Comment Info: =================

General Comment:

05/12/2014  Dear Mr. Zeller,

I am writing as a consumer to request an extension for the comment period of the Food and Drug Administration's proposed deeming regulations on e-cigarette products. I am respectfully requesting that the comment period for the proposed rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period.

The proposed rule raises a number of significant issues, questions and concerns which as a consumer of these products, I feel the need to address this in a thoughtful concerted manner. I will provide my thoughts and comments on each of them. While my time is extremely limited, I am currently working on my formal comment, but as you know, it takes time. I know that the FDA took many years to come up with the proposed rules, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public ample time to comment on the proposed regulations. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and has exercised this authority on other occasions. I ask that you do so here. This way all consumers will have the opportunity to provide their comments on the proposed regulations.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Regards.


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51573-51574]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 739-022]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations,
Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

September 30, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 739-022.
    c. Date filed: June 29, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Claytor Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the New River in
Pulaski County, Virginia. The project does not affect Federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Teresa Rogers, Reservoir Superintendent,
Appalachian Power Company, 40 Franklin Road, Roanoke, VA 24011, (540)
985-2441<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may

be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The Project Description: The Claytor Project consists of: (1) A
1,142-foot-long, 137-foot-high concrete gravity dam; (2) a 4,472-acre
reservoir with a storage capacity of 225,000 acre-feet at normal pool
elevation 1,846.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD); (3)
four 16-foot-diameter penstocks; (4) a powerhouse integral with the dam
containing four generating units with a combined capacity of 75
megawatts; (5) a 1,000-foot-long transmission line; and (6) switching
and appurtenant equipment.
    The applicant proposes to expand its current levelized flow mode
whereby releases from the project approximate inflows to the project
over a 24-hour period from April 15 through October 15 to April 1
through November 30. Reservoir levels would continue to be maintained
between 1,845 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD and a minimum average
hourly flow of 750 cubic feet per second (cfs), or inflow, whichever is
less, would be provided downstream of the project. The applicant would
also modify the current period for peaking operations from October 16
through April 14 to December 1 through March 31 and increase its
minimum average hourly downstream flow from 750 cfs to 1,000 cfs, or
inflow, whichever is less. During this period, the applicant would
extend the time to ramp down during peaking operations from 15 minutes
to 30 minutes but continue to bring units on line in 15 minute
intervals to meet system demands. Reservoir levels would be maintained
between 1,844 feet NGVD and 1,846 feet NGVD. In addition, the applicant
would eliminate the current winter drawdown to protect aquatic
resources including State-listed mussel populations. For recreation
purposes, the applicant is proposing to provide weekend releases of
1,000 cfs when inflow falls below 1,000 cfs but is above 800 cfs and
would provide recreation releases for the annual squirt boat
competition each May.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues Draft EA................  May 28, 2010.
Comments on Draft EA......................  June 27, 2010.
Modified Terms and Conditions.............  August 26, 2010.
Commission Issues Final EA................  November 24, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24122 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72401-72404]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4816; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-238-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by investigations that revealed that the cover
seal of the brake dual distribution valve (BDDV) was damaged and did
not ensure efficient sealing. This proposed AD would require modifying
the BDDV having certain part numbers; modifying the drain hose of the
BDDV; checking for the presence of water, ice, and hydraulic fluid; and
re-identifying the BDDV; and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the
BDDV, which could lead to water ingestion in the BDDV and freezing of
the BDDV in flight, possibly resulting in loss of braking system
function after landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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-2015-
4816; 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
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-4816;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-238-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0251R1, dated December 17, 2014 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 1998, an operator experienced a dual loss of braking systems.
Investigation results revealed that the cover seal of the Brake Dual
Distribution Valve (BDDV) was damaged and did not ensure the sealing
efficiency.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to water ingestion
in the BDDV and freezing of the BDDV in flight, possibly resulting
in loss of braking system function after landing.
    [The Directorate General for Civil Aviation] (DGAC) France
issued AD 2000-258-146 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/20002580tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-2000-258-146_1] [which corresponds to
certain actions in FAA AD 2001-15-10, Amendment 39-12344 (66 FR
39413, July 31, 2001)] to require modification of the BDDV with a
new cover and installation of a draining tube with a cap.
    Since that French AD was issued, following a new event, Airbus
developed a modification of the BDDV drain tube which will leave it
open, ensuring continuous drainage of any ingested water, thereby
preventing freezing of the brake system.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued [another AD] * * *,
to require modification of the BDDV drain tube.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, comments were received that
indicated a need for correction and clarification. Consequently,
this [EASA] AD is revised to add a Note to Table 1 and to amend
paragraph (3).

