[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71046-71051]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22611]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98702; File No. SR-ISE-2023-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Complex Order Rules

October 6, 2023
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 3, 2023, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 11, Auction
Mechanisms, and Options 3, Section 13, Price Improvement Mechanisms for
Crossing Transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In connection with a technology migration to an enhanced Nasdaq,
Inc.

(``Nasdaq'') functionality, the Exchange proposes to amend certain
auction rules \3\ which describe the short sale price test in Rule 201
of Regulation SHO. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new
sentence within Options 3, Section 11, Auction Mechanisms, and Options
3, Section 13, Price Improvement Mechanisms for Crossing Transactions,
to add further detail to the recently adopted stock-tied rule text.
This rule change is identical to a rule change filed by Nasdaq MRX, LLC
(``MRX'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98066 (August 7,
2023), 88 FR 54672 (SR-ISE-2023-13) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend ISE Rules Related to
Complex Orders with Respect to a System Migration) (``SR-ISE-2023-
13'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98599 (September 28,
2023) (SR-MRX-2023-18) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change to Amend its Complex Order Rules) (not yet
published).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Today, ISE Members may trade certain Stock-Option Orders as
described in ISE Options 3, Section 14(a)(2) \5\ and Stock-Complex
Orders as described in ISE Options 3, Section 14(a)(3),\6\ among other
things. ISE recently filed a rule change to amend its stock-tied
functionality in connection with a technology migration.\7\ Among other
things, the proposal added Supplementary Material .08(c) to Options 3,
Section 11 and Supplementary Material .09(c) to Options 3, Section 13
\8\ to address the short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO
with respect to Complex PIM Orders,\9\ Complex Facilitation Orders \10\
and Complex SOM Orders.\11\ The rule states that when the short sale
price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is triggered for a covered
security, Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (``NES''),\12\ will not
execute a short sale order in the underlying covered security component
of a Complex Facilitation Order, Complex SOM Order and/or Response, or
in the underlying security component of a Complex PIM Order and/or
Improvement Order, if the price is equal to or below the current
national best bid.\13\ However, NES will execute a short sale order in
the underlying covered security component of a Complex Facilitation
Order, Complex SOM Order and/or Response, or in the underlying security
component of a Complex PIM Order and/or Improvement Order, if such
order is marked ``short exempt,'' regardless of whether it is at a
price that is equal to or below the current national best bid.\14\
Further, if NES cannot execute the underlying covered security
component of a Complex Facilitation Order, Complex SOM Order and/or
Response, or Complex PIM Order and/or Improvement Order, in accordance
with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange will cancel back the
Complex Facilitation Order, Complex SOM Order and/or Response or
Complex PIM Order and/or Improvement Order to the entering Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Stock-Option Order'' refers to an order for a
Stock-Option Strategy as defined in Options 3, Section 14(a)(2). A
Stock-Option Strategy is the purchase or sale of a stated number of
units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the
underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the
purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of the
market representing either (A) the same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of units
of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one
(8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security in the option leg to the
total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security in the stock leg. See ISE Options 3, Section 14(a)(2).
    \6\ The term ``Stock-Complex Order'' refers to an order for a
Stock-Complex Strategy as defined in Options 3, Section 14(a)(3). A
