holding additional technical conferences
or workshops.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Commission held a technical conference on these issues
on November 30, 2011, in Docket No. AD12-1-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission will monitor and promptly review proposals
from regulated entities that may seek to modify their tariffs in order
to reliably and efficiently comply with EPA regulations.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: May 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12342 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13961-13962]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05200]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 50 / Thursday, March 16, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0135; Special Conditions No. 25-646-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model ERJ 190-300 Series
Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch, Roll, and High-Speed
Limiting Functions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model
ERJ 190-300 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. This design feature is an electronic flight control system
that contains fly-by-wire control laws, including flight envelope
protection functions that impose pitch-angle, bank-angle, and high-
speed limits during normal operation. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Embraer S.A. on March 16, 2017. We
must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0135
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477- 19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would delay issuance of the
design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On September 13, 2013, Embraer S.A. applied for an amendment to
Type Certificate (TC) No. A57NM to include the new Model ERJ 190-300
series airplanes. The ERJ 190-300 is a twin-engine, transport-category
airplane derivative of the ERJ 190-100 STD. The ERJ 190-300 series
airplane will have a maximum occupancy of 114 passengers and will
include a new wing design with a high aspect ratio and raked wingtip,
and a digital fly-by-wire electronic flight control system.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Embraer S.A. must show that the ERJ 190-300 meets the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
A57NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA. Embraer S.A. must show that the ERJ 190-300 meets the
applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1
through 25-137.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the ERJ 190-300 because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design features, or should any other

model already included on the same type certificate be modified to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the ERJ 190-300 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The ERJ 190-300 will incorporate the following novel or unusual
design feature: An electronic flight control system that contains fly-
by-wire control laws, including flight envelope protection functions
that impose pitch-angle, bank-angle, and high-speed limits during
normal operation.

Discussion

    The Embraer S.A. ERJ 190-300 design has a full-digital flight
control system, referred to as fly-by-wire architecture. The fly-by-
wire architecture provides closed-loop flight control laws and multiple
protection functions.
    The basic characteristics of pitch, bank, and high-speed limiting
functions are as follows:
    1. Pitch Limiting Function:
    While in normal mode, the ERJ 190-300 airplane presents positive
and negative pitch attitude soft limits. After surpassing the
established limits set at 30[deg] and -15[deg], the airplane presents a
natural tendency to return (positive stability) to within these limits
when pitch control is released.
    2. Bank Limiting Function (Spiral Stability and Roll Limiting):
    While in normal mode at speeds up to VMO/MMO
(maximum operating limit speed), the ERJ 190-300 airplane presents
neutral stability up to 33[deg] bank angle. Above 33[deg], positive
spiral stability is introduced; however, there is no bank angle hard
limit. When overspeed protection is engaged, positive spiral stability
is provided in the range of 33[deg] and a bank angle hard
limit (non-overridable) is set at that bank angle.
    3. High-Speed Limiting Function (Overspeed Protection):
    While in normal mode, the overspeed protection function prevents
pilots from exceeding the airplane maximum design speeds by providing
strong positive stability at and above VMO/MMO,
and limiting aircraft speed to VDF/MDF
(demonstrated flight diving speed).
    The controllability and maneuverability requirements of 14 CFR
25.143 do not specifically relate to flight characteristics associated
with fixed attitude limits or a high-speed limiter that might preclude
or modify flying qualities assessment in the overspeed region.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
ERJ 190-300 series airplanes. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date
for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that
prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and
good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to
allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300
series airplanes.

Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch, Roll, and High-Speed Limiting
Functions

    In addition to Sec.  25.143, the following requirements apply:
    1. Pitch and Roll Limiting Functions.
    a. The pitch limiting function must not impede normal maneuvering
for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal maneuvering,
including a normal all-engines operating takeoff, plus a suitable
margin to allow for satisfactory speed control.
    b. The pitch and roll limiting functions must not restrict or
prevent attaining pitch attitudes necessary for emergency maneuvering
or roll angles up to 66[deg] with flaps up or 60[deg] with flaps down.
Spiral stability, which is introduced above 33[deg] roll angle, must
not require excessive pilot strength to achieve these roll angles.
Other protections, which further limit the roll capability under
certain extreme angle of attack or attitude or high speed conditions,
are acceptable, as long as they allow at least 45[deg] of roll
capability.
    c. A lower limit of roll is acceptable, beyond the overspeed
warning, if it is possible to recover the aircraft to the normal flight
envelope without undue difficulty or delay.
    2. High-Speed Limiting Functions.
    Operation of the high-speed limiter during all routine and descent
procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to
overspeed warning.

