[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76532-76540]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26428]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0603; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-026-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Meggitt (Troy), Inc. Combustion Heaters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for
certain Meggitt (Troy), Inc. (previously known as Stewart Warner South
Wind Corporation and as Stewart Warner South Wind Division) Model
Series (to include all the variants) 921, 930, 937, 940, 944, 945, 977,
978, 979, 8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472 combustion heaters that proposed
to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 81-09-09. The NPRM proposed
to retain most actions from AD 81-09-09, add a calendar time to the
repetitive inspections, add more detailed actions to the inspections,
and add a pressure decay test. The NPRM was prompted by an airplane
accident and reports we received of the heater malfunctioning. This
action revises the NPRM by adding combustion heater models series to
the applicability and modifying the compliance times. We are proposing
this SNPRM to correct the unsafe condition on these products. Since
these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the
NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49249) is reopened. We must receive
comments on this SNPRM by December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Meggitt Control Systems, 3 Industrial Drive, Troy, Indiana 47588;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.stewart-warner.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0603; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chung-Der Young, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696; telephone (847)
294-7309; fax<PHONE_NUMBER> email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2014-0603;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-026-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On April 16, 1981, we issued AD 81-09-09, Amendment 39-4102 (46 FR
24936, May 4, 1981) (``AD 81-09-09''), for certain Meggitt (Troy), Inc.
(previously known as Stewart Warner South Wind Corporation and as
Stewart Warner South Wind Division) Model Series 8240, 8253, 8259, and
8472 combustion heaters. AD 81-09-09 resulted from a hazardous
condition caused by deterioration of the combustion heater. AD 81-09-09
currently requires repetitive inspections of the combustion heater;
repetitive installation inspections of the combustion heater; and, for
combustion heaters having 1,000 hours or more time-in-service (TIS),
overhaul of the combustion heater.
    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede AD
81-09-09 on August 13, 2014, which published in the Federal Register on
August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49249). The NPRM was prompted by an airplane
accident and reports we received of the heater malfunctioning. The NPRM
proposed to retain most actions from AD 81-09-09, add a calendar time
to the repetitive inspections, add more detailed actions to the
inspections, and add a pressure decay test.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we received comments from the public
during the comment period that resulted

in our decision to issue this SNPRM. This SNPRM proposes to increase
the applicability and modify the compliance time. We also completed an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis to determine the impact of the
proposed AD on small entities (this was at the request of one of the
comments received on the NPRM). Adopted on September 5, 2014, the
National Transportation Safety Board issued the probable cause for the
airplane accident that initiated this investigation. The probable cause
was identified as malfunction of the cabin heater, which resulted in an
inflight fire and smoke in the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Allow Repair of the Combustion Tube

    James W. Tarter Jr. from Meggitt (Troy), Inc. identified that the
Meggitt Inspection Procedure, Document No. IP-347, dated May 17, 2014,
allows repair of combustion tubes that do not pass the pressure decay
test (PDT); however, the proposed AD required a combustion tube
replacement. We infer that the commenter wants to allow the repair of
the combustion tube when it fails the PDT.
    We disagree with allowing repair of the combustion tube when it
fails the PDT. The cracked combustion tube metal wall becomes oxidized
and the cross-section of the crack is contaminated by combusted fuel
residuals; therefore, there is no way to make a reliable repair. The
welding will crack again in an unpredictable period of service time.
    We did not make any changes to this SNPRM as a result to this
comment.

Request To Delay Issuance of AD Until PDT Procedure Is Publically
Available

    Anthony Saxton requested we delay the issuance of the final rule
until the PDT procedure is publicly available. He stated that he had a
difficult time getting a copy of the procedure.
    We do not agree with the commenter about delaying the rule. By
policy, the FAA cannot post to the public docket service information
that is part of the proposed action until the publication of the final
rule unless there is written permission from the design approval
holder. The FAA does not currently have such written permission. We
encourage the commenter to obtain a copy of this document from the
design approval holder. After the final rule is published in the
Federal Register, the PDT procedure will be readily available to the
public in the docket.
    We did not make changes to this SNPRM based on this comment.

Request To Change Number of Airplanes Affected and Number of Labor
Hours Required To Comply

    Anthony Saxton commented that the number of airplanes affected was
too low and the labor cost was too low.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree the number of
airplanes affected was not complete, but was the FAA's best estimate at
the time. We obtained our initial information from the FAA aircraft
registry, and the registry does not identify which airplanes have
combustion heaters. An FAA economist has completed a more complete
assessment of the number of affected aircraft during the development of
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The estimated number of
affected airplanes has been modified based on the initial regulatory
flexability analysis.
    We disagree with modifying the labor hours to perform the labor
without more substantive information to support a different number.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    William West commented that AD action is not needed. He requested
we withdraw the NPRM and provide guidance to owners/operators reminding
them that if the heater malfunctions to not use it until it has been
properly inspected.
    We disagree with this comment. We completed a review of the
accident/incident data as well as service difficulty reports over
several years. The level of risk identified in the data review shows
that we should address this unsafe condition through mandatory action
rather than guidance. This proposed AD action is consistent with AD
actions taken against other similar products. We have no way of
assuring that the unsafe condition has been mitigated through voluntary
guidance action.
    We did not make changes to this SNPRM based on this comment.

Request To Allow Limited Decay in the PDT

    Harold Haskins commented that we should do a PDT that allows some
leakage as per AD 2004-21-05 (69 FR 61993, October 22, 2004). He
commented that the test identified in the Meggitt (Troy), Inc.
procedure is not really a pressure decay test because no decay is
allowed. Allowing a certain amount of decay/leakage is consistent with
other AD actions.
    We agree with the commenter that there are other ADs where the
required pressure decay tests allow a certain amount of leakage;
however, we disagree with modifying the SNPRM because Meggitt (Troy),
Inc., as the design approval holder, has the responsibility to develop
what they believe is appropriate procedures to maintain their
combustion heaters. Owners/operators may provide substantiating data
and request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 and specified in paragraph
(m) of this SNPRM.
    We did not make changes to this SNPRM based on this comment.

