[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5958-5960]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0104; Product Identifier 2017-CE-036-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-24-
06, which applies to certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI
airplanes. AD 2015-24-06 requires repetitive breakaway torque checks
and torqueing of the main landing gear (MLG) brake inlet self-sealing
couplings and inserting a dispatch and takeoff limitation to the
Limitations section of the airplane flight manual. Since we issued AD
2015-24-06, a modification of the MLG and brake assembly has been
developed that when incorporated would terminate the need for the
repetitive actions of AD 2015-24-06. This proposed AD would require
modifying the MLG and brake assembly. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31404-2206;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; internet: www.gulfstream.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0104; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer,
Altanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0104;
Product Identifier 2017-CE-036-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2015-24-06, Amendment 39-18338 (80 FR 75788, December
4, 2015) (``AD 2015-24-06''), for certain Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVI airplanes. AD 2015-24-06 requires
repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the MLG brake inlet
self-sealing couplings. AD 2015-24-06 also requires inserting a
dispatch and takeoff limitation to the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual to include procedures to follow if certain
display indications occur. AD 2015-24-06 resulted from reports of the
self-sealing couplings on the MLG brake inlet fitting backing out of
the fully seated position. This unsafe condition could lead to loss of
hydraulic pressure to the affected brake. We issued AD 2015-24-06 to
detect and correct inadequate torque on the self-sealing couplings and
prevent loss of braking capability on one or multiple brakes, which
could lead to runway overrun or asymmetrical braking that could result
in lateral runway excursion.

Actions Since AD 2015-24-06 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-24-06, a modification for the MLG and brake
assembly has been developed that eliminates the self-sealing coupling
and uses a permanent hose design. This modification when incorporated
would terminate the need for the repetitive breakaway torque checks and
torqueing of the brake inlet self-sealing couplings.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated
July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B,
dated July 26, 2017. For the applicable model designations, this
service information describes procedures to modify the MLG and brake
assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2015-
24-06. This proposed AD would require modifying the MLG with new tube
assemblies without self-sealing couplings and add lock wire. This
proposed AD would also require inspecting and modifying the brake
assembly.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July
26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated
July 26, 2017, both contain reporting requirements and return of
certain parts to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does not include
those requirements.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of brake hose            65.5 work-hours x $85 per           $14,776       $20,343.5      $3,295,647
 assemblies, inspection of brake      hour = $5,567.50.
 assembly attachment bolts, and
 modification of the brake assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-24-06, Amendment 39-18338 (80 FR 75788, December 4, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0104; Product
Identifier 2017-CE-36-AD.

 (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 29,
2018.

 (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-24-06, Amendment 39-18338 (80 FR 75788,
December 4, 2015) (``AD 2015-24-06'').

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI
airplanes, serial numbers 6001 and 6003 through 6163, certificated
in any category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model GVI airplanes are also
referred to by the marketing designations G650 and G650ER.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    AD 2015-24-06 was prompted by reports of the main landing gear
(MLG) self-sealing couplings on the MLG brake inlet fitting backing
out of the fully seated position. This AD was prompted by the
development of modifications that when incorporated would terminate
the need for repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the
brake

inlet self-sealing couplings. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss
of braking capability on one or multiple brakes. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could lead to runway overrun or
asymmetrical braking that could result in lateral runway excursion.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Modification of the MLG and MLG Brake Assemblies

    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the MLG and brake assemblies following the Accomplishment
Instructions in Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated
July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B,
dated July 26, 2017.
    (2) Although Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B,
dated July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number
155B, dated July 26, 2017, both contain reporting requirements and
return of certain parts to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does
not include those requirements.
    (3) AD 2015-24-06 required a dispatch and takeoff limitation in
the airplane flight manual. Although we did not retain that
requirement in this AD, if not already removed, this limitation
should be removed after the modification in paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD is done.