    The modification includes a check for the presence of water, ice,
and hydraulic fluid, and related investigative and corrective actions
if necessary. Related investigative actions include an inspection for
corrosion. Corrective actions include replacing the BDDV. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4816.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, dated September 2,
2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the
BDDV having certain part numbers; and modifying the drain hose of the
BDDV; the modification includes a check for the presence of water, ice,
and hydraulic fluid; and re-identifying the BDDV; and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Explanation of ``RC'' Procedures and Tests in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are
required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures
and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to
improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements
and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The procedures
and tests identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service
information have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving,
or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the
specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified
as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the
proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as
RC are recommended. Those procedures and

tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC
can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
will require approval of an AMOC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $421
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $887,243, or $931 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-4816; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
238-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 4, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus
Modification 26925 has been embodied in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by investigations that revealed that the
cover seal of the BDDV was damaged and did not ensure efficient
sealing. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the BDDV, which
could lead to water ingestion in the BDDV and freezing of the BDDV
in flight, possibly resulting in loss of braking system function
after landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification and Re-Identification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
BDDV having a part number listed in the column ``Old Part Number''
in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD; modify the drain hose of the
affected BDDV; check for the presence of water, ice, and hydraulic
fluid; and re-identify the BDDV to the corresponding part number, as
applicable, as listed as ``New Part Number'' in table 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, dated
September 2, 2014. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight.

 Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--BDDV Part Number Re-Identification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Old part number                      New part number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A25434006-3..........................................    A25434006-3000.
A25434005-101........................................    A25434005-1010.
A25434005-201........................................    A25434005-2010.
A25434005-301........................................    A25434005-3010.
A25434005-401........................................    A25434005-4010.
A25434006-101........................................    A25434006-1010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2 to table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: The part number
listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD can have an ``A'' or
``B'' suffix, which is an indication of the amendment level of the
BDDV. This does not affect compliance with this AD.

(h) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD, no person may install a BDDV having a part number
listed as ``Old Part Number'' in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this
AD, on any airplane.
    (1) For any airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, has
a BDDV installed with a part number listed as ``Old Part Number'' in
table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: After modification of the
airplane, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) For any airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, has
a BDDV installed with a part number listed as ``New Part Number'' in
table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or has a BDDV installed with a
part number not listed in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: As of
the effective date of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0251R1, dated December 17,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4816.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 10, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-29444 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13347]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04684]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0782; FRL-9959-77-Region 4]

Adequacy Status of the Knoxville, TN 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
Maintenance Plan Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation
Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying
the public that it has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
pertaining to the Knoxville, Tennessee 2006 24-hour fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. This SIP revision was submitted to
EPA on December 20, 2016, by the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC) and requests that EPA redesignate the area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), and that EPA approve a maintenance plan for
the continued attainment of the Area. Knoxville's 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as ``the
Knoxville Area''), for which MVEBs are established in this notice, is
comprised of the entire counties of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon,
as well as a portion of Roane County. On March 2, 1999, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) ruled that submitted SIPs cannot be used for transportation
conformity determinations until EPA has affirmatively found that the
MVEBs are adequate. As a result of EPA's finding, the Knoxville Area
must use the MVEBs for future conformity determinations for 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: These MVEBs are effective March 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Regulatory Management Section, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Sheckler can also be
reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The finding is available at EPA's conformity
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is simply an announcement of a
finding that EPA has already made. EPA, Region 4, sent a letter to TDEC
on February 15, 2017, stating that the MVEBs identified for Knoxville
in Tennessee's maintenance SIP revision, submitted on December 20,
2016, are adequate and must be used for transportation conformity
determinations in the Knoxville Area.
    EPA posted the availability of the Knoxville Area MVEBs on EPA's
Web site on December 22, 2016, as part of the adequacy process, for the
purpose of soliciting comments. The adequacy comment period ran until
January 23, 2017. During EPA's adequacy comment period, no comments
were received on the Knoxville Area MVEBs. Through this notice, EPA is
informing the public that these MVEBs are adequate for transportation
conformity. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate MVEBs are provided in Table 1 below:

         Table 1--Knoxville, Tennessee 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 MVEBs
                          [Tons per day or tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2014         2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.........................................         1.22       * 0.67
NOX...........................................        42.73      * 19.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This includes the available safety margin of 0.03 tpd for PM2.5 and
  7.16 for NOX in 2028.