Request To Change the Listing of the Part Numbers or Model Numbers
Affected

    Sin Kwong Chew, Anthony Saxton, and the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) commented that we should use the part numbers or
more detailed model numbers for the affected heaters. Another commenter
suggested we use the four upper level model series number.
    We agree with changing how the model and series numbers are listed
in the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this proposed AD. We want to
ensure that the applicability of the proposed AD will address all
affected model/part number heaters.
    We modified the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this proposed AD,
to state the upper level model number of the heaters and to specify
that all the part number heaters and dash numbers are included under
that higher level designation.

Request Change to Procedures

    William Sandmann requested we change the heater disconnect
procedures to cap off the fuel supply as near to the fuel source as
possible to reduce the possibility that fuel may leak from the fuel
line.
    We disagree with this comment. The manufacturer's instructions are
FAA approved and acceptable. The commenter's suggestion may be an
improvement on the manufacturer's instructions, but it is not required
and is too detailed a level to include in this proposed AD.
    We did not make changes to this SNPRM as a result of this comment.

Request Change to Credit for Previous Inspections

    Chris (no last name or company affiliation given) requested we
allow

credit for PDTs previously done using the manufacturer's instructions
within the last 2 years/250 hours. The commenter also requested that we
do not allow credit for the general inspection of the combustion heater
because previous instructions are not sufficient to meet the new
inspection criteria.
    We agree with the commenter's suggestions. The proposed AD contains
the language ``unless already done'' in paragraph (f) Compliance. That
language allows credit for any of the actions required by the AD that
were performed before the effective date of the AD using the
instructions required by the AD. That language does not allow credit
for the previous instructions in AD 81-09-09 since we agree that they
are not sufficient to meet the inspection criteria.
    We did not make changes to the SNPRM based on this comment.

Request Replacement of Combustion Heater Instead of Overhaul

    Anthony Saxton and the Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association
(AOPA) requested we require replacement of the combustion heater tube
instead of an overhaul of the combustion heater if a combustion heater
fails the PDT. An overhaul is a costly requirement that adds no
additional safety benefit.
    We agree with the commenters' suggestion. Additional inspections in
the proposed AD would require inspection and possible replacement of
individual components of the combustion heater. Therefore, if the
heater fails the PDT, replacement of the combustion heater tube would
be a better option rather than heater overhaul.
    We have modified the corrective action language for a PDT failure
to replacement, disable, or remove the combustion heater.

Request Removal of Combustion Heater Model 8248

    Harold Haskins and William Sandmann commented they were unaware of
a Model 8248 combustion heater.
    We agree with this comment. The Model 8248 was included based on
the FAA technical standard order (TSO) database. After further
research, Meggitt (Troy), Inc. verified that the Model 8248 was
included in the database in error and did not exist.
    We have removed the Model 8248 combustion heater from the
Applicability, paragraph (c) of this proposed AD.

Request the Addition of Service Information

    Harold Haskins requested we add the service information for the
Model 8240 and 8259 combustion heaters.
    We agree with the commenter's suggestion.
    We have added South Wind Service Manual for Stewart Warner South
Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240-A, 8240-C, 8259-A, 8259-C, 8259-DL, 8259-
FL1, 8259-GL1, 8259-GL2, Form No. 09-998 (Rev. 12-69) to the service
information required for this proposed AD.

Request To Delete Piper From Possible Combustion Heater Installation

    Harold Haskins requested that we delete Piper Aircraft, Inc.
(Piper) airplanes from possible airplanes that may have the affected
combustion heaters installed. He does not know of any Piper airplanes
that have the affected heaters installed.
    We disagree with this comment. The proposed AD addressed the
combustion heaters at the component level, and they have the potential
for installation on various airplanes. Also, this AD as proposed in
this SNPRM would expand the applicability to include combustion heaters
that are installed on Piper airplanes as well as any other airplanes
not listed, thus the reason for the phrase ``are installed on, but not
limited to'' in the applicability.

Request Increasing the Time Allowed for Initial Compliance Time

    Anthony Saxton and AOPA requested modifying the initial compliance
time to provide a longer period of time to comply. Two commenters
suggested modifing the compliance time to better coincide with a normal
maintenance schedule--within the next 10 hours of time-in-service of
the combustion heater or at the next scheduled 100-hour inspection,
annual inspection, or phase inspection. This would allow maintenance
shops to better accommodate owners/operators in complying with the AD.
    We agree with the commenters. Since the NPRM, this SNPRM adds
combustion heater models to the Applicability, paragraph (c) of this
proposed AD. It would be appropriate to allow more time to assure that
maintenance facilities are able to support doing the work required by
the AD.
    We have modified the wording for the initial inspection compliance
times for the combustion heater inspection, combustion heater
installation inspection, and the PDT to better coincide with regularly
scheduled maintenance.

Request Adding Document Number to Service Information

    James W. Tartar Jr. and Meggitt (Troy), Inc. requested adding the
document number for the Meggitt (Troy), Inc. inspection procedure for
the PDT for clarity.
    We agree with this comment. In this proposed AD, we cite the
Meggitt (Troy), Inc. inspection procedure for the PDT as Meggitt
Inspection Procedure, Document No. IP-347, dated May 17, 2014.

Request the AD Include an Analysis of the Impact on Small Businesses

    Anthony Saxton requested that we include in the AD an analysis of
the AD's impact on small businesses. The commenter stated they are
aware of a number of small businesses that operate the affected
airplanes.
    We agree with this comment. The commenter has a good understanding
of the usage of the airplanes affected by this SNPRM. Also, this
proposed AD adds combustion heater models to the Applicability,
paragraph (c) of this proposed, that will affect additional airplanes
over that affected in the proposed rule.
    We have completed an initial regulatory flexability analysis that
we have included in its entirety in this SNPRM.