 (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    If done before the effective date of this AD, this AD allows
credit for the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD following
Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin 155, dated July 29, 2016; and
Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin 155, dated July 29, 2016.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gideon Jose,
Aerospace Engineer, Altanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia
31404-2206; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; internet: www.gulfstream.com. You may view
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 5, 2018.
Melvin J. Johnson,
Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02612 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53963-53964]
[DOCID:fr02se10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-86-000, Docket No. PR10-87-000, Docket No. PR10-88-
000, Docket No. PR10-89-000, Docket No. PR10-90-000]

 Notice of Baseline Filings: The Peoples Gas Light and Coke
Company, Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation, Louisville Gas and
Electric Company, Cobra Pipeline Ltd., Humble Gas Pipeline Company (Not
Consolidated)

August 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 25, 2010, August 26, 2010, and August
27, 2010, respectively the applicants listed above submitted their
baseline filing of its Statement of Operating Conditions for services
provided under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
(NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion 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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, September 1, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21973 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19680-19683]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07892]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71863; File No. SR-ISE-2013-72]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, to More Specifically Address the Number and Size of
Counterparties to a Qualified Contingent Cross Order

April 3, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On December 18, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change notice to amend Rules 504 (Series
of Options Contracts Open for Trading) and 715 (Types of Orders) to
more specifically address the number and size of counterparties to a
Qualified Contingent Cross Order (``QCC Order''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 7,
2014.\3\ On February 18, 2014, the Commission extended the time period
for Commission action to April 7, 2014.\4\ The Commission received
three comment letters on the proposal.\5\ On April 2, 2014, the
Exchange responded to the comment letters.\6\ Additionally, on April 2,
2014, the Exchange submitted an amendment to the proposed rule
change.\7\ This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71208 (December 31,
2013), 79 FR 0881 (January 7, 2014).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71560 (February 18,
2014), 79 FR 10218 (February 24, 2014).
    \5\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGuiness, Executive Vice President, NYSE Euronext, dated
March, 11, 2014 (``NYSE Letter''), Darren Story, CFA, dated March
14, 2014 (``Story Letter''), and Doug Patterson, CCO, CutlerGroup,
LP, dated March 28, 2014 (``Cutler Letter'').
    \6\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General Counsel, ISE, dated
April 2, 2014 (``ISE Response'').
    \7\ The Commission notes that Amendment No. 1 is not subject to
notice and comment because it does not alter the substance of the
proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory issues, but
rather describes how the Exchange surveils QCC Orders. See Section
III below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    As originally approved on ISE, a QCC Order was required to be
comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade (``QCT''),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts.\8\ Following discussions regarding the QCC Order with
Commission staff, the Exchange learned that Commission staff
interpreted the Exchange's rules relating to QCC Orders to permit only
a single order on the originating side of the QCC Order and a single
order on the contra-side, with each such order comprised of a single
party and meeting the 1,000 contract minimum size requirement. In a
Regulatory Information Circular published by the Exchange on November
25, 2013, the Exchange explained that it had always interpreted the QCC
Order definition to mean that a QCC Order must be comprised of an
unsolicited order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts that is
identified as part of a QCT, coupled with a contra-side order that
could be made up of multiple orders, each of which could be less than
1,000 contracts.\9\ ISE also stated that it would seek to amend its
rules governing QCC Orders to codify its interpretation in its
rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63955 (February 24,
2011), 76 FR 11533 (March 2, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-73) (``Original QCC
Approval Order'').
    \9\ See ISE Regulatory Information Circular 2013-022 (November
25, 2013).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2013, the Exchange filed two proposed rule changes
with the Commission. In addition to this filing, the Exchange filed SR-
ISE-2013-71, a proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness to
amend the definition of a QCC Order such that it must involve a single
order for at least 1,000 contracts on the originating side,\11\

but may consist of multiple orders on the opposite, contra-side, so
long as each contra-side order is for at least 1,000 contracts.\12\ In
that filing, the Exchange explained,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the case of Mini Options, the minimum size is 10,000
contracts.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71183 (December 24,
2013), 78 FR 79721 (December 31, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-71).