Stock-Complex Strategy is the purchase or sale of a stated number of
units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the
underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with the
purchase or sale of a Complex Options Strategy on the opposite side
of the market representing either (A) the same number of units of
the underlying stock or convertible security, or (B) the number of
units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one
(8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security in the option legs to the
total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security in the stock leg. Only those Stock-Complex Strategies with
no more than the applicable number of legs, as determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis, are eligible for processing. See
ISE Options 3, Section 14(a)(3).
    \7\ See SR-ISE-2023-13.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ A Complex PIM Order is an order entered into the Complex
Price Improvement Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section
13(e). See ISE Options 3, Section 14(b)(18).
    \10\ A Complex Facilitation Order is an order entered into the
Complex Facilitation Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section
11(c). See ISE Options 3, Section 14(b)(16).
    \11\ A Complex SOM Order is an order entered into the Complex
Solicited Order Mechanism as described in Options 3, Section 11(e).
See ISE Options 3, Section 14(b)(17).
    \12\ NES is a broker-dealer owned and operated by Nasdaq, Inc.
NES, an affiliate of the Exchange, has been approved by the
Commission to become a Member of the Exchange and perform inbound
routing on behalf of the Exchange.
    \13\ See ISE Supplementary Material .08(c) to Options 3, Section
11 and ISE Supplementary Material .09(c) to Options 3, Section 13.
The term ``covered security'' has the same meaning as in Rule
201(a)(1) of Regulation SHO.
    \14\ See ISE Supplementary Material .08(c) to Options 3, Section
11 and ISE Supplementary Material .09(c) to Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend its Complex SOM,
Complex Facilitation, and Complex PIM rules to add a new sentence
within Supplementary Material .08(c) to Options 3, Section 11 and
Supplementary Material .09(c) to Options 3, Section 13 that describes
the manner in which NES would execute a short sale order in the
underlying covered security component of Response, Improvement Complex
Order, or unrelated Limit Complex Order on the Complex Order Book (1)
when the facilitating Electronic Access Member's contra-order, the
solicited contra-side Complex Order, or the Counter-Side Order does not
include a short sale order in the underlying covered security
component; or (2) when the facilitating Electronic Access Member's
contra-order, the solicited contra-side Complex Order, or the Counter-
Side Order includes a short sale order in the underlying security
component. As described more fully below, in the first case NES would
execute the underlying covered security component of the Response,
Improvement Complex Order, or unrelated Limit Complex Order on the
Complex Order Book at its stated limit price. In the second case, NES
would execute the underlying security component of the Response,
Improvement Complex Order, or unrelated Limit Complex Order on the
Complex Order Book at its stated limit price or better.
    The proposed rules will make clear to Members who submit auction
responses or Improvement Orders that include a short sale order, or
Members that place orders on the Complex Order Book that include a
short sale order, the manner in which NES will execute the short sale
component of their order when their Response, Improvement Complex
Order, or unrelated Limit Complex Order on the Complex Order Book
executes in the Complex SOM, Complex Facilitation, and Complex PIM
auction, (i.e., their short sale order will execute at its stated limit
price, but not at a better price) if the facilitating Electronic Access
Member's contra-order, the solicited contra-side Complex Order, or the
Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale order. However their
short sale order will execute at its stated limit price or better if
the facilitating Electronic Access Member's contra-order, the solicited
contra-side Complex Order, or the Counter-Side Order includes a short
sale order. Thus, whether a short sale order included in an auction
receives its stated limit price, or potentially receives a better price