Michael Kaszycki,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05200 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


										9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG-2022-0188]
Safety Zone; Navy Week New Orleans 2022 Fireworks Display Event, New Orleans, LA
AGENCY:  Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION:  Notification of enforcement of regulation.
____________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:  The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display located on the navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between Mile Marker (MM) 94.5 and MM 95.5. This action is needed to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waterways during the event. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
DATES:  The regulations in 33 CFR 165.845 will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on April 20, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander William Stewart, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
      The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone located in 33 CFR 165.845 for the Navy Week New Orleans 2022 Fireworks Display event. The regulations will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on April 20, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event, which will be located between MM 94.5 and MM 95.5 above Head of Passes, Lower Mississippi River, LA. During the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
      In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs).
Dated:  March 29, 2022

W. E. WATSON,
CAPTAIN, U.S. Coast Guard,
Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 22263]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08786]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9026-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 04/04/2016 Through 04/08/2016
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20160076, Final, BLM, WY, Continental Divide Creston Natural
Gas Development Project, Review Period Ends: 05/16/2016, Contact:
Jennifer Fleuret<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160077, Draft, BLM, UT, Enefit Utility Corridor Project,
Comment Period Ends: 06/07/2016, Contact: Stephanie Howard 435-781-
4469.
EIS No. 20160078, Draft, USFWS, MN, Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 07/14/2016, Contact:
Rick Amidon<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20160079, Final, BLM, OR, Western Oregon Resource Management
Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/16/2016, Contact: Mark Brown<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 12, 2016.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2016-08786 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 37596]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1340]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of [Renewed] Approval of Information Collection: Pilots
Convicted of Alcohol or Drug-Related Motor Vehicle Offenses or Subject
to State Motor Vehicle Administrative Procedure

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval [to renew an] information
collection. The collection involves receiving and maintaining
correspondence required to be sent to the FAA from pilots who have been
involved in a drug- or alcohol-related motor vehicle action. The
information to be collected will be used to and/or is necessary because
the FAA must identify airmen with multiple drug- or alcohol-related
motor vehicle actions, and verify traffic conviction information in
order to support the FAA's Aviation Safety, Office of Aerospace
Medicine, Aerospace Medical Certification Division, for their
requirements to evaluate the qualifications of that airman to hold a
medical certificate.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: https://www.regulations.gov (Enter docket
number into search field).
    By mail: Christopher Marks, P.O. Box 25810, Oklahoma City, OK
73125.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Marks by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0543.
    Title: Pilots Convicted of Alcohol or Drug-Related Motor Vehicle
Offenses or Subject to State Motor Vehicle Administrative Procedure.
    Form Numbers: No official form numbers used.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: After a study and audit conducted from the late 1970's
through the 1980's by the Department of Transportation, Office of the
Inspector General, (DOT/OIG), the DOT/OIG recommended the FAA find a
way to track alcohol abusers and those dependent on the substance that
may pose a threat to the National Airspace (NAS). Through a
Congressional act issued in November of 1990, the FAA established a
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
Investigations Branch. The final rule for this program is found in
title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)--part 61 61.15.
    This regulation calls for pilots certificated by the FAA to send
information regarding Driving Under the Influence (or similar charges)
of alcohol and/or drugs to the FAA within 60 days from either an
administrative action against their driver's license and/or criminal
conviction. Part of the regulation also calls for the FAA to seek
certificate action should an airman be involved in multiple, separate
drug/alcohol related motor vehicle incidents within a three-year
period. Information sent by the airmen is used to confirm or refute any
violations of these regulations, as well as by the Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute (CAMI) for medical qualification purposes. Collection
by CAMI is covered under a separate OMB control number 2120-0034.
    An airman is required to provide a written report, with the
following information: name, address, date of birth, airman certificate
number, the type of violation which resulted in the conviction or
administrative action, the state which holds the records or action, and
a statement of whether the motor vehicle action resulted from the same
incident or arose out of the same factual circumstances related to a
previously reported motor vehicle action.
    Respondents: 480 FAA airmen with drug and alcohol related motor
vehicle actions provide approximately 599 reports per year over the
last three years.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 30 minutes per report and 299.5
hours for all reports annually.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, OK, on June 2, 2023.
Christopher Marks,
Security Specialist, Security & Hazardous Materials Safety/Enforcement
Standards & Policy Division, AXE-900.
[FR Doc. 2023-12201 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60463-60464]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14615-000]