    It was always the Exchange's intent and understanding when
drafting the rule text that a QCC Order could involve multiple
contra-parties of the QCC trade when the originating QCC Order
consisted of at least 1,000 contracts. However, the rule language
addressing the contra-side of a QCC Order is drafted from the
perspective of how the QCC Order gets entered into the ISE system.
Specifically, the contra-side order to a QCC Order will always be
entered as a single order, even if that order consists of multiple
contra-parties who are allocated their portion of the trade in a
post-trade allocation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the literal
wording of the current QCC Order rule could result in a more limited
interpretation of the rule. Therefore, the Exchange now proposes to
make it clear that a QCC Order must involve a single order for at
least 1,000 contracts on the originating side, but that it may
consist of multiple orders on the opposite, contra-side, so long as
each of the contra-side orders is for at least 1,000 contracts.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 79722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    In this filing, the Exchange proposes to remove the requirement
that contra-side orders of QCC Orders be for at least 1,000 contracts
each, thus permitting multiple contra-side orders on a QCC Order with a
total number of contracts equaling the originating order size, but
without any size requirement for such contra-side orders. Under this
proposal, the requirements for the QCC Order's originating order remain
unchanged, and thus would require the originating order to be a single
order for a single party of at least 1,000 contracts, and the QCC Order
must also continue to satisfy all other requirements of a QCC Order
under the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange believes that removing the size limit placed on
contra-parties to QCC Orders may increase liquidity and, potentially,
improve the prices at which QCC Orders get executed, as the Exchange
states that the ability for market participants to provide liquidity in
response to large sized orders is directly proportional to the size and
associated risk of the resulting position. As support, the Exchange
states that smaller sized trades are often done at a better price than
larger sized trades, which convey more risk. The Exchange believes that
the ability to pool together multiple market participants to
participate on the contra-side of a trade for any size, as opposed to
only allowing market participants to participate for a minimum of 1,000
contracts, would have a direct and positive impact on the ability of
those market participants to provide the best price as they compete to
participate in the order without being compelled to provide liquidity
with a large minimum quantity. Further, the Exchange states that
allowing several participants to offer liquidity to a QCC Order serves
to ensure that the order receives the best possible price available in
the market and argues that restricting interaction to only participants
who are willing to trade a minimum of 1,000 contracts simply guarantees
an inferior price because a trade will be limited to few liquidity
providers who are taking on more risk as opposed to multiple liquidity
providers being able to share the overall risk and trade at a better
price.
    In the proposal, the Exchange stresses that the concern has always
been and should continue to be for the originating order-i.e., the
unsolicited part of the order that is seeking liquidity-and not the
professional responders and providers of liquidity. The Exchange
believes that allowing smaller orders to participate on the other side
(i.e., contra-side) of QCC Orders not only provides the best price and
opportunity for a trade to occur in a tight and liquid market, but
ensures that the highest possible number of liquidity providers are
able to participate, and states that limiting participation only to
liquidity providers who are willing to participate on the trade for
1,000 contracts conversely could result in an inferior price by
shutting out some participants due to the large size and thereby
minimizing the opportunity for competition and price improvement.
    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange represents that it tracks and
monitors QCC Orders to determine which is the originating/agency side
of the order and which is the contra-side(s) of the order to ensure
that Members are complying with the minimum 1,000 contract size
limitation on the originating/agency side of the QCC Order. The
Exchange states that it checks to see if Members are aggregating
multiple orders to meet the 1,000 contract minimum on the originating/
agency side of the trade in violation of the requirements of the rule.
The rule requires that the originating/agency side of the trade consist
of one party who is submitting a QCC Order for at least 1,000
contracts. The Exchange represents that it enforces compliance with
this portion of the rule by checking to see if a Member breaks up the
originating/agency side of the order in a post trade allocation to
different clearing firms, allocating less than 1,000 contracts to a
party or multiple parties. For example, a Member enters a QCC Order
into the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an execution.
Subsequent to the execution, the Member allocates the originating/
agency side of the order to two different clearing firms on a post
trade allocation basis, thereby allocating 500 contracts to one
clearing firm and 1,000 contracts to another clearing firm. The
Exchange states that this type of transaction would not meet the
requirements of a QCC Order under the current rule.
    With regard to order entry, the Exchange clarifies that a Member
must mark the originating/agency side as the first order in the system
and the contra-side(s) as the second. The Exchange states that it
monitors order entries to ensure that Members are properly entering QCC
Orders into the system.

IV. Summary of Comment Letters and ISE's Response to Comments

    The Commission received three comment letters opposing the proposed
rule change.\14\ As described in more detail below, the commenters
primarily expressed concerns about QCC Orders generally, as opposed to
the rule modifications proposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NYSE Letter, the commenter does not raise new concerns, but
rather concurs with the issues expressed in a comment letter submitted
by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') in response to a
separate filing by another exchange--SR-Phlx-2013-106-which proposed to
permit multiple contra-side parties on either side of a QCC Order and
eliminate the minimum size requirement, but which was subsequently
withdrawn. The commenter asserts that CBOE's comments are applicable to
the instant proposal.\15\ Specifically, this commenter echoes CBOE's
belief that QCC trades, by their nature, harm options markets by
enabling market participants to effect listed options transactions
without exposing their order to the market--hampering liquidity by
reduced transparency and eliminating the possibility of price
improvement.\16\ In