than its limit price, depends on whether the contra-side order
submitted to the auction with an agency order also included a short
sale order. Although the availability of the potential for price
improvement for the responder's short sale order will vary, depending
on whether the contra-order also included a short sale order, ISE notes
that for the reasons described below the alternative would be to
exclude auction orders that include a short sale order from the Complex
SOM, Complex Facilitation, and Complex PIM altogether, which would
decrease competition in the auction and potentially reduce
opportunities for the agency order to receive price improvement in the
auctions. Below are some examples of Complex PIM Auction responses
(``Improvement Orders'') executing within a Complex PIM Auction.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ While the examples utilize the Complex PIM auction, the
same examples apply to a Complex SOM or Complex Facilitation
auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example No. 1--Complex PIM Auction Utilizing Stated Limit Price
    ISE BBO for option leg is 0.05 x 0.10.
    Underlying equity NBBO is 1.05 x 1.10.
    Reg SHO short sale price test is triggered in the underlying.
    Stock-Option Strategy is created to buy 1 put, buy 100 shares (cBBO
for this strategy is 1.10 x 1.20).
    Complex PIM to buy strategy, 100 @1.13 (buy stock @1.08 and options
@0.05); \16\ Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that different combinations of stock and
options prices could determine the strategy prices in this Example 1
as well as Examples 2 and 3. The Exchange is assuming the noted
prices for the examples, however the Exchange notes that multiple
price points could achieve the net prices in these examples. In this
particular case in Example 1, the agency order could buy stock @1.07
and buy options @0.06 in lieu of the prices noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improvement Complex Order1 is a Priority Customer Order to sell,
sell short stock leg, 100 @1.11 (sell stock @1.06 and options @0.05).
    Improvement Complex Order2 to sell, sell short stock leg, 100 @1.12
(sell stock @1.07 and options @0.05).
    Complex PIM auction timer concludes:
    Improvement Complex Order1 trades with Complex PIM Agency Order,
option @0.05 and stock @1.06 for net price of 1.11. The Improvement
Complex Order may not trade the underlying equity at 1.05 because it
cannot execute a short sale order at a price that is equal to the NBB
of the underlying equity.
Example No. 2--Complex PIM Auction Utilizing Stated Limit Price
    ISE BBO for option leg is 0.05 x 0.10.
    Underlying equity NBBO is 1.05 x 1.10.
    Reg SHO short sale price test is triggered in the underlying.
    Stock-Option Strategy is created to buy 1 put, buy 100 shares (cBBO
for this strategy is 1.10 x 1.20).
    Complex PIM to buy strategy, 100 @1.13 (buy stock @1.08 and options
@0.05); Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale order.
    Improvement Complex Order1 is a Priority Customer Order to sell,
sell short stock leg, 100 @1.10 (sell stock @1.05 and options @0.05).
    Improvement Complex Order2 to sell, sell short stock leg, 100 @1.12
(sell stock @1.06 and options @0.06).
    Complex PIM auction timer concludes:
    Improvement Complex Order2 trades with Complex PIM Agency Order,
option @0.06 and stock @1.06 for net price of 1.12. Since the Counter-
Side Order does not include a short sale order, Improvement Complex
Order1 is considered for execution at its stated limit price of 1.10;
since it cannot trade at 1.10 due to Reg SHO, it does not trade with
the Complex PIM Agency Order.
Example No. 3--Complex PIM Auction Where Counter-Side Is Also Short
Selling
    ISE BBO for option leg is 0.05 x 0.10.
    Underlying equity NBBO is 1.05 x 1.20.
    Counter-Side Order includes a short sale order.
    Reg SHO short sale price test is triggered in the underlying.
    Stock-Option Strategy is created to buy 1 put, buy 100 shares (cBBO
for this strategy is 1.10 x 1.30).
    Complex PIM to Buy strategy, 100 @1.13, Counter-Side Order is a
Market Order that is willing to auto-match at any price point within
Reg SHO price restriction bound and has `sell short' stock leg
instructions and therefore cannot trade the stock component at any
price less than or equal to the underlying best bid of $1.05. In this
example, if the Counter-Side Order did not have a ``sell short''
instruction it would not be required to trade at a price that is better
than the NBB for security ($1.05) and could execute at a price equal to
or less than the underlying best bid of $1.05. The price of 1.10 is the
cBB (net of option and underlying NBB).
    Improvement Complex Order1 is to sell, sell short stock leg, 100
@1.10 (selling stock at 1.05 and options at 0.05; note it cannot trade
at 1.10 due to Reg SHO).
    Improvement Complex Order2 to sell, sell short stock leg, 100 @1.12
(selling stock at 1.06 and options at 0.06).
    Complex PIM auction timer concludes:
    The Complex PIM Agency Order first executes 40 contracts with the
Counter-Side Market Order, the option leg at 0.05 and stock leg at 1.06
for a net price of 1.11. The remaining 60 contracts from the Complex
Agency Order then execute with Improvement Complex Order1 at the same
price. In this example, both the Complex Counter-Side Order and the
Improvement Complex Order are marked short sale, which permits the
Improvement Complex Order to trade at a price that is better than its
stated limit price.
    In this example, the Improvement Complex Order traded at its next
available price in lieu of its stated limit price because both the
Counter-Side Order and the Improvement Complex Order included a short
sale order in the underlying component security. In contrast, if the
Counter-Side Order did not include a short sale order than [sic] the
Counter-Side Order and Improvement Complex Order2 trade with the
Complex PIM Agency Order for [sic] net price of 1.12 (option @0.06 and
stock @1.06).
    The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text in Supplementary
Material .08 to Options 3, Section 11 with respect to a SOM and
Facilitation auction to provide:

    When a response or an unrelated limit complex order on the
complex order book includes a short sale order in the underlying
covered security, NES will execute such order at (1) its stated
limit price if the facilitating Electronic Access Member's contra
order or contra-side solicited Complex Order does not include a
short sale order in the underlying security; or (2) its stated limit
price or better if the facilitating Electronic Access Member' contra
order or the solicited contra-side Complex Order includes a short
sale order in the underlying covered security.

    With respect to a Complex PIM auction, the Exchange proposes to
amend the rule text within Supplementary Material .09 to Options 3,
Section 13 to provide:

    When an improvement order or an unrelated limit complex order on
the complex order book includes a short sale order in the underlying
covered security, NES will execute such order at (1) its stated
limit price if the Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale
order in the underlying security; or (2) its stated limit price or
better if the counter-side order includes a short sale order in the
underlying covered security.

    In such case where a response or an unrelated limit complex order
on the complex order book includes a short

sale order in the underlying covered security, NES will execute the
order at its stated limit price if the facilitating Electronic Access
Member's contra order, contra-side solicited Complex Order, or Counter-
Side Order does not include a short sale order in the underlying
covered security because the Exchange desires to foster competition by
including responses that have a short sale order in the underlying
covered security. In this scenario, the Exchange would consider all
prices submitted by responders at which the auction may execute because
the Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side solicited
Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order does not need to comply with the
short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO because the order
is not short. By using the order's stated limit price in this case, the
Exchange would allow the responder with a short sale order to
participate in the auction and allocate the best price possible to the
agency order while complying with the short sale price test.\17\ The
Exchange believes that including responses with a short sale order in
the underlying covered security may create additional competition in
the Complex SOM, Complex Facilitation and Complex PIM auction while
also providing additional opportunity for potential price improvement
for the agency order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For example, utilizing a Complex PIM auction with a BBO of
0.05 x 0.10 and an NBBO for the underlying security component of
1.05 x 1.10, if the Initiating Order submitted an agency order to
buy @1.13 and a contra-order to sell @1.13, with auto-match at any
price point, and Responder1 was long @1.10, and Responder2 was short
@1.10 (in this scenario 1.10 would not comply with the short sale
price test), pursuant to the proposed amendment, the agency order
would receive a price improvement allocation @1.10. In this scenario
the improved price of 1.11 would not be allocated to the responder
with a short sale rather the price improvement would be applied to
the agency order. The Exchange believes it is important to offer
price improvement to the agency order over the responder to the
auction. Of note, the responder that was short @1.10 would be
cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a response, Improvement Order, or an unrelated limit complex
order on the complex order book includes a short sale order in the
underlying covered security, NES will execute the order at its stated
limit price or better if the facilitating Electronic Access Member
contra order, solicited contra-side Complex Order, or Counter-Side
Order includes a short sale order in the underlying security component.
In this case, each short sale compliant price would be considered in
determining the price at which the auction may execute, which would be
at its stated limit price or better. In this scenario, because the
Electronic Access Member contra order, solicited contra-side Complex
Order, or Counter-Side Order are short, the Exchange will only consider
prices that comply with the short sale price test in Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO. In this case, all prices that are compliant with the
short sale price test are considered when allocating the auction, and
both the agency order and responders may receive a better price. The
auction would allocate at the agency order's stated limited price or
better depending on the prices of the responses. The auction responses
may execute at their stated limited price or better depending on the
final auction price.
    This is in contrast to the prior scenario where the Electronic
Access Member's contra order, contra-side solicited Complex Order, or
Counter-Side Order does not need to comply with the short sale price
test. Utilizing the proposed stated limit price or better where a
Member's contra order, contra-side solicited Complex Order, or Counter-
Side Order includes a short sale order allows the Exchange to
potentially provide price improvement opportunity to the agency order.
Implementation
    The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule
change prior to December 20, 2024. The implementation would commence
with a limited symbol migration and continue to migrate symbols over
several weeks. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to
Members to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and
the relevant dates.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest for the reasons discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to short sale regulation, the proposed handling of the
stock/ETF component of a Complex Order under this proposal does not
raise any issues of compliance with the currently operative provisions
of Regulation SHO \20\ and, therefore, the proposal promotes just and
equitable principles of trade. When a Complex Order has a stock/ETF
component, Members must indicate, pursuant to Regulation SHO, whether
that order involves a long or short sale. NES, as a trading center
under Rule 201, will be compliant with the requirements of Regulation
SHO. Of course, broker-dealers, including both NES and the Members
submitting orders to ISE with a stock/ETF component, must comply with
Regulation SHO. NES' compliance team updates, reviews and monitors NES'
policies and procedures including those pertaining to Regulation SHO on
an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 242.200 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case where a response, Improvement Order, or an unrelated
limit complex order includes a short sale order in the underlying
covered security, executing such order at its stated limit price when
the facilitating Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side
Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale
order in the underlying security would protect investors and the public
interest by considering all prices at which the auction could execute.
Under these circumstance, the Response, Improvement Complex Order, or
unrelated Limit Complex Order would be considered for execution at its
stated limit price (provided the limit price is compliant with the
short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO) while the
Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side solicited Complex
Order, or Counter-Side Order does not need to comply with the short
sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO because the order is not
short. Utilizing the order's stated limit price in this case allows the
responder with a short sale order to participate in the auction while
the agency order is allocated the best price possible while complying
with the short sale price test. The Exchange believes that this
behavior is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because it attempts to afford price improvement to the agency
order over the responder to the auction. Finally, the Exchange believes
that including responses with a short sale order in the underlying
covered security may create additional competition in the Complex SOM,
Complex Facilitation and Complex PIM auction and provides the agency
order with additional opportunities for potential price improvement.
    In contrast, when the facilitating Electronic Access Member's
contra order, contra-side Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order includes
a short sale order in the underlying covered security, the auction must
be allocated at a price that is short sell compliant. In this case,
each short sale compliant price would be considered in determining the
price at which the Complex SOM, Complex Facilitation and Complex PIM
auction may execute