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS.
    The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). We have also described the process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004),
final rulemaking entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Changes.'' Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of Tennessee's 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 SIP revision for the Knoxville Area. Even if EPA finds
a budget adequate, the SIP revision could later be disapproved.
    Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
MVEBs, if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e). See 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).

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

    Dated: February 15, 2017.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-04684 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44405]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0063]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides the public notice that by letter dated July 11, 2018,
Naugatuck Railroad Company (NAUG), the operator of trackage owned by
the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CDOT) between Waterbury,
CT, and Torrington, CT, known as the ``Torrington Secondary,''
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 234. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2018-0063.
    NAUG seeks a waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR
234.247, Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of
relay or device failing to meet test requirements. Specifically, NAUG
seeks relief to operate over two non-functioning highway-rail grade
crossings without making inspections and tests required in Sec. Sec.
234.249 through 234.271.
    Previous owners and operators of this track allowed signals in
Torrington, CT, to fall into disrepair at Albert Street, DOT #503956B,
and Litchfield Street, DOT #503957B, both two-way, single traffic lane
streets. One crossing has equipment over 60 years old, and the second,
more complex crossing signal system, has equipment that is over 30
years old. As part of Petitioner's commitment to provide rail services
to those that require them, the need to access areas of the railroad
previously deemed out of service became necessary. In partnership with
CDOT, through the CT Rail Freight Improvement Program, this track was
rehabilitated to FRA Class 1 standards, but no grade crossing funding
was available for these crossings. Petitioner requests relief to
provide service to its customers and generate the revenue needed to
continue to rehabilitate this segment of track.
    In lieu of performing all required tests (and repairs identified by
the required tests), Petitioner requests to continue limited operations
over the two affected grade crossings by:
     Contacting local authorities to advise that a crossing may
need to be occupied by a train.
     Stationing an employee at each crossing to provide warning
to approaching highway traffic and communicate with motorists as
needed, as provided in Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee
``stop and protect'' rules.
    All other grade crossings in Torrington are ``stop and protect''
crossings on two-way, single traffic lane streets, with no automatic
highway warning protective devices.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 15, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-18808 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48532-48535]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70103; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-077]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Order Handling

