[Federal Register: May 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23942-23944]
[DOCID:fr01my08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0216; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-004-AD;
Amendment 39-15489; AD 2008-09-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-
Produkcyjne Szybownictwa ``PZL-Bielsko'' Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz''
Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    On the pre-flight check of a SZD-50-3 glider, the Right Hand
(RH) wing airbrake was found impossible to retract. Investigation
revealed that the occurrence was caused by a loose bolt of the ``V''
shape airbrake bellcrank, named hereafter intermediate control
lever. The Left Hand (LH) wing lever also presented, to a lesser
extent, a loose bolt.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 5, 2008.
    As of February 1, 2008 (73 FR 3623), the Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of Allstar PZL Glider
Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,''
dated October 15, 2007, listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2008
(73 FR 10188), and proposed to supersede AD 2008-02-09, Amendment 39-
15339 (73 FR 3623, January 22, 2008).
    AD 2008-02-09 was issued as an interim action in order to address
the need for the immediate inspection for loose attachment bolts in the
left-hand and right-hand wing airbrake intermediate control lever
requirement and replacement if loose attachment bolts were found.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, issued Emergency
AD No. 2007-0275-E, dated October 24, 2007 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products.
    The EASA AD allows for repetitive inspections at intervals not to
exceed 100 hours time-in-service or 12 months, whichever occurs first
after the initial inspection if no loose bolts are found. The EASA AD
also requires replacing the split helical spring lock washers with tab
washers and the M8x34 bolts with M8x32 bolts on both wings at the next
1,000-hour inspection after the effective date of the AD.
    The Administrative Procedure Act does not permit the FAA to
``bootstrap'' a long-term requirement into an urgent safety of flight
action where the rule becomes effective at the same time the public has
the opportunity to comment. The short-term action and the long-term
action were analyzed separately for justification to bypass prior
public notice.
    We are issuing this AD to address the repetitive inspections and
mandatory parts replacement issues.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 6 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $480, or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $40, for a cost of
$1,000 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15339 (73 FR
3623, January 22, 2008), and adding the following new AD:

2008-09-08 Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa
``PZL-Bielsko'': Amendment 39-15489; Docket No. FAA-2008-0216;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-004-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 5,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-02-09, Amendment 39-15339.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' gliders, all
serial numbers up to and including B-2207, 503199327, 503A04001,
503A05002, and 503A05003, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

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

    On the pre-flight check of a SZD-50-3 glider, the Right Hand
(RH) wing airbrake was found impossible to retract. Investigation
revealed that the occurrence was caused by a loose bolt of the ``V''
shape airbrake bellcrank, named hereafter intermediate control
lever. The Left Hand (LH) wing lever also presented, to a lesser
extent, a loose bolt.
    This AD requires inspection of the LH and RH wing airbrake
intermediate control levers for loose attaching bolts and subsequent
repetitive inspections and corrective actions, as necessary. As a
terminating action, replacement of the bolts and their associated
washers is required.
    These actions are intended to address the identified unsafe
condition so as to prevent loss of the airbrake control system which
could result in an inadvertent forced landing with consequent
sailplane damage and/or passenger injury.

Requirements Retained From AD 2008-02-09

    (f) Do the following unless already done:
    (1) Inspect the left-hand (LH) and the right-hand (RH) wing
airbrake intermediate control levers for loose attaching bolts
within 10 days after February 1, 2008 (the effective date of AD
2008-02-09), following Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o. o. Service
Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15,
2007.
    (2) If any loose bolt is found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, replace the split helical spring lock
washers with tab washers and replace the M8x34 bolts with M8x32
bolts on both wings before further flight following Allstar PZL
Glider Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007
``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15, 2007. After doing this replacement,
no further action is required by this AD.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) Do the following unless already done:
    (1) If a loose bolt is not found during the initial inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, repetitively inspect
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) or 12 months, whichever occurs first, until you are required
to do the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of
this AD. Do the inspections following Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o. o.
Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,'' dated October
15, 2007.
    (2) If any loose bolt is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, replace the split helical spring lock
washers with tab washers and replace the M8x34 bolts with M8x32
bolts on both wings before further flight following Allstar PZL
Glider Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007
``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15, 2007. After doing this replacement,
no further action is required by this AD.
    (3) Replace the split helical spring lock washers with tab
washers and replace the M8x34 bolts with M8x32 bolts on both wings
within the next 1,000 hours TIS after June 5, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD), following Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o. o. Service
Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15,
2007. After doing this replacement, no further action is required by
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (816) 329-409. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Emergency AD No. 2007-0275-E, dated October 24, 2007; and Allstar
PZL Glider Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007
``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15, 2007, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin
No. BE-059/SZD-50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15, 2007, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) On February 1, 2008 (73 FR 3623), the Director of the
Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference
of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o. o. Service Bulletin No. BE-059/SZD-
50-3/2007 ``PUCHACZ,'' dated October 15, 2007.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
ALLSTAR PZL GLIDER Sp. z o.o., ul. Cieszynska 325, 453-300 Bielsko-
Biala.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 18, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-9578 Filed 4-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 20905-20907]
[DOCID:fr26ap07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55650; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Amendments to Interpretation to Rule
311(b)(5) (``Co-Designation of Principal Executive Officers'') as
Modified by Amendment No. 1