and, because the Electronic Access Member contra order, solicited
contra-side Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order are short, the
Exchange will only consider prices that comply with the short sale
price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. As a result, the auction may
allocate at the agency order's stated limited price or better depending
on the prices of the responses. Also, the auction responses may execute
at their stated limited price or better depending on the final auction
price. The Exchange believes its proposal is consistent with the Act
and the protection of investors because both the agency order and
responders may receive a better price in this case. This is in contrast
to the prior scenario where the Electronic Access Member's contra
order, contra-side solicited Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order does
not need to comply with the short sale price test. Utilizing the
proposed stated limit price or better where a Member's contra order,
contra-side solicited Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order includes a
short sale order allows the Exchange to potentially provide a price
improvement opportunity to the agency order and to the auction
response. With the proposed amendments, Complex SOM, Complex
Facilitation, and Complex PIM auction responders who submit a response
would be aware of the auction price that would comply with the short
sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The proposed amendment
allows Members to participate in auctions with a short sale response
and such participation facilitates competition in these auctions. This
proposed approach is in lieu of prohibiting Members whose auction
Responses or resting Limit Complex Orders include a short sale order
from responding to these auctions, which would limit competition in the
auction. By allowing additional responses to participate in the
auction, the Exchange believes that the proposal would benefit
investors and the public interest because the additional interest may
increase competition in these auctions, which may lead to better
prices.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    Where a response, Improvement Order, or an unrelated limit complex
order includes a short sale order in the underlying covered security,
executing such order at its stated limit price when the facilitating
Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side Complex Order, or
Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale order in the
underlying covered security does not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange would uniformly consider all
prices submitted by responders in determining the allocation price
because the Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side
solicited Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order does not need to comply
with the short sale price test in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO because
the order is not short. Where a response, Improvement Order, or an
unrelated limit complex order includes a short sale order in the
underlying covered security, executing such order at its stated limit
price or better when the facilitating Electronic Access Member's contra
order, contra-side Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order is also a short
sale order in the underlying covered security component does not impose
an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange would
uniformly consider all prices that are compliant with the short sale
price test when allocating the auction.
    Where a response, Improvement Order, or an unrelated limit complex
order includes a short sale order in the underlying covered security,
executing such order at its stated limit price when the facilitating
Electronic Access Member's contra order, contra-side Complex Order, or
Counter-Side Order does not include a short sale order in the
underlying covered security and executing such order its stated limit
price or better when the facilitating Electronic Access Member contra-
order, solicited contra-side Complex Order, or Counter-Side Order is
also a short sale order in the underlying covered security component
does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because
other options exchanges today may offer a similar process for handling
stock-tied transactions that have a short sale order.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \21\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-ISE-2023-22 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-ISE-2023-22. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. Do not include personal identifiable
information in submissions; you should submit only information that you
wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold
entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject
to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number
SR-ISE-2023-22 and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22611 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72023-72025]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0921]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Genessee River, Rochester, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation
regulation for the CSX Transportation Bridge across Genessee River,
mile 0.9, at Rochester, NY. The drawbridge was removed in 2013 and the
operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2013-0921] is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this final rule. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the CSX Transportation Bridge that
once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.785 was removed from the
waterway in 2013. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and
shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM
because this regulatory action does not purport to place any
restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no
further use or value.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date.
This rule removes the CSX Transportation Bridge draw operation
requirements under 33 CFR 117.785, thus removing a regulatory
restriction on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The bridge was
removed from the waterway in 2013 and this rule merely requires an
administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a
regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The CSX Transportation Bridge across Genessee River, mile 0.9, was
removed in 2013. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that
the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never

removed subsequent to the removal of the drawbridge. The elimination of
this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation
regulation found in 33 CFR 117.785, that pertains to the former
drawbridge.
    The purpose of this rule is to remove the section of 33 CFR 117.785
that refers to the CSX Transportation Bridge at mile 0.9 from the Code
of Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that has been removed
from the waterway.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is revising the regulation in 33 CFR 117.785 by
removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for this bridge that is no longer in existence. The change
removes the section of the regulation governing the CSX Transportation
Bridge since the bridge has been removed from the waterway. This Final
Rule seeks to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing
language that governs the operation of the CSX Transportation Bridge,
which in fact no longer exists. This change does not affect waterway or
land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the
operating schedules in 33 CFR 117.785 that govern the remaining active
drawbridge on the Genessee River.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will have no effect on small entities since this
drawbridge has been removed and the regulation governing draw
operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. There is no new
restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule; therefore, the
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

3. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

4. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

5. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves an administrative change to remove an
existing drawbridge regulation for a drawbridge that has been removed
from the waterway. This rule is categorically

excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.785 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.785  Genessee River.