August 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 23, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its rules to address certain option
order handling procedures on the Exchange in connection with the
implementation of the market wide equity Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility (the ``Plan''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In an attempt to address extraordinary market volatility in NMS
Stock, and, in particular, events like the severe volatility on May 6,
2010, the Exchange, in conjunction with the other national securities
exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(collectively, ``Participants'') drafted the Plan pursuant to Rule 608
of Regulation NMS and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act'').\3\ The Plan is primarily designed to, among other things,
address extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks, protect
investors, and promote fair and orderly markets. The Plan provides for
market-wide limit up-limit down requirements that prevent trades in
individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of specified price bands,
as defined in Section I(N) of the Plan. These requirements are coupled
with trading pauses, as defined in Section I(Y) of the Plan, to
accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to erroneous
trades or monetary gaps of liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64547 (May 25,
2011), 76 FR 31647 (June 1, 2011) (File No. 4-631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan was filed on April 5, 2011 by the Participants for
publication and comment.\4\ The Participants requested the Commission
approve the Plan as a one-year pilot. On May 24, 2012, the Participants
filed an amendment to the Plan which clarified, among other things, the
calculation of the reference price, as defined in Section I(T) of the
Plan, potential for order type exemption, and the creation of an
Advisory Committee.\5\ On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the
Plan, as amended, on a one-year pilot basis.\6\ The Plan was
implemented on April 8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012) 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the Plan was primarily designed for equity markets, the
Exchange believed it would impact the options markets as well. Thus,
the Exchange filed rule changes to amend the Exchange rules to ensure
the option markets are not compromised as a result of the Plan's
implementation.\7\ The Exchange is proposing to further amend these
rules to clarify how the ``Hybrid Opening System'' will operate on the
Exchange in the event of a limit up-limit down state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 34-69328 (April
5, 2013), 78 FR 21642 (April 11, 2013) (order approving SR-CBOE-
2013-030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rule 6.2B.07, as recently amended, states that if an
underlying security for an option class enters into a limit up-limit
down state when the class moves to opening rotation, ``all market
orders in the system will be cancelled except market orders that are
considered limit orders pursuant to Rule 6.13(b)(iv) and entered the
previous trading day.''\8\ The Exchange is proposing to: (1) Correct
the incorrect reference to Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(iv), and (2) provide
greater clarity on the effect of a limit up-limit down state on an
underlying security after the opening rotation has begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 6.2B.07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange is proposing to clarify an incorrect reference
in Rule 6.13(b)(iv). The orders described in the purpose section of the
original rule filing are, ``No-Bid Series'' which are actually found in
Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(vi) and not Exchange Rule 6.13(b)(iv). The
Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 6.2B.07 to reflect this
correction. As stated in the original rule filing, the Exchange is
proposing to allow such market orders to remain in the Exchange Book
because these orders essentially act as limit orders at the minimum
increment. Cancelling such orders could potentially cause such orders
to lose their priority with respect to other market orders in the
Exchange Book. In addition, limit orders are not cancelled while the
underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state, so the Exchange
believes allowing market orders that function as a limit orders to
remain in the Exchange Book is consistent with the way limit order are
generally handled.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to add further clarity to the
recently amended rule to clarify that if a limit up-limit down state
commences after the opening rotation process has begun for a class of
options, the opening rotation will continue normally. More
specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add language to state that
market and limit orders will continue through the opening rotation as
they would if there was not a limit up-limit down state. Once the
opening rotation has begun for a class of options, due to how the
Exchange System operates, the process will not be interrupted to modify
the order handling mid-process.
    Market orders will continue to process even though they are
normally returned during a limit up-limit down state,\9\ limit orders
will process normally,\10\ and auctions will open and operate as they
normally do.\11\ Market orders, though normally returned during a limit
up-limit down state to avoid executions at unfavorable or unreliable
prices, do not face the same risks when they are part of the opening
process. This is because preopening orders are matched with each other
and with other interest during the opening rotation. Thus market orders
will trade at the calculated opening price. Preopening limit orders
will also be filled at the opening price and cannot be filled through
their limit prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 6.53(a) which describes how market orders
process.
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 6.53(b) which describes how limit orders
process.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 6.2B.03 which describes the HAL Opening
Procedure on the Exchange. If a limit up-limit down state commences
after the opening rotation has begun for a class of options, options
to buy and sell will be paired to the extent possible. If another
market is displaying a more favorable price, then the HAL opening
procedure (``HALO'') will begin as described in Exchange Rule
6.2B.03. At the end of the HALO, consistent with Rule 6.2B.03, the
Exchange will link any unmatched portion of the market order to an
away trading venue. Any portion of a market order that is unfilled
and returned to the Exchange will be cancelled. Thus, markets orders
will not be filled at an unreliable price because they will either
be paired with other resting orders at the open or linked to an away
trading venue displaying a more favorable price. The Exchange
believes this is consistent with the treatment of market orders and
ensures they will not be given an unreliable price despite the limit
up-limit down state. Additionally, because limit orders have a limit
price, these orders will also not fill at an unreliable price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this clarity is necessary to ensure Trading
Permit Holders are fully aware of special order handling during limit
up-limit down states. Though the rule currently specifies what happens
to orders on the Exchange if the limit up-limit down state commences
prior to the opening rotation beginning for a class of options, the
Exchange believes it is necessary to additionally state what would
happen if the opening rotation had already begun and the limit up-limit
down state triggers during the time of that process.