Support of Proposed AD

    AOPA, NTSB, William Sandmann, and Anthony Saxton all supported the
general intent of the proposed AD action.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information that applies to this
proposed AD:

--Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation South Wind Service Manual for
Stewart Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240-A, 8240-C, 8259-A,
8259-C, 8259-DL, 8259-FL1, 8259-GL1, 8259-GL2, Form No. 09-998,
revised: December 1969;
--South Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Service Manual Beech
Aircraft Corporation PM-20688, Part No. 404-001039 Heater Assy. (SW
8253-B), revised: April 1965;
--South Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Service Manual South
Wind Aircraft Heater 8472 Series, Form No. 09-1015, issued: April 1975;
and

    The service information above describes procedures for inspection
of the combustion heater and inspection of the installation of the
combustion heater for the applicable heater models.

    We also reviewed Meggitt Inspection Procedure, Pressure Decay Test,
Aircraft Heaters, dated May 17, 2014. This service information
describes procedures for the PDT for airplane combustion heaters for
all heater models.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of this rulemaking. As
a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This SNPRM would require repetitive inspections of the combustion
heater and repetitive general inspections of the combustion heater
installation, replacing any parts or components as necessary. This
SNPRM would also require repetitive PDTs, with replacement of the
combustion heater tube, disabling, or removal of the combustion heater
in the event of PDT failure. This SNPRM also modifies the inspection
and PDT compliance times allowing for the inspections to coincide with
regularly scheduled maintenance. This SNPRM would not allow repair of
the combustion heater tube.
    For combustion heater models other than Models 8240, 8253, 8259,
and 8472, this SNPRM does not have referenced service information
associated with certain required inspections and the PDT and, if
necessary, any replacement(s) that may be required. Appendix 1 of this
SNPRM contains a listing of service information that provides specific
instructions, for certain inspections and replacements, that may be
used to apply for an AMOC. However, the listing in appendix 1 to this
SNPRM does not include any instructions for the required PDT because
these procedures do not exist. If you are unable to obtain instructions
for the PDT, you must disable or remove the combustion heater.
    The service information listed in appendix 1 of this SNPRM did not
meet Office of the Federal Register regulatory requirements for
incorporation by reference approval due to the condition of the
documents.
    We are evaluating the actions required in AD 69-13-03 (38 FR 33765,
December 7, 1973) and may take further AD action in the future.

Differences Between This SNPRM and the Service Information

    The proposed AD would prohibit repair of any defective combustion
tube while the service information does not specify this.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6,300 combustion heaters
installed on, but not limited to, certain Beech, Britten-Norman, Cessna
Aircraft Company, and Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections and pressure decay      7 work-hours x $85     Not applicable.......            $595      $3,748,500
 test of the combustion heater.      per hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary combustion
heater disable/removal/related replacement that would be required based
on the results of the proposed inspections/test. We have no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need a combustion heater
disable/removal/related replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                            Labor cost                   Parts cost             product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace combustion heater tube........  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =   $3,900..................          $4,580
                                         $680.
Replace temperature switches..........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =    $320....................             405
                                         $85.
Repair pump...........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =   $470....................             640
                                         $170.
Disable heater........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =   Not Applicable..........             170
                                         $170.
Remove heater.........................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour =   Not Applicable..........             255
                                         $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This section presents the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) that was done for this action. We have reworded and reformatted
for Federal Register publication purposes. The IRFA in its original
form can be found in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, the RFA requires
agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are seriously considered.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as described
in the RFA. The FAA finds that the proposed AD would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
in the following sections we discuss the compliance requirements of the
proposed AD, the cost of compliance, and the economic impact on small
entities.
    Section 603(a) of the RFA requires that each initial regulatory
flexibility analysis contain:
--A description of the reasons action by the agency is being
considered;
--A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
--A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
--A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record; and to the extent practicable, an identification of
all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict
with the proposed rule; and
--A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statues and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.

1. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    Title 49 of the U.S. 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 FAA'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 the airplanes identified in this
proposed AD.

2. A Description of the Reasons Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered

    This proposed AD stems from the crash of a Cessna 401 near Chanute,
Kansas, on May 11, 2012, killing the pilot and three of the four
passengers aboard, and seriously injuring the fourth passenger.
According to the NTSB report, the crash occurred after dark smoke
emanated from the cabin heater and entered the cabin obscuring the
occupants' vision. According to the Report: ``The smoke likely
interfered with the pilot's ability to identify a safe landing site.''
When the pilot attempted an emergency landing in a field, the
airplane's wing contacted the ground and the airplane cartwheeled.
    The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be:

The malfunction of the cabin heater, which resulted in an inflight
fire and smoke in the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the
pilot's lack of understanding concerning the status of the
airplane's heater system following an earlier overheat event and the
risk of its continued use. Also contributing were the inadequate
inspection criteria for the cabin heater.

    As result of this accident, the FAA is proposing this AD to detect
and correct a hazardous condition caused by deterioration of the
combustion heater, a condition that could lead to ignition of heater
components and result in smoke and fumes in the airplane cabin.

3. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To
Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    This proposed AD would supersede AD 81-09-09, which applies to 8000
series Meggitt combustion heaters installed on certain twin-engine
piston airplanes, primarily Cessna 300 and 400 series airplanes, but
also installed on the Beech D18S twin-engine airplane and some Britten
Norman twin-engine piston airplanes. The proposed AD would extend
applicability to 900 series Meggitt combustion heaters installed on
certain Cessna single-engine piston airplanes, Cessna 310 twin-engine
airplanes, Lake LA-4 and LA-250 airplanes, certain Ryan Navion single-
engine piston airplanes and certain Piper PA-23 and PA-30 airplanes.
The FAA estimates that there are 4,121 airplanes equipped with 8000
series Meggitt combustion heaters, and 2,123 airplanes equipped with
900 series Meggitt combustion heaters. Since many of these airplanes
are registered to Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Liability
Partnerships (LLPs) and other company forms typically suited for single
proprietors, small partnerships, etc., we conclude that the proposed
rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.

4. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed AD.

5. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    Because of an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop
on the airplanes identified in this proposed AD, there is no feasible
significant alternative to requiring the actions of this proposed AD.
The FAA invites public comment on this determination.
    The FAA considered allowing more flight hours or calendar time
before requiring compliance, but this alternative would increase the
risk of another fatal accident. This proposed AD allows the combustion
heater to be disconnected or removed, but, as noted above, operating
without a heater is unlikely to be viable.

6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule

    Small entities would incur no new reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as a result of this rule.

Compliance Requirements

    This proposed AD would carry over the following requirements from
AD 81-09-09:

--Conduction of the 250-hour heater inspection every 250 hours of
heater operation, in accordance with the manufacturer's service manual.
We estimate the labor cost of this action to be 2 hours x $85 = $170.

--General inspection of the heater installation at the same time as the
250-hour inspection. We estimate the labor cost of this action to also
be 2 hours x $85 = $170.

    Since the proposed rule would extend applicability to 900 series
heaters Meggitt combustion heaters, which are installed on certain
airplanes, there is an incremental cost associated with the existing
requirement for these two inspections. There is no incremental cost
associated with applicability to 8000 series heaters, installed on
certain airplanes, as the current rule already applies to these
heaters.
    This proposed AD would add the following new provisions, which will
apply to both 900 and 8000 series heaters installed on certain
airplanes:

--During each 250-hour inspection more detailed actions would be
required, namely inspection of the thermostat and upper limit switches,
and inspection of the solenoid valve and fuel pump. In conjunction with
the 250-hour and installation inspections already required, the labor
cost of these more detailed actions would be one hour of labor at $85.
``On-condition'' costs to replace the temperature switches would be an
additional hour of labor ($85) and $320 in materials cost, for a total
of $405. On-condition costs to repair/overhaul the pump would be an
additional two hours of labor ($170) and $470 in materials cost for a
total of $640.
--Operators would be required to replace defective combustion tubes
with new tubes as repair of combustion tubes would be prohibited. We
estimate the cost of prohibiting repair of combustion tubes to be
minimal as industry reports that the Meggitt heater combustion tubes
are effectively non-repairable.
--At the same time as the 250-hour and installation inspection, a
combustion heater pressure decay test (PDT) would be required. The PDT
would cost $170. If the combustion heater fails the PDT, the operator
would be required to replace the combustion tube at an installed cost
of $4,580.
--Operators have the options of disabling the heater at an estimated
cost of $170 or removing it at estimated cost of $255.

Cost of Compliance

    In calculating the cost of compliance, we assume that operating
without a heater is unlikely to be viable. We estimate the ten-year
cost of the proposed rule. Based on data in the 2014 GA Survey, we can
somewhat conservatively assume that average flight hours per airplane
per year are about 100 hours. We estimate heater time to be 50 percent
of airplane flight hours so, on average, flight hours will accumulate
to about 1,000 hours in ten years and heater time will accumulate to
about 500 hours. Since requirements for inspection internals are ``250
hours of combustion heater operations or two years, whichever occurs
first,'' we expect inspections to usually occur every two years. As
will be seen below, compliance costs are dominated by the almost
immediate requirement for the PDT test.

Pressure Decay Test

    The FAA estimates that 90 percent of combustion tubes tested will
fail the first PDT test. Since replacing the combustion tube, like an
overhaul, requires complete disassembly of the combustion heater, we
somewhat conservatively assume that operators will overhaul their
combustion heaters at $4,580, rather than simply replace the combustion
tube, at $4,900. Major components such as the combustion tube, fuel
pump, and temperature switches that are typically replaced or
overhauled in a combustion heater overhaul have service lives of 750
heater hours, equivalent to about 1,500 flight hours or 15 years.
Therefore, we assume that once replaced or overhauled, these components
will not need to be replaced during our 10-year period of cost
estimation. So aside from the initial tube replacement, we estimate
that, for inspections required by this proposed AD, ``on-condition''
costs would be minimal.
    Table 1 below shows our calculation of compliance cost for
airplanes with the affected Meggitt combustion heaters. We assume the
rule to be effective in 2017 and, as discussed above, in the first year
we assume the combustion heater fails the PDT resulting in a subsequent
overhaul. For the 8000 series heaters note that the $935 labor cost for
2017 includes three hours of labor ($255) for the detailed inspection
and the PDT in addition to eight hours of labor for the overhaul
($680).
    As the table shows, we estimate the present value cost of
compliance to be $6,020 for airplanes equipped with 8000 series Meggitt
combustion heaters and $7,514 for airplanes equipped with 900 series
Meggitt combustion heaters. The lower cost for airplanes with 8000
series combustion heaters reflects the previously noted fact that 8000
series heaters are currently subject to the 250-hour inspection and
installation inspection requirements, and, therefore, the incremental
cost would be correspondingly less for airplanes with 8000 series
combustion heaters compared to airplanes with 900 series heaters.

Economic Impact on Small Entities

    If the cost of compliance is greater than 2 percent of the value of
an operator's airplane, the FAA considers the cost impact to be
significant. So if the value of an airplane equipped with an affected
Meggitt combustion heater is less than 50 times the cost of compliance,
we consider that the operator of the airplane would incur a substantial
economic impact. With a present value cost of about $6,000 for
airplanes equipped with 8000 series Meggitt combustion heaters, the FAA
considers the cost impact to be significant for all such airplanes with
values below about $300,000. With a present value cost of about $7,500
for airplanes equipped with 900 series Meggitt combustion heaters, the
FAA considers the cost impact to be significant for all such airplanes
with values below about $350,000. The airplanes equipped with the
affected heaters are single- and twin-engine piston airplanes that, for
the most part, were manufactured from the 1940s to the 1980s, and range
in price from about $350,000 for a Cessna 221C Golden Eagle down to a
price as low as $30,000 for a Piper 23-150 Apache. Accordingly, most of
the 6,244 airplanes equipped with Meggitt combustion heaters have
values low enough to consider that the airplane operators would incur a
significant economic impact. As noted above, many of these airplanes
are registered to LLCs and other small companies.
    The FAA therefore concludes that this proposed AD would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