    The draw of the Colonel Patrick Henry O'Rorke Memorial Bridge, mile
1.2 at Rochester, shall open on signal from April 1 through December
15; however, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need be opened only
for the passage of commercial vessels. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.
to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and from 7
a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, the draw
need be opened only on the hour and half-hour, except that commercial
vessels shall be passed at any time. From December 16 through March 31,
the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given. The
owners of the bridge shall maintain clearance gauges in accordance with
33 CFR 118.160.

    Dated: November 16, 2013.
F. M. Midgette,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-28695 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27332]
[DOCID:fr14my10-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 10482-014, 10481-064, and 9690-106]

AER NY-Gen, LLC; Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC; Eagle Creek Water
Resources, LLC; Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC; Notice of Application
for Transfer of Licenses, and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

May 7, 2010.
    On April 30, 2010, AER NY-Gen, LLC (transferor) and Eagle Creek
Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek
Land Resources, LLC (transferees) filed an application for transfer of
licenses for the Swinging Bridge Project No. 10482, the Mongaup Falls
Project No. 10481, and the Rio Project No. 9690, located on the Mongaup
River in Sullivan and Orange Counties, New York.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for
the three above projects from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicant Contact: For transferor: Mr. Joseph Klimaszewski, AER NY-
Gen, LLC, 613 Plank Road, Forestburgh, New York, 12777; phone (845)
856-3920. For the transferee: Mr. Paul Ho, Eagle Creek Hydro Power,
LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources,
LLC, 400 Frank W. Burr Boulevard, Suite 37, Teaneck, NJ 07666; phone
(201) 287-4474.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the instructions on the Commission's
website under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types
of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://
www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project 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-9690-106, P-10481-064,
P-10482-014) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11531 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25739]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-813-000.
    Applicants: TWP Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Non-Conforming Transportation Agreement
to be effective 5/24/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130424-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-814-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Annual Adjustment to Rate Schedule SS-2 Storage Gas
Balances 2013 to be effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130424-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-815-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Removal of Non Conforming and Neg Rate TSAs and Points
of Contact Update Filing to be effective 5/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130424-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-816-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc..
    Description: DTI--Abandonment of Rate Schedules X-15 and X-58 to be
effective 5/28/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130424-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-460-001
    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC
    Description: Cadeville Gas Storage Tariff Filing 4.24.13 to be
effective 5/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130424-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: April 25, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10371 Filed 5-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 56176-56177]
[DOCID:fr26se05-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3243-EM]

Nevada; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Nevada (FEMA-3243-EM), dated September 13,
2005, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 13, 2005, the President declared an emergency
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Nevada, resulting from the influx of evacuees from states impacted
by Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 29, 2005, and continuing,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act).
Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of
Nevada.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act to save lives and protect public health and safety, or
to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated
areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program, at 100 percent
Federal funding. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees. In addition, you are authorized to
provide such other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford
Act as you may deem appropriate.
    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 emergency assistance and
administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
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 Acting Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security,
under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Karen E. Armes, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
emergency.
    I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Nevada to
have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:

    All 17 counties in the State of Nevada for Public Assistance
Category B (emergency protective measures), including direct Federal
assistance, at 100 percent Federal funding.

(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 Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs; 97.036, Public

Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department
of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-19108 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


Placeholder for document 146; this document is titled " Response to Section 114 Request for Information Concerning Trical's Inventories of Methyl Bromide as of December 31, 2002, dated January 17, 2003" and contains Confidential Business Information.

Please contact Hodayah Finman at 202 343 9246 for more information.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36242-36246]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15463]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881; A-1-FRL-9925-88-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Connecticut. The revision updates state regulations containing ambient
air quality standards (AAQS) to be consistent with EPA's national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of this
action is to approve these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 24, 2015, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by July 24, 2015. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-
OAR-2014-0881, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0881,''
Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-
2014-0881. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state's submittal are available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
state environmental agency: The Bureau of Air Management, Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is included in the submittal?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the submittal
V. Final Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of
Connecticut on April 22, 2014 concerning updates to Connecticut's AAQS.
The Connecticut AAQS, set out in Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-24, were amended to be consistent with
the NAAQS set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR
part 50. Connecticut also revised the definitions of ``ambient air
quality standard'' and ``PM 10'' in RCSA subsections 22a-174-1(10) and
22a-174-1(88), respectively, and revised references to RCSA section
22a-174-24 in RCSA subsections 22a-174-3a(k)(5) and 22a-174-28(a)(5).