addition, the commenter concurs with CBOE's conclusion that an
expansion of the use of the QCC Order by reducing the minimum size
required to participate in a QCC trade would exacerbate the harm to the
options markets resulting from QCC trades.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Angelo Evangelou, Associate General Counsel, Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, dated December 13, 2013 (``CBOE
Letter''). SR-Phlx-2013-106 was withdrawn on February 3, 2014. CBOE
did not submit a comment letter on this filing.
    \16\ See NYSE Letter at 1; see also CBOE Letter at 2-3.
    \17\ See NYSE Letter at 1; see also CBOE Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter to the instant filing claims that market
participants use QCC Orders to disadvantage customers and avoid due
diligence obligations.\18\ In support of this contention, the commenter
notes that QCC Orders allow market participants to execute the stock
portion of a stock/option order outside the NBBO, resulting in inferior
net execution prices for customers.\19\ The commenter states that such
use of QCC Orders allows orders to be effected which do not need to
adhere to best-executions on a net cash basis to the detriment of
customers, and argues that requiring exposure of orders would curtail
this abuse.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Story Letter at 1.
    \19\ See Story Letter at 1-2.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This commenter also argues that the fee structure in place for QCC
Orders creates a conflict of interest among market participants in that
a rebate is paid to executing brokers that initiate a QCC Order while a
fee is charged to the counter-parties.\21\ The commenter believes that
the incentive to obtain the rebate offered for QCC Orders can cause
brokers to ignore their responsibility to obtain the best price on a
trade and mitigate unnecessary fees whenever possible.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Story Letter at 3.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third commenter requested that the Commission disapprove the
proposal, stating that the filing defies the general principles that
all orders be exposed to as many sources of liquidity as possible.\23\
The commenter believes that without exposure there is no incentive for
market makers to display liquidity, provide liquidity, or offer price
improvement, resulting in the general public failing to receive the
best possible price on any order.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Cutler Letter at 1.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment letters, ISE states that it does not
believe that the commenters raise any issues related to removing the
contra-party size restriction for QCC Orders as proposed.\25\ Further,
ISE notes that the issues raised by the commenters were well vetted by
the Commission prior to the Original QCC Approval Order and therefore
does not believe that the commenters raise new issues relevant to the
current proposal.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See ISE Response at 1.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\27\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ 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, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its original approval of the QCC Order for ISE, the Commission
noted the benefits of contingent trades to investors and the market as
a whole.\29\ Specifically, in providing for an exemption from certain
requirements of Regulation NMS for QCTs, the Commission recognized that
contingent trades can be ``useful trading tools for investors and other
market participants, particularly those who trade the securities of
issuers involved in mergers, different classes of shares of the same
issuer, convertible securities, and equity derivatives such as
options'' [italics added].\30\ In the Original QCC Approval Order, the
Commission also reiterated the finding from its Original QCT Exemption
that those transactions that meet the specified requirements of the QCT
exemption could be of benefit to the market as a whole and a
contribution to the efficient functioning of the securities markets and
the price discovery process.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Original QCC Approval Order, supra note 8, at 11540-
11541.
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31,
2006, 71 FR 52829, 52830 (September 7, 2006) (``Original QCT
Exemption'').
    \31\ See Original QCC Approval Order, supra note 8 at text
accompanying footnote 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing ISE's original QCC Order, the Commission weighed the
benefits of QCTs, of which QCC Orders are a subset, against the
benefits provided by the general requirement for exposure of orders in
the options markets.\32\ In the Original QCC Approval Order, the
Commission stated that the QCC Order strikes an appropriate balance for
the options market in that it is narrowly drawn and establishes a
limited exception to the general principle of exposure and retains the
general principle of customer priority in the options markets because
QCC Orders are required to be: (1) Part of a QCT under Regulation NMS;
(2) for at least 1,000 contracts; (3) executed at a price at or between
the national best bid or offer; and (4) cancelled if there is a
Priority Customer Order on ISE's limit order book at the same
price.\33\ The Commission specifically noted that a QCC Order must not
only be part of a QCT by satisfying each of the six underlying
requirements of the NMS QCT Exemption, but must be for a minimum size
of 1,000 contracts, and that these requirements provide another limit
to its use by ensuring only transactions of significant size may avail
themselves of this order type.\34\ Given the requirements for QCC
Orders, the Commission also noted its belief that those customers
participating in QCC Orders would likely be sophisticated investors who
should understand that their order would not be exposed for potential
price improvement, and that these customers should be able to
themselves assess whether the net prices they are receiving for their
QCC Order are competitive.\35\ The Commission also specifically noted
that broker-dealers are subject to a duty of best execution for their
customers' orders, and that duty does not change for QCC Orders.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 11541.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering ISE's proposal to eliminate the minimum size
requirement for the contra-side of QCC Orders, the Commission has again
weighed whether the benefits of this order type, as proposed to be
modified, to investors and the market outweigh the benefits provided by
the general requirement for exposure of orders in the options markets.
The Commission notes that ISE's proposal does not change the
requirements that a QCC Order must be: (1) Part of a QCT under
Regulation NMS; (2) executed at a price at or between the national best
bid or offer; and (3) cancelled if there is a Priority Customer Order
on ISE's limit order book. In addition, the changes to QCC Orders under
SR-ISE-2013-71\37\ permit multiple contra-side orders for QCC Orders,
so long as each such contra-side order is for at least 1,000 contracts.
In this filing, the only