                                                              Table 1--Costs of Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Mtls + labor                                      Discount
                  Year                    Materials cost    Labor cost         cost                   Actions              factor  (@7%)      PV Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Airplanes with 8000 Series Meggitt Combustion Heaters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................          $4,220            $935          $5,155  Detailed inspection (1 hr                1.000          $5,155
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor)--
                                                                                Overhaul after assumed
                                                                                failure (8 hrs labor, $4,220
                                                                                materials).
2019....................................  ..............             255             255  Detailed inspection (1 hr                0.873             223
                                                                                labor), PDT inspection (2 hrs
                                                                                labor).
2021....................................  ..............             255             255  Detailed inspection (1 hr                0.763             195
                                                                                labor), PDT inspection (2 hrs
                                                                                labor).
2023....................................  ..............             255             255  Detailed inspection (1 hr                0.666             170
                                                                                labor), PDT inspection (2 hrs
                                                                                labor).
2025....................................  ..............             255             255  Detailed inspection (1 hr                0.582             148
                                                                                labor), PDT inspection (2 hrs
                                                                                labor).
2027....................................  ..............             255             255  Detailed inspection (1 hr                0.508             130
                                                                                labor), PDT inspection (2 hrs
                                                                                labor).
                                         ------------------------------------------------                                -------------------------------
    Total PV Cost.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............................  ..............           6,020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Airplanes with 900 Series Combustion Meggitt Heaters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................           4,220           1,275           5,495  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 1.000           5,495
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor)--
                                                                                Overhaul after assumed
                                                                                failure (8 hrs labor, 4,220
                                                                                materials).
2019....................................  ..............             595             595  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 0.873             520
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor).
2021....................................  ..............             595             595  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 0.763             454
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor).
2023....................................  ..............             595             595  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 0.666             396
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor).
2025....................................  ..............             595             595  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 0.582             346
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor).
2027....................................  ..............             595             595  250-hr inspection (2 hrs                 0.508             302
                                                                                labor), installation
                                                                                inspection (2 hrs labor),
                                                                                detailed inspection (1 hr
                                                                                labor), PDT (2 hrs labor).
                                         ------------------------------------------------                                -------------------------------
    Total PV Cost.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............................  ..............           7,514
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing AD 81-09-09, Amendment 39-
4102 (46 FR 24936, May 4, 1981) and adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

Meggitt (Troy), Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0603; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-026-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 81-09-09, Amendment 39-4102 (46 FR 24936,
May 4, 1981).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Meggitt (Troy), Inc. (previously known as
Stewart Warner South Wind Corporation and as Stewart Warner South
Wind Division) Models (to include all dash number and model number
variants) 921, 930, 937, 940, 944, 945, 977, 978, 979, 8240, 8253,
8259, and 8472 combustion heaters that:
    (i) Are installed on, but not limited to, certain Beech,
Britten-Norman, Cessna Aircraft Company, and Piper Aircraft, Inc.
airplanes; and
    (ii) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2140; Heating System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an airplane accident and reports we
received that the combustion heater was malfunctioning. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct a hazardous condition caused
by deterioration of the combustion heater, which could lead to
ignition of components and result in smoke and fumes in the cabin.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD by doing one of the actions in paragraphs
(f)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD at the compliance times indicated,
unless already done. If the hours of combustion heater operation
cannot be determined, use 50 percent of the airplane's hours time-
in-service (TIS):
    (1) Perform the actions specified in paragraphs (g) through (j)
of this AD;
    (2) Disable the heater following the instructions in paragraph
(k)(1) of this AD; or
    (3) Remove the heater following the instructions in paragraph
(k)(2) of this AD.

(g) Inspections and Pressure Decay Test (PDT) of the Combustion Heater

    Within the next 10 hours TIS of the combustion heater after the
effective date of this AD or the next scheduled 100-hour inspection,
annual inspection, or phase inspection that occurs 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 hours of combustion heater
operation or two years, whichever occurs first, do the following
inspections and PDT listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this
AD. You may do one of the actions in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this
AD in lieu of doing the inspections required by paragraph (g).
    (1) Inspections using the instructions in paragraph (i)(1) or
(j) of this AD, as applicable.
    (2) Inspections using the steps listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)
through (v) of this AD:
    (i) Inspect the thermostat switch (external from heater) and
upper limit switch (located on the heater). In cold static
condition, both switches should be in closed position; in operation
(hot) condition, both switches should regulate their sensed
temperatures within +/-10 degrees F.
    (ii) Inspect the solenoid valve and fuel pump for fuel leak,
corrosion, diaphragm crack, metal shavings, and excess grease.
    (iii) With the heater operating, inspect the fuel pump output
pressure for proper gauge hook up and pressure range readings.
    (iv) Inspect the combustion heater's fuel pump operating
pressure to assure it is not affected by other on-board pumps.
    (v) Inspect the heater to assure it instantly responds to the
on/off switch.
    (3) Installation inspections and checks using the steps listed
in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv) of this AD:
    (i) Inspect ventilating air and combustion air inlets and
exhaust outlet correcting any restrictions and ensure attachment
security.
    (ii) Inspect drain line and ensure it is free of obstruction.
    (iii) Check all fuel lines for security at joints and shrouds,
correcting/replacing those showing evidence of looseness or leakage.
    (iv) Check all electrical wiring for security at attachment
points, correcting conditions leading to arcing, chafing or
looseness.
    (4) Pressure decay test using the instructions in paragraph
(i)(2) or (j) of this AD, as applicable.