II. What is the background for this action?

    Section 109 of the CAA directs EPA to establish NAAQS requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary
standard) and for the protection of public welfare (secondary
standard). Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to complete a
thorough review of the NAAQS at 5-year intervals and promulgate new
standards when appropriate. Additionally, Section 107 of the CAA
requires the establishment of air quality control regions for the
purpose of implementing the NAAQS.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the primary and
secondary 24-hour NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
to 35 micrograms per cubic meter and retained the primary and secondary
24-hour NAAQS for coarse particulate matter (PM10) of 150
micrograms per cubic meter. This final rule became effective on
December 18, 2006.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone,
setting the level of the primary and secondary 8-hour standard to 0.075
parts per million. This final ozone standard rule became effective on
May 27, 2008.
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the NAAQS for lead,
setting the level of the primary and secondary standard to 0.15
micrograms per cubic meter and revised the averaging time to a rolling
3-month period with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over
a 3-year period. The final lead standard rule became effective on
January 12, 2009.
    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides
of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen dioxide (NO2). EPA
established a 1-hour primary standard for NO2 at a level of
100 parts per billion, based on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations, to supplement the existing primary and secondary annual
standard of 53 parts per billion (61 FR 52852, Oct 8, 1996). The final
NO2 rule became effective on April 12, 2010.
    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the NAAQS for oxides of
sulfur as measured by sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA established
a new 1-hour SO2 primary standard at a level of 75 parts per
billion, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also revoked both the previous
24-hour and annual primary SO2 standards. This final rule
became effective on August 23, 2010.
    On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA revised the primary
PM2.5 annual NAAQS, lowering the standard to 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter. The final rule became effective on March 18, 2013.
    On April 22, 2014, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision to update
its ambient air quality standards set out in RCSA section 22a-174-24,
definitions in RCSA subsections 22a-174-1(10) and 22a-174-1(88), and
references in RCSA subsections 22a-174-3a(k)(5) and 22a-174-28(a)(5).
    On December 14, 2014, Connecticut withdrew RCSA subsection 22a-174-
24(m), ambient air quality standard for dioxin, from its April 22, 2014
SIP submittal.

III. What is included in the submittal?

    Connecticut's April 22, 2014 SIP submittal includes revised RCSA
section 22a-174-24, ``Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards.'' This regulation has been revised to explicitly
incorporate the new NAAQS discussed above. Specifically, Connecticut
adopted the following substantive changes:
    1. The sulfur dioxide primary 1-hour standard of 75 parts per
billion; and
    2. The PM10 primary and secondary annual standard of 150
micrograms per cubic meter;
    3. The PM2.5 primary annual standard of 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter;
    4. The PM2.5 secondary annual standard of 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter;
    5. The PM2.5 primary and secondary 24-hour standards of
35.0 micrograms per cubic meter;
    6. The ozone primary and secondary 8-hour standards of 0.075 parts
per million;
    7. The nitrogen dioxide primary 1-hour standard of 100 parts per
billion; and
    8. The lead primary and secondary rolling 3-month average standards
of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.
    Connecticut's April 22, 2014 SIP revision also includes
Connecticut's revised definitions of the terms ``ambient air quality
standard'' and ``PM 10'' in RCSA section 22a-174-1, ``Definitions.''
These definitions have been revised to reference 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 50, appendix J, respectively. In addition, Connecticut's SIP
submittal includes minor edits to subsection (k)(5) of RCSA section
22a-174-3a, ``Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources.''
Subsection (k)(5) has been updated to reference the defined term
``AAQS.'' Finally, in Connecticut's SIP submittal, the definition of
``control period'' in

subsection (a)(5) of RCSA section 22a-174-28, ``Oxygenated gasoline,''
has been updated to reference 40 CFR part 50.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