requirement that ISE proposes to change is to eliminate the requirement
that contra-side orders of a QCC Order be for at least 1,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this change to the minimum size
requirement for the contra-side(s) of QCC Orders is narrowly tailored
and, significantly, the Exchange's rule text clearly requires that the
originating side of a QCC Order must be comprised of a single order
(i.e., a single party) for at least 1,000 contracts. The Commission
believes that retention of the requirements that the original side be
comprised of a single order from a single party and that such single
order be for at least 1,000 contracts will continue to ensure that
sophisticated investors, who are aware that their orders will not be
exposed for price improvement, and who themselves should be able to
assess whether the net prices for their QCC Orders are competitive,
will initiate QCC Orders in an effort to effectuate a complex
transaction that complies with all the requirements of the QCC Order.
    The proposed rule change will allow multiple contra-parties with
order sizes of less than 1,000 to aggregate their interest to pair
against the originating side of a QCC Order to facilitate the execution
of the QCC Order. The Commission believes that allowing smaller orders
from multiple parties to participate on the contra-side of QCC Orders
may provide a better opportunity for QCC Orders to be executed and,
potentially, at better prices. The Commission acknowledges that
limiting participation on the contra-side of a QCC Order only to
liquidity providers who are willing to participate on the trade for
1,000 contracts, could result in less interest in the trade than if
contra-side orders were not required to meet the 1,000 contract
minimum, potentially diminishing the opportunity for competition and
price improvement. The Commission believes that the proposed
modification to the definition of QCC Order is narrowly drawn in that
it does not impact the fundamental aspects of this order type, and
merely permits QCC Orders to include multiple contra-parties,
regardless of size on the contra-side, while preserving the 1,000
contract minimum on the originating side of a QCC Order. Accordingly,
the Commission finds the proposed rule consistent with the Act.
    The issues raised in the comment letters do not specifically
address the changes proposed in the instant filing, and the Commission
agrees with ISE that the commenters on the proposed rule change do not
present any arguments that were not considered fully in Original QCC
Approving Order (i.e., QCC Orders harm the market by not requiring
exposure), or are outside the scope of this proposal (i.e., fee rebates
for initiating QCC Orders create a conflict of interest for
brokers).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ In addition, the Commission again emphasizes, as it did in
the Original QCC Approval Order, that broker-dealers are subject to
a duty of best execution for their customers' orders, and that duty
does not change for QCC Orders. See supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, given the differing requirements as
between the originating side and contra-side for QCC Orders, it is
essential that the Exchange be able to clearly identify and monitor--
throughout the life of a QCC Order, beginning at time of order entry on
the Exchange through the post-trade allocation process--each side of
the QCC Order and ensure that the requirements of the order type are
being satisfied including, importantly, those relating to the
originating side. The Commission believes this to be critical so that
the Exchange can ensure that market participants are not able to
circumvent the requirements of the QCC Order (as amended by this
proposed rule change), each of which the Commission continues to
believe are critical to ensuring that the QCC Order is narrowly
drawn.\39\ Further, the Commission notes that, in Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange has made certain representations regarding its enforcement and
surveillance of its Members' use of QCC Orders, including, for example,
not only at the time of order entry, but through the post-trade
allocation process as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Commission expects the Exchange to have the capability
to enable it to surveil that such requirements are being met. Though
the Exchange has stated its ability to do so in Amendment No. 1, if
the Exchange is not able to have such monitoring at any point in
time, the Commission would expect the Exchange to take other steps
to ensure that the QCC Order cannot be improperly used. For example,
if the Exchange were not able to identify and monitor which side of
a QCC Order is the originating order, the Commission would expect
that it would require that both sides of the QCC Order meet the more
stringent requirements of the originating side, i.e., that it be for
a single order for at least 1,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\40\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2013-72), as modified by
Amendment No.1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07892 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65979-65981]
[DOCID:fr06no08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1161; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-067-AD;
Amendment 39-15726; AD 2008-23-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Stemme GmbH & Co. KG Models S10 and
S10-V Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