(h) Replacement of the Heater Tube and/or Correct or Replace Other
Assemblies

    If any discrepancies are found during any of the inspections/
tests required in paragraphs (g)(1), (2), (3), and/or (4) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the defective heater tube and/or
correct or replace other defective assemblies as necessary. You must
use the instructions in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as
applicable, to do any necessary replacements. This AD does not allow
repair of the combustion tube. You may do one of the actions in
paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD in lieu of doing the replacements
required by paragraph (h).

(i) Procedures for Inspection, PDT, and Replacement for Models 8240,
8253, 8259, and 8472

    (1) For the inspections required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD
and the replacement(s) that may be required in paragraph (h) of this
AD, use the service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this AD, as applicable, or do one of the actions in
paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD.
    (i) Stewart-Warner South Wind Corporation South Wind Service
Manual for Stewart Warner South Wind Aircraft Heaters 8240-A, 8240-
C, 8259-A, 8259-C, 8259-DL, 8259-FL1, 8259-GL1, 8259-GL2, Form No.
09-998, revised: December 1969;
    (ii) South Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Beech
Aircraft Corporation Service Manual PM-20688, Part No. 404-001039
Heater Assy. (SW 8253-B), revised: April 1965; or
    (iii) South Wind Division Stewart-Warner Corporation Service
Manual South Wind Aircraft Heater 8472 Series, Form No. 09-1015,
issued: April 1975.
    (2) For the pressure decay test (PDT) required in paragraph
(g)(4) of this AD, use Meggitt Inspection Procedure, Pressure Decay
Test, Aircraft Heaters, IP-347, dated May 17, 2014, or do one of the
actions in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this AD.

(j) Procedures for Inspection, PDT, and Replacement for Models Other
Than Models 8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472

    This AD does not have referenced service information associated
with the mandatory requirements of this AD for models other than
Models 8240, 8253, 8259, and 8472. For the required inspections and
PDT specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (4) of this AD and, if
necessary, any replacement(s) specified in paragraph (h) of this AD,
you must contact the manufacturer to obtain FAA-approved inspection,
replacement, and PDT procedures approved specifically for this AD
and implement those procedures through an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) or do one of the actions in paragraph (k)(1) or
(2) of this AD. You may use the contact information found in
paragraph (n)(2) to contact the manufacturer. Appendix 1 of this AD
contains a listing of service information that provides specific
instructions, for certain inspections and replacements, that you may
use to apply for an AMOC following paragraph (m) of this AD. The
service information listed in appendix 1 of this AD did not meet
Office of the Federal Register regulatory requirements for
incorporation by reference approval due to the condition of the
documents. However, the listing in appendix 1 to this AD does not
include any instructions for the PDT required in paragraph (g)(4)
because these procedures do not exist.

(k) Disable or Removal of the Combustion Heater

    As an option to the inspection and replacement actions specified
in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, within the next 10 hours TIS
of the combustion heater after the effective date of this AD or the
next scheduled 100-hour inspection, annual inspection, or phase
inspection that occurs 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, do one of the following actions:
    (1) Disable the heater by the following actions:
    (i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel supply;
    (ii) Disconnect circuit breakers;
    (iii) Tag the main switch ``Heater Inoperable''; and
    (iv) The ventilation blower can stay functional.
    (v) If you re-enable the combustion heater, you must perform one
of the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (2) Remove the heater by the following actions:
    (i) Disconnect and cap the heater fuel supply;
    (ii) Disconnect/remove circuit breakers;
    (iii) Remove exhaust pipe extension;

    (iv) Cap the exhaust opening;
    (v) Remove the heater; and
    (vi) Do weight and balance for the aircraft.
    (vii) If you install an applicable combustion heater, you must
perform one of the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
AD.

(l) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are permitted in accordance with 14 CFR
39.23 with the following limitation: Use of the heater is not
allowed.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 81-09-09 (46 FR 24936, May 4, 1981)
are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chung-Der Young,
Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
60018-4696; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER> email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Meggitt Control Systems, 3 Industrial Drive, Troy, Indiana 47588;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.stewart-warner.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Appendix 1 to Docket No. FAA-2016-0603

    The following service information applies to certain combustion
heater models affected by this AD, but the service information can
not be required by the AD. You may use this service information for
procedural guidance when applying for an alternative method of
compliance.

--South Wind Service Manual P.M. 35710 Aircraft Heaters 8240-E,
8259-HL1, HL2, -L, supplements attached HR2.JR2.M;
--South Wind Service Manual PM35710 Aircraft Heaters
--Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind Division Service Manual
South Wind Aircraft Heaters Series 921 and 930, Ind-506, Revision 4-
53;
--Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind Division Service Manual
SouthWind Series 940 Heater, PM-10035, Revision 3-82;
--Stewart-Warner Corporation South Wind Division Service Manual
South Wind Model 978 Personal Heater, Form No. PM6348 (12-56);
--South Wind Service Manual Model 979-B1 Aircraft Heater, South Wind
Division of Stewart-Warner Corporation, (3-51);
--Navion Model 977-B Installation Manual Section I, Section II,
Section III, and Section IV.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 27, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26428 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68743-68746]
[DOCID:fr28no06-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002-200530(a); FRL-8246-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410, to approve a revision to the
Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on June 8, 2005. The
revision is source-specific to the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
(LM), located in Pinellas County, Florida, and regards that facility's
compliance with Florida's Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products Reasonably Available Control Technology rule, found at
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62-296.513 (FL MMPP Rule).
The source-specific SIP revision seeks to allow LM to employ as
reasonably available control technology (RACT) the control techniques
outlined in EPA's December 1997, ``Aerospace Control Technique
Guidelines'' (EPA's Aerospace CTG), instead of the RACT described in
the FL MMPP Rule. The source-specific SIP revision is approvable
because it meets the standards for approval described in section 110(l)
of the CAA.