FFP Project 97, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On April 14, 2014, FFP Project 97, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project to be
located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) William Bacon
Oliver Lock and Dam on the Black Warrior River near the towns of
Tuscaloosa and Northport in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 320-
foot-long, 120-foot-wide intake channel; (2) a 90-foot-long, 140-foot-
wide powerhouse containing two generating units with a total capacity
of 16.4 megawatts; (3) a 320-foot-long, 140-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a
4.16/115 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; and (5) a 1-mile-long, 115kV
transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated average
annual generation of 65,800 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by
the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel Lissner, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Christiane Casey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-8577.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
14615-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14615) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 1, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-23884 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72131-72132]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28726]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-30804]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

November 22, 2013.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
November. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on December 17, 2013, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant, in the form
of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>, SEC,
Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Blue Rock Market Neutral Fund, LLC [File No. 811-21564]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 7, 2013, and
amended on October 31, 2013.
    Applicant's Address: 445 East Lake St., Suite 120, Wayzata, MN
55391.

Eaton Vance Managed Income Term Trust [File No. 811-22306]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 3, 2013, and
amended on October 31, 2013.
    Applicant's Address: Two International Place, Boston, MA 02110.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28726 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14760-14761]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4574-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4574-DR), dated December 11,
2020, and related determinations.

DATE:  The declaration was issued December 11, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated December 11, 2020, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Jersey resulting from Tropical Storm Isaias on August 4,
2020, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of New Jersey.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved

assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Patrick Cornbill, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex,
Gloucester, Monmouth, Morris, and Salem Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of New Jersey are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton Jr.,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-05617 Filed 3-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28639-28640]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0043; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-192-AD;
Amendment 39-16700; AD 2011-11-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series
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 airworthiness authority
of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an outlet fitting containing
red anodized threads. These MFCV do not provide adequate electrical
bonding between the valve and the adjacent fitting.
    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.

* * * * *
The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside the
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. We
are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 22, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 22,
2011.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; 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 February 23, 2011
(76 FR 9982). The MCAI states:

    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an outlet fitting containing
red anodized threads. These MFCV do not provide adequate electrical
bonding between the valve and the adjacent fitting.
    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.
    This [TCCA] directive is issued to [do a general visual
inspection to] verify the proper configuration of the MFCV and if
required, replace the affected MFCV with a MFCV that has a
chemically filmed (gold color) outlet valve fitting, which provides
adequate electrical bonding.

The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside the
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

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.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects
about 67 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes
about 33 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements
of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts
will cost about $130 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $196,645, or $2,935 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this 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 Operations office
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 Operations 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

    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:

2011-11-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16700. Docket No. FAA-
2011-0043; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-192-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 22,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401,
and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category; having serial
numbers 4001 through 4190 inclusive, 4199 through 4201 inclusive,
and 4203 through 4216 inclusive; equipped with a motive flow check
valve (MFCV) having part number (P/N) 2960018-101.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During production quality inspections of the aeroplane fuel
motive flow system, it was discovered that some motive flow check
valves (MFCV) were manufactured with an outlet fitting containing
red anodized threads. These MFCV do not provide adequate electrical
bonding between the valve and the adjacent fitting.

    In the absence of proper electrical bonding within the motive
flow system, the aeroplane fuel tank could be exposed to ignition
sources in the case of a lightning strike.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is the potential for ignition sources inside
the fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, do a general visual inspection for red anodized threads of the
outlet fitting of the MFCV having P/N 2960018-101 installed in the
left and right wing fuel tanks, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-08,
dated March 11, 2010. If the MFCV has a chemical film coating (gold
color) outlet fitting, no further action is required by AD, except
as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (h) If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, a MFCV having a red anodized check valve outlet fitting is
found: Before further flight, replace the MFCV with a MFCV that has
a chemical film coating (gold color) check valve outlet fitting, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-08, dated March 11, 2010.
    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
replacement MFCV having P/N 2960018-101, with a red anodized check
valve outlet fitting, on any airplane.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 New York ACO, send it to Attn: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to Transport Canada Civil Aviation Airworthiness
Directive CF-2010-21, dated July 20, 2010; and Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-28-08, dated March 11, 2010; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-08, dated
March 11, 2010, 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
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-11929 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P