    Connecticut's air quality standards rule, RCSA section 22a-174-24,
as well as amendments to this rule, have been previously approved into
the Connecticut SIP, with the most recent approval occurring on
December 13, 1985 (50 FR 50906). The other rules for which amendments
were included in Connecticut's April 24, 2014 SIP revision have also
been previously approved into the Connecticut SIP, with the most recent
approvals occurring on May 10, 2011 (76 FR 26933) for RCSA sections
22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a, and on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 67188) for
RCSA section 22a-174-28. EPA has reviewed Connecticut's revisions to
its ambient air quality standards, definitions, and references and has
determined they are consistent with the federal NAAQS in 40 CFR part
50. Connecticut's revised RCSA section 22a-174-24 includes additional
and more stringent air quality standards than the previous SIP-approved
version of the rule. Thus, the revised RCSA section 22a-174-24
satisfies the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the
CAA and we are approving Connecticut's revised rule into the
Connecticut SIP.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP, the
following regulations submitted by Connecticut on April 22, 2014: In
RCSA section 22a-174-1, entitled ``Definitions,'' the amendment of
subdivisions (10) and (88); in RCSA section 22a-174-3a, entitled
``Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources,'' the amendment
of subdivision (k)(5); RCSA section 22a-174-24, entitled ``Connecticut
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards,'' with the
exception of subsection (m), ``Connecticut primary ambient air quality
standard for dioxin,'' which Connecticut withdrew from its SIP
submittal; and in RCSA section 22a-174-28, entitled, ``Oxygenated
Gasoline,'' the amendment of subdivision (a)(5).
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve this SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August
24, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by July 24, 2015.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on August 24, 2015 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies described in the amendments
to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, National ambient air quality
standards, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 26, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (106) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on April
22, 2014.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-1(10)
and (88), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014,
effective April 15, 2014.
    (B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-
3a(k)(5), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014,
effective April 15, 2014.
    (C) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Section 22a-174-24,
``Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards,''
with the exceptions of subsections (a), (c), (g), (j), and (m), as
published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1, 2014, effective
April 15, 2014.
    (D) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a-
174-28 (a)(5), as published in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 1,
2014, effective April 15, 2014.
    3. In Sec.  52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding new entries
for existing state citations ``22a-174-1'', ``22a-174-3a'', ``22a-174-
24'', and ``22a-174-28'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.385--EPA-approved  Connecticut regulations.

* * * * *

                                                         Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Dates
                                                          --------------------------------   Federal Register
    Connecticut State  citation         Title/Subject       Date adopted    Date approved        citation          Section 52.370   Comments/Description
                                                              by State         by EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-1.........................  Definitions..........        04/07/14        06/24/15  [Insert Federal       (c)(106).........  Amendment of
                                                                                Register citation].                      subdivisions (10)
                                                                                ambient air quality
                                                                                standard and (88)
                                                                                PM 10.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-3a........................  Permit to Construct          04/07/14        06/24/15  [Insert Federal       (c)(106).........  Amendment of
                                     and Operate                                            Register citation].                      subsection (k)(5)
                                     Stationary Sources.                                                                             Ambient Monitoring.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-24........................  Connecticut primary          04/07/14        06/24/15  [Insert Federal       (c)(106).........  All of 22a-174-24 is
                                     and secondary                                          Register citation].                      approved, with the
                                     ambient air quality                                                                             exception of
                                     standards.                                                                                subsection (m)
                                                                                Dioxin, which
                                                                                Connecticut
                                                                                withdrew from its
                                                                                SIP submittal.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
22a-174-28........................  SIP revision                 04/07/14        06/24/15  [Insert Federal       (c)(106).........  Amendment of
                                     concerning                                             Register citation].                      subdivision (a)(5)
                                     Oxygenated Gasoline.                                                                            Control period.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-15463 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60206-60208]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1083; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-130-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    There have been several cases reported where the landing gear
did not retract after take-off. Subsequent investigation revealed
this was caused by fatigue failure of the nose landing gear
electrical harness. In conjunction with one engine being inoperable,
this could, in certain operating conditions, affect continued safe
flight and landing.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 10,
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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 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 Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems
and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2008-1083;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-130-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on 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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2008-22, dated June 24, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There have been several cases reported where the landing gear
did not retract after take-off. Subsequent investigation revealed
this was caused by fatigue failure of the nose landing gear
electrical harness. In conjunction with one engine being inoperable,
this could, in certain operating conditions, affect continued safe
flight and landing.
    This directive mandates incorporation of new weight-on-wheels
(WOW) and steering harnesses that have a new conduit construction.

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

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-51, Revision `B,'
dated December 17, 2007. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an 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 proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 42 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $43,680, or $1,040 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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2008-
1083; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-130-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 10, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401,
and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, Serial
numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4184 inclusive.

Subject

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

Reason

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

    ``There have been several cases reported where the landing gear
did not retract after take-off. Subsequent investigation revealed
this was caused by fatigue failure of the nose landing gear
electrical harness. In conjunction with one engine being inoperable,
this could, in certain operating conditions, affect continued safe
flight and landing.''
    ``This directive mandates incorporation of new weight-on-wheels
(WOW) and steering harnesses that have a new conduit construction.''

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, replace the WOW and steering harnesses by incorporating Modsum
4-126401, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-51, Revision `B,' dated December
17, 2007.
    (2) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-51, dated August
16, 2007, or Revision `A,' dated August 22, 2007, are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements 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,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, 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: Wing Chan, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. 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, 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 MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-22,
dated June 24, 2008, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-51,
Revision `B,' dated December 17, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 2, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-24161 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P