April 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 2, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On April 16, 2007, the Exchange submitted
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78(a) et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE is proposing amendments to Interpretation .05 to NYSE Rule
311(b)(5) regarding co-designation of principal executive officers.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Rule 311 (``Formation and Approval of Member Organizations'') and
specifically Section (b)(5) thereof

provide that ``principal executive officers'' shall exercise principal
executive responsibility over the various areas of the business of the
member corporation. Interpretation .05 to Rule 311(b)(5) (the
``Interpretation'') sets forth the regulatory framework under which
member organizations may request approval for assigning two persons as
the ``principal executive officers'' \5\ for the same function pursuant
to Rule 311(b)(5). It presently provides that no understanding or
agreement purporting to limit or apportion the joint and several
responsibility of each such co-officer will be recognized by the
Exchange. The proposed amended Interpretation would qualify that
prohibition to permit certain principal executive officers to allocate
specific responsibility, subject to Exchange approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 311(b)(5) provides that the board of directors of each
member organization shall designate ``principal executive officers''
who shall have responsibility over the various areas of the business
of the member organization. In operation, the Exchange recognizes
four such principal executive officers: Chief executive officer
(``CEO''), chief operations officer (``COO''), chief finance officer
(``CFO'') and chief compliance officer (``CCO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On September 7, 2005, the Commission approved changes to Rule
311.\6\ In promulgating the changes to the Interpretation, the Exchange
explained: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52391 (September 7,
2005), 70 FR 54429 (September 14, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-04).
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memo 05-69 (September 16, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Co-Designation of Principal Executive Officers

    The Exchange believes that co-designating principal executive
officer titles (i.e., assigning or sharing of the same title to two
persons) is a potentially troublesome practice in that it can lead to
confusion as to which designee is ultimately responsible and
accountable for assigned functions. However, there may be instances
where such arrangements are supported by valid business reasons, such
as when each co-designee has special expertise in critical areas within
the purview of the principal executive officer job description or co-
principal executive officers have functional responsibility for
separate business lines. In light of such circumstances, the Exchange
has permitted the co-designation of certain principal executive officer
titles at member organizations on a limited basis. Accordingly, the
amendments continue to permit such co-designations, but only pursuant
to a written request and subject to the prior written approval of the
Exchange (see new Section /05).
    Written requests to the Exchange must set forth the reason for the
co-designation and explain how the arrangement is structured. Further,
since such co-designations raise issues regarding which person has
ultimate authority and accountability, the request must make clear that
each co-designee has joint and several responsibility for discharging
the duties of the principal executive officer designation and that no
understanding or agreement purporting to apportion or limit such
responsibility will be recognized by the Exchange.
    In situations where authority is, by its nature, indivisible, such
as in the cases of CEOs and CFOs, the basis for this position is
unarguable. The Exchange now believes, however, that there are
legitimate situations where other principal executive officers exercise
supervisory authority over discrete and naturally separate business
functions, consistent with the internal corporate structure of the
particular member organization. As an example, the Exchange has seen a
reasonable division of supervisory jurisdictions and responsibility
between CCOs whereby one is responsible for the member organization's
retail brokerage activities and another deals with the firm's
investment banking functions. While there are inevitable areas of
overlap between the two, as where new offerings are readied for
distribution by the retail sales force, and any proposed request for
recognition of the differing areas would need to address such overlap,
the greater part of the two functions are mutually exclusive, and lend
themselves logically to separation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All present co-designations have involved two persons, and
that may be the optimal number for such sharing of responsibility.
However, to assure maximum member organization operational
flexibility, the proposed interpretation does not limit the number
to two, but would allow three co-designees where a compelling case
for such allocation is made. The Commission notes that while the
Exchange states above that it would allow three co-designees, the
proposed change to the Interpretation .05 of rule 311(b)(5) does not
specify a limit on the number of co-designees permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It can be seen that a joint and several responsibility could expose
one of the co-CCOs to regulatory sanctions for actions in an area which
he or she did not and could not reasonably supervise. This needs to be
balanced against the need to avoid the situation where each such
officer attempts to disclaim responsibility for the supervision of the
area in question.