DATES: This direct final action is effective January 29, 2007 without
further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 28,
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final action in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the direct final action will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-FL-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-FL-0002,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2005-FL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http: //http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FL MMPP Rule describes specific RACT that is necessary to
achieve the specified emission rates for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Specifically, the Rule requires sources that apply surface
coatings to any number of metal parts and products to limit their VOC
emission rates. Consistent with the FL MMPP Rule, however, sources are
exempt from regulation if they emit not more than 15 pounds in any one
day and not more than three pounds in any one hour. F.A.C. Rule
62.296.500(3)(a). The FL MMPP Rule was incorporated into the Florida
SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), and applies to a wide range of
source categories, including aerospace manufacturing.
    Section 183 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7511b, ``Federal ozone
measures,'' requires EPA to issue control techniques guidelines for
categories of stationary sources of VOC emissions. Pursuant to section
183 of the CAA, in December 1997, EPA issued a control techniques
guideline entitled, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Operations,'' (EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-97-004) (EPA's Aerospace
CTG). The purpose of EPA's Aerospace CTG is to present feasible RACT
control measures for VOC emissions from coatings and solvents used
specifically in the aerospace industry. EPA has encouraged states to
adopt EPA's Aerospace CTG as part of their regulations of VOC emissions
from the aerospace industry. Although Florida has not yet revised its
SIP to include EPA's Aerospace CTG for all aerospace manufacturers, it
did submit a source-specific SIP revision on June 8, 2005, for LM's
Pinellas County facility to utilize the RACT described in EPA's
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, which is not specific to the
aerospace industry.
    LM produces aerospace parts and components, primarily in support of
the manufacture and sustainability of military aircrafts. At the
present time, the surface coating operations of LM are exempt from the
FL MMPP Rule because its operations emit VOCs at lower rates than the
minimum rates necessary to be regulated under that Rule. However, LM
anticipates that it will increase production levels such that VOC
emissions from surface coating operations in the near future would
exceed the exemption criteria of the FL MMPP Rule, thus subjecting LM
to the RACT requirements of the FL MMPP Rule. As will be discussed in
greater detail below, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG is more
detailed than the RACT required by the FL MMPP Rule because it focuses
on specific aspects of the aerospace industry that result in VOC
emissions. As a result, in the case of LM, the RACT described in EPA's
Aerospace CTG is expected to be more effective than the RACT described
in FL MMPP Rule for controlling emissions from LM's Pinellas County
facility.
    On June 8, 2005, FDEP submitted a source-specific SIP revision to
EPA requiring the Pinellas County LM facility to comply with EPA's
Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule. In essence, FL is requesting
that EPA approve a SIP revision subjecting LM to the RACT described in
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is now taking direct final action to approve
that revision into the Florida SIP.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    As noted above, EPA has encouraged the adoption of its Aerospace
CTG for the regulation of VOC emissions from the aerospace industry.
This source-specific SIP revision, which would require that LM comply
with EPA's Aerospace CTG in lieu of the FL MMPP Rule, is consistent
with that policy.
    As part of its review of this proposed SIP revision, EPA evaluated
the proposed revision consistent with the standards described in
section 110(l) of the CAA, ``Plan revisions.'' Section 110(l) specifies
that EPA may not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or any other
applicable requirements of the CAA. Because EPA's Aerospace CTG is
specific to the aerospace industry, the applicable RACT is better
suited than the FL MMPP Rule to control VOC emissions from that
industry.
    Both the FL MMPP Rule and EPA's Aerospace CTG describe ``RACT;''
however, the CTG describes specific RACT for the aerospace industry,
and therefore, can provide more effective emissions control options for
that industry. For example, the FL MMPP Rule describes RACT generally
for primers and topcoats that are typically applied within a confined
environment such as a paint booth. EPA's Aerospace CTG has greater
detail and addresses RACT specifically for solvent cleaning operations,
adhesive and sealant application, specialty coating materials that are
not applied in a booth, and waste handling operations, among other
situations. As a result, the RACT described in EPA's Aerospace CTG may
be more stringent than the FL MMPP Rule because the FL MMPP Rule does
not address all the specific situations applicable to the aerospace
industry. According to data provided to EPA by LM, LM can reduce VOC
emissions to a greater extent using EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT in lieu of
the FL MMPP Rule RACT. In summary, LM's use of EPA's Aerospace CTG RACT
is expected to result in at least equivalent controls, if not more
stringent controls, than those imposed by the FL MMPP Rule.
Additionally, on May 19, 2005, FDEP issued a federally enforceable
minor-source air construction permit to the facility, limiting LM's
total VOC emissions to 25 tpy, representing another limit on VOC
emissions from this facility.
    EPA has further determined that approving this source-specific SIP
revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement, as described in section 110(l) of the CAA due to the fact
that this source-specific SIP revision will impose more stringent RACT
on LM's facility than would otherwise be required under Florida Law.
Based on the foregoing analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed
source-specific revision to the Florida SIP is consistent with section
110(l) of the CAA, and is approvable.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Florida SIP submitted by FDEP on June 8, 2005. The revision is source-
specific to the LM facility located in Pinellas County, Florida, and
regards that facility's use of RACT to control VOC emissions. Instead
of following the RACT described in the FL MMPP Rule, the source-
specific revision requires LM to comply with the RACT described in
EPA's Aerospace CTG. EPA is publishing this direct final action without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal 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 the SIP
revision should adverse comments be filed. This direct final action
will be effective January 29, 2007 without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by December 28, 2006.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will withdraw the
direct final action and inform the public that the direct final action
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. EPA will
not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 29, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. As a result, the action does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action 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,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(d) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ``Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                           EPA Approved (State or County) Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
          Name of source              Permit No.    effective date    EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics         ..............        04/16/05  11/28/06 [Insert       Requirement that
 Company.                                                            citation of            Lockheed Martin
                                                                     publication].          Aeronautics Company
                                                                                comply with EPA's
                                                                                Aerospace CTG at its
                                                                                Pinellas County
                                                                                facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-20073 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53007-53009]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21610]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65159; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Change the Name and Modify the Contents of the NASDAQ Ouch BBO Feed