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 the aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Investigations performed following a report about a fuel leakage
in a Stemme S10-V powered-sailplane revealed that some fuel lines
fabricated between March 2008 and May 2008, after the introduction
of a new pressing tool, present a manufacturing defect which could
lead to the puncture of the fuel lines.

    This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 26, 2008.
    On November 26, 2008 the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by December 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4130; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2008-0186-E, dated October 9, 2008 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Investigations performed following a report about a fuel leakage
in a Stemme S10-V powered-sailplane revealed that some fuel lines
fabricated between March 2008 and May 2008, after the introduction
of a new pressing tool, present a manufacturing defect which could
lead to the puncture of the fuel lines.
    For the reason stated above, this Airworthiness Directive (AD)
mandates, as an initial phase, repetitive inspections of the fuel
lines until their replacement, by new ones which conform to the
approved original specifications, is implemented as a final fix.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Stemme GmbH & Co. KG has issued Stemme F & D Service Bulletin A31-
10-084 Am.-Index: 01.a, dated October 1, 2008. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
investigations performed following a report about a fuel leakage in a
Stemme S10-V powered sailplane revealed that some fuel lines fabricated
between March 2008 and May 2008, after the introduction of a new
pressing tool, present a manufacturing defect which could lead to the
puncture of the fuel lines. Therefore, we determined that notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable
and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer
than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-1161; Directorate
Identifier 2008-CE-067-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends14 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:

2008-23-05 Stemme GmbH & Co. KG: Amendment 39-15726; Docket No. FAA-
2008-1161; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-067-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
26, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models S10 and S10-V gliders, serial
numbers 10-32, 10-53, 14-025, and 14-027, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine
Fuel & Control.

Reason

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

    ``Investigations performed following a report about a fuel
leakage in a Stemme S10-V powered-sailplane revealed that some fuel
lines fabricated between March 2008 and May 2008, after the
introduction of a new pressing tool, present a manufacturing defect
which could lead to the puncture of the fuel lines.
    ``For the reason stated above, this Airworthiness Directive (AD)
mandates, as an initial phase, repetitive inspections of the fuel
lines until their replacement, by new ones which conform to the
approved original specifications, is implemented as a final fix.''

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before every flight after November 26, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD) until accomplishment of paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD, inspect the fuel lines in the engine compartment (pressed lines)
following Stemme F & D Service Bulletin A31-10-084 Am.-Index: 01.a,
dated October 1, 2008.
    (2) Before further flight where any leakage is found as a result
of any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or within
the next 25 days after November 26, 2008 (the effective date of this
AD), whichever occurs first, replace all the fuel lines in the
engine compartment (pressed lines) following Stemme F & D Service
Bulletin A31-10-084 Am.-Index: 01.a, dated October 1, 2008.
Replacement of all fuel lines in the engine compartment (pressed
lines) terminates the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

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

Related Information

    (h) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2008-0186-E, dated October 9, 2008, and Stemme F & D Service
Bulletin A31-10-084 Am.-Index: 01.a, dated October 1, 2008, for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Stemme F & D Service Bulletin A31-10-084 Am.-
Index: 01.a, dated October 1, 2008, to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Stemme GmbH & Co. KG, Flugplatzstrae F2, Nr. 7, D-15344 Strausberg,
Germany; telephone: +49-33-41-3612-0; fax: +49-33-41-3612-30;
Internet: http://www.stemme.de/daten/d/service/a3110084_01a.pdf ;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_
register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 28, 2008.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-26235 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 57769]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 20, 2017.

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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective October 18, 2017.

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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-26329 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 69105]
[DOCID:fr29no06-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-70-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company, Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

(November 21, 2006)
    Take notice that on November 17, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised
Volume No. 1 Second Revised Sheet No. 285A, to be effective December
18, 2006.
    Northern states that the above sheet is being filed to clarify
certain creditworthiness tariff language for interruptible storage
service.
    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. E6-20194 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P