Proposed Amendments

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Interpretation to
permit co-CCOs and co-COO \9\ to allocate supervisory responsibility in
a fashion acceptable to the Exchange. Where a member organization seeks
to divide regulatory responsibility between more than one principal
executive officer bearing the same or similar titles without the
assumption of joint and several responsibility, it must provide the
Exchange with a plan acceptable to the Exchange allocating specific
responsibility and making unambiguous provisions, especially for the
supervision of areas where the separate functions interact. It should
be clearly understood that joint and several responsibility remains in
effect for any area not specifically included in the plan approved by
the Exchange. In addition, because the CCO of a member organization has
unique responsibilities under Rule 342.30 (``Annual Reports''), the
revised Interpretation would also require a representation that the
certification required by Rule 342.30(e) will further confirm the
qualification of each such co-CCO and that the responsibility of the
co-CCOs encompasses every aspect of the business of the member
organization. Of necessity, each of the co-CCOs would meet with and
advise the CEO as part of the Rule 342.30 certification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although to date only co-CCOs have chosen to seek separate
status, it would not be unreasonable to extend the same treatment to
co-COOs where their duties are subject to rational separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Interpretation would read:
    The prior written approval of the Exchange is required to assign
[two] more than one person[s] to a single ``principal executive
officer'' designation pursuant to Rule 311(b)(5). Member organizations
seeking approval for such co-designations must submit a written request
to the Exchange that sets forth the reason for the co-designation,
explains how the arrangement is structured, and makes clear that each
co-designee has joint and several responsibility for discharging the
duties of that principal executive officer designation[;]. However, the
Exchange may approve a specific plan identifying the business need and
other justification for an arrangement which does not provide for joint
and several responsibility for principal executive officers other than
the chief executive officer and chief financial officer. Such a plan
must identify the areas and functions subject to separate supervisory
responsibility and make specific provisions for the supervisory

responsibility of functions, activities and areas which can reasonably
be expected to overlap. [no understanding or agreement purporting to
apportion or limit such responsibility will be recognized by the
Exchange.] In addition, in the case of co-CCOs, the written approval
request submitted in accordance with this Interpretation shall include
a representation to the Exchange, to the effect that the CEO's Annual
Report and Certification required by Rule 342.30(e) will further state,
in addition to the fact that each such CCO has met the qualification
requirements set forth at 342.30(d)/01, that the collective authority,
accountability, and responsibility of such co-equal CCOs encompasses,
without exception, every aspect of the business of such member
organization.

Implementation Date

    The proposed amendments would be effective upon SEC approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of
Sections 6(b)(5)\10\ of the Act. Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other
things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, and in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
amendments will provide member organizations with organizational
flexibility in the allocation of certain regulatory responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSE-2007-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-10. 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 inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information 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-NYSE-2007-10 and should be submitted by May 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7939 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Date:  June 25, 2014

Meeting:  Webinar  -  "Setting State Goals"

Rule(s) Discussed: Clean Power Plan Proposal -- Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

Attendee List:  Attached.  Presenter  -  Brian Fisher, OAP

Written Materials? Yes/No  -  Presentation Attached

Summary of Relevant, Factual Information Received: This was the first in a series of three webinars EPA offered to state and tribal officials about aspects of the June 2014 proposed Clean Power Plan; the subject of this webinar was Setting State Goals.  The webinar is posted online at www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11700-11701]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-12-013]

Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved
Software; Notice of Technical Conference: Increasing Real-Time and Day-
Ahead Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved Software