August 18, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 12, 2011, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') 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 NASDAQ. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to change the name
of the NASDAQ Ouch BBO Feed to the NASDAQ MatchView Feed (the ``Feed'')
and to modify the contents of the Feed in two ways. The Feed provides a
view of how the Exchange views the Best Bid and Offer (``BBO'')
available from all market centers for each individual security the
Exchange trades.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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
    This proposal regards the NASDAQ MatchView Feed (formerly known as
the NASDAQ Ouch BBO Feed), a data feed that represents the Exchange's
view of best bid and offer data received from all market centers. The
Feed is available to all Exchange members and market participants
equally at no charge, offering all participants transparent, real-time
data concerning the Exchange's view of the BBO data. The Exchange makes
the Feed available on a subscription basis to market participants that
are connected to the Exchange whether through extranets, direct
connection, or Internet-based virtual private networks.
    Currently, the Feed reflects the Exchange's view of the BBO data,
at any given time, based on orders executed on the Exchange and updated
quote information from the network processors.\3\ The Feed contains the
following data elements: symbol, bid price, and ask price.\4\ Unlike
the Nasdaq TotalView feed, the MatchView feed does not contain
information about individual orders, either those residing within the
Exchange system or those executed or routed by the Exchange. Unlike the
network processor feeds containing the National Best Bid and Offer
(``NBBO''), the MatchView Feed does not identify either the market
center quoting the BBO or the size of the

BBO quotes. It merely contains the symbol and bid and offer prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Feed does not reflect all information available to the
Exchange. Specifically, the Feed excludes information about the
routing of orders to away exchanges. Thus, although the Exchange
execution system and routing engine know when a bid or offer from an
away market is no longer available because the Exchange has routed
an order to the bid or offer, the Feed does not reflect such routing
activity.
    \4\ The Feed also contains a time stamp and message type field
for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is modifying the inputs used for calculating the
prices reflected on the Feed. Currently, the Feed reflects bids and
offers contained on data feeds from the network processors, as well as
certain NASDAQ orders referenced below. In the future, the Feed will
continue to reflect these orders entered on the Exchange but rather
than reflect only individual exchange bids and offers received from the
network processors, the Feed will reflect individual exchange bids and
offers received either from the network processor or directly from an
exchange that disseminates bids and offers to vendors via a proprietary
data feed. The Exchange will reflect bids and offers from another
exchange's proprietary data feed only when the Exchange deems the
proprietary data feed to be sufficiently reliable and also faster than
the network processor.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is also changing its policies and procedures
under Regulation NMS governing the data feeds used by its execution
system and routing engine. Current policies state that those systems
use data provided by the network processors. In the future, those
systems will use data provided either by the network processors or
by proprietary feeds offered by certain exchanges directly to
vendors. The determination of which data feed to utilize will be the
same as the determination made with respect to the Feed. In other
words, the Exchange execution system, routing engine and Feed will
each utilize the same data for a given exchange although, as set
forth in footnote 3 above, the Feed does not contain all information
available to the execution system and routing engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This determination--whether to utilize bids and offers from the
network processor feed or from a direct proprietary data feed--will be
made by the Exchange on a market-by-market basis based upon objective
criteria about reliability and speed. The determination, once made,
will apply to all bids and offers from an exchange; it will not be made
on a stock-by-stock basis. Additionally, the determination, once made,
will be valid until such time as the away exchange stops disseminating
the proprietary data feed in a manner that meets NASDAQ's objective
criteria (for example, when that exchange experiences operational
difficulties that reduce the reliability and speed of its proprietary
data feed). For exchanges that do not disseminate proprietary data
feeds or whose proprietary data feeds lack sufficient reliability and
speed, the Feed will continue to reflect bids and offers disseminated
via the network processor feeds.
    Additionally, in a previous filing, the Exchange noted that the
Feed depicts the Exchange's view of the BBO for all markets other than
the Exchange.\6\ In one narrow set of circumstances, the Feed will show
the BBO for all markets including the Exchange. Specifically, an order
received by the Exchange that improves the BBO will be reflected in the
Feed when three circumstances are met: (1) The Exchange receives an
order marked by the entering member as any visible bookable order that
is not an IOC and is an ``Inter-market Sweep'' (an order known as a
``Day ISO''); (2) the Day ISO order is priced higher than the current
Best Bid or lower than the current Best Offer disseminated by the
network processor or applicable exchange proprietary data feed; and (3)
the Day ISO represents the new best bid or offer on the Exchange. In
those circumstances, the new best bid or offer on the Exchange will be
transmitted to the network processor and then reflected on the Feed
(and the Exchange's other proprietary data feeds, such as NASDAQ
TotalView). As stated above, the Feed does not show the market center
responsible (whether the Exchange or an away market) for either the
Best Bid or Best Offer reflected on the Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61451 (Feb. 1,
2010); 75 FR 6246 (Feb. 8, 2010) (filing SR-NASDAQ-2010-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These modifications to the Feed will enhance market transparency
and foster competition among orders and markets. Member firms may use
the Feed to more accurately price their orders based on the Exchange's
view of what the BBO is at any point in time, including bids and offers
received via proprietary data feeds which may not be reflected in the
official NBBO due to latencies inherent in the NBBO's dissemination. As
a consequence, member firms may more accurately price their orders on
the Exchange, thereby avoiding price adjustments by the Exchange based
on a quote that is no longer available. Additionally, members can use
the Feed to price orders more aggressively to narrow the NBBO and
provide better reference prices for investors.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general and with Sections
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
this proposal is in keeping with those principles by enhancing
transparency through the dissemination of the most accurate quotations
data and by clarifying its contents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \11\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay because it would
permit the Exchange to immediately provide the new content of the
NASDAQ MatchView Feed to market participants. The Commission believes
that waiving

the 30-day operative delay \13\ is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and designates the proposal operative
upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-118. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASDAQ. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2011-118 and should be submitted on or before
September 14, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21610 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P