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference on June 21, 22, and 23, 2022 to discuss opportunities for
increasing real-time and day-ahead market efficiency of the bulk power
system through improved software. A detailed agenda with the list of
and times for the selected speakers will be published on the
Commission's website \1\ and in eLibrary after May 20, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/electric/power-sales-and-markets/increasing-efficiency-through-improved-software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This conference will bring together and encourage discussion
between experts from diverse backgrounds, including electric power
system operators, software developers, and professionals from
government, research centers, and academia. The conference will bring
these experts together for the purposes of stimulating discussion,
sharing information, and identifying fruitful avenues for research on
improving software for increased efficiency and reliability of the bulk
power system.
    This conference will build on discussions at prior conferences in
this proceeding by focusing on topics identified as important to market
efficiency in those conferences. Broadly, such topics fall into the
following categories:
    (1) Software for better modeling and computation of storage
resources and distributed energy resources (DERs), especially software
that addresses challenges such resources pose to current market-
clearing and dispatch algorithms.
    (2) Software advances to help with the transition to increased use
of probabilistic models in system planning, whether scenario-based or
stochastic, to better account low-probability, high-impact events, such
as extreme weather events, which are increasingly common.
    (3) Improvements to the ability to identify and use flexibility in
the existing systems in ways that improve bulk power system reliability
and economic efficiency, including transmission constraint relaxation
practices, ramp management, and improving resources' responsiveness to
dispatch instructions.
    (4) Representations of uncertainty that increase market efficiency
and lead to better understanding of events that could impact
reliability of the bulk power system, including: 15-Minute unit-
commitment and day-ahead market intervals; stochastic modeling;
software for forecasting and enhancing visibility into changing system
conditions; improved modeling approaches to energy and reserve
dispatch; and software for managing uncertainties in variable energy
resource output.
    (5) Software related to grid-enhancing technologies, such as those
described in Docket Nos. AD19-19 \2\ and AD19-15,\3\ including optimal
transmission switching, dynamic transmission line ratings, power flow
controls, and any software related to implementing the Commission's
recent rulemaking regarding line ratings in Order No. 881.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Electric Transmission Incentives Policy under Section 219 of
the Federal Power Act, Docket No. AD19-19-000.
    \3\ Managing Transmission Line Ratings, Docket No. AD19-15-000.
    \4\ Managing Transmission Line Ratings, Order No. 881, 177 FERC
] 61,179 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Software for better modeling and computation of resources with
distinct operating characteristics such as storage resources, multi-
stage/multi-configuration resources, hybrid resources, aggregations of
DERs, and others. Presentations on this topic should focus on
alternative formulations and solution methods for market models.
    (7) Improvements to the representation of physical constraints that
are either not currently modeled or currently modeled using
mathematical approximations, including voltage and reactive power
constraints, stability constraints, fuel delivery constraints, and
constraints related to contingencies.
    (8) Software that enables the calculation of prices that better
reflect costs of operation and that provide better incentives for
efficient market entry and market exit.
    (9) Other improvements in algorithms, model formulations, or
hardware that may allow for increases in market efficiency and enhanced
bulk power system reliability.
    Within these or related topics, we encourage presentations that
discuss modeling best practices, existing modeling practices that need
improvement, any modeling advances newly achieved, or perspectives on
increasing market efficiency through improved power systems modeling.
    The conference will take place virtually via WebEx, with remote
participation from both presenters and attendees. Further details on
remote attendance and participation will be released prior to the
conference.
    Attendees must register through the Commission's website on or
before June 10, 2022.\5\ WebEx connections may not be available to
those who do not register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The attendee registration form is located at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SHFLFKV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker nominations must be submitted on or before April 22, 2022
through the Commission's website \6\ by providing the proposed
speaker's contact information along with a title, abstract, and list of
contributing authors for the proposed presentation. Proposed
presentations should be related to the topics discussed above. Speakers
and presentations will be selected to ensure relevant topics and to
accommodate time constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The speaker nomination form is located at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/S3M89MK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission will accept comments following the conference, with
a deadline of July 29, 2022.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Commission's website that
enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is
added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online
service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations. This notice is issued and published
in accordance with 18 CFR 2.1.
    For further information about these conferences, please contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004, [email protected].
Alexander Smith (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy

and Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

    Dated: February 24, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04376 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76171-76173]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26763]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0795; FRL-10217-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing an
approval of a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from solvent cleaning and degreasing operations. We are
proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0795 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please

contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD............................            2.31  Solvent Cleaning and              07/14/2021        07/18/22
                                                     Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On September 30, 2022, the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.31 was
determined to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix
V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There is a previous version of Rule 2.31 in the SIP, revised on
April 12, 2017, submitted to us by CARB on August 9, 2017, and
finalized with a limited approval and limited disapproval into the SIP
on July 30, 2021 (86 FR 40959). If we take final action to approve the
July 18, 2022 version of Rule 2.31, this version will replace the
previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog, and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control emissions of VOCs. The purpose of Rule 2.31 is to limit the
emissions of VOCs from solvent cleaning operations and solvent
degreasing operations, and from the storage and disposal of materials
used for such operations. The EPA's technical support document (TSD)
has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as Severe nonattainment for the 2008 and 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); \1\ and Moderate
nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ Therefore, this rule
must implement RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ (40 CFR 81.305).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.
    5. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents'' EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006.
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating
Operations at Aerospace manufacturing and Rework Operations'' EPA-453/
R-97-004, December 1997.
    7. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing''
EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 2.31 improves the SIP by eliminating an exemption that was not
approvable. The rule is largely consistent with CAA requirements and
with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and SIP revisions. The
EPA's TSD has more information regarding the EPA's analysis of this
rule.

C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing a full approval of the submitted rule. We will accept
comments from the public on this proposal until January 12, 2023. If
finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the
SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the YSAQMD Rule 2.31, which regulates VOC emissions from
solvent cleaning and degreasing operations. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     The State did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in
the record inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 4, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-26763 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P