The Exchange believes that including pre-opening market order interest
in the opening rotation will enhance the liquidity available during the
rotation, and that the nature of the opening match process will protect
market orders against anomalous opening prices that could otherwise be
caused by market conditions associated with a limit-up limit-down
state. This will also help to ensure the options markets remain just
and equitable with the implementation of the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will be
in accordance with the Act as they are merely intended to ensure the
options markets will continue to remain just and equitable with the
implementation of the Plan which is intended to reduce the negative
impacts of a sudden, unanticipated price movement in NMS stocks. The
proposed rule changes would promote this intention in the options
markets while protecting investors participating there. More
specifically, the currently proposed changes will correct and clarify
current Exchange rules promoting the interest of investors. Finally,
creating a more orderly market will promote just and equitable
principles of trade by allowing investors to feel more secure in their
participation in the national market system after the implementation of
the Plan. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to provide a more
robust rule text by clarifying what occurs if a limit up-limit down
states initiates after the beginning of the Exchange's opening
rotation. The Exchange believes that not cancelling the pre-opening
interest will ensure investors can execute more interest despite the
change in the market conditions after the opening process has begun.
This will also help to ensure the options markets remain just and
equitable with the implementation of the Plan.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intramarket
competition because it applies to all TPHs equally. The Exchange does
not believe the proposed changes will impose any burden on intermarket
competition as the changes are merely being made to protect investors
with the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the proposed changes
will provide certainty of treatment and execution of options orders
during periods of extraordinary market volatility.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the 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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-077 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-CBOE-2013-077. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official

business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-077 and should be submitted on or before
August 29, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19150 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 35314-35315]
[DOCID:fr19jn06-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53973; File No. SR-Amex-2006-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Minor Rule Violations and
the Bunching of Odd-Lot Orders

June 12, 2006.
    On April 12, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to include violations of its rule governing the
bunching of odd-lot orders (Amex Rule 208) in Amex Rule 590, its Minor
Rule Violation Plan (``Plan''). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on May 10, 2006.\3\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53749 (May 2, 2006),
71 FR 27298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\ In
particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ because handling violations of Amex
Rule 208 pursuant to the Plan would enable prompt resolution of such
violations in the interest of protecting investors and the public
interest. The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which require that the
rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate
discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. In
addition, because existing Amex Rule 590 provides procedural rights to
a person fined under the Plan to contest the fine and permits a hearing
on the matter, the Commission believes the Plan, as amended by this
proposal, provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and
6(d)(1) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act \8\ which governs minor rule violation plans. The
Commission believes that the change to the Plan will strengthen the
Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where full
disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of
the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with Amex rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the Plan. The Commission
believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's
rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the
Plan provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do
not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings,
while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The
Commission expects that Amex will continue to conduct surveillance with
due diligence and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-
by-case basis, as to whether a fine of more or less than the
recommended amount is appropriate for a violation of Amex Rule 208
under the Plan or whether such a violation requires formal disciplinary
action.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\9\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\10\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-Amex-2006-34) be, and hereby is, approved and declared
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

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

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

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9579 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 44129]
[DOCID:fr07au07-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12658-001]

E.ON U.S. Hydro 1 LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
Original Major License

July 31, 2007.
    On July 11, 2007, E.ON U.S. Hydro 1 LLC filed a notice of
withdrawal of its October 10, 2006 application for an original major
license for its proposed Meldahl Hydroelectric Project. No one filed a
motion in opposition to the withdrawal, and the Commission took no
action to disallow it. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 216 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.216 (2006),
the withdrawal of the pleading became effective fifteen days after it
was filed.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15282 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 220 (Friday, November 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72613-72615]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0943; Airspace Docket No. 20-AWP-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Establishment of
Class E Airspace; Lancaster, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace,
designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at
General WM J Fox Airfield Airport. Additionally, this action proposes
to establish Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface. Further, this action proposes to remove the Palmdale Airport,
Palmdale VORTAC, and the Gen. William J. Fox NDB from the Class E4
legal description. Lastly, this action proposes several administrative
corrections to the airspaces' legal descriptions. This action would
ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0943; Airspace Docket No. 20-AWP-11, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at General WM J Fox
Airfield Airport, Lancaster, CA, to support IFR operations at the
airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0943;
Airspace Docket No. 20-AWP-11''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace, designated as an
extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, at General WM J Fox
Airfield Airport, Lancaster, CA. To properly contain IFR aircraft
descending below 1,000 feet above the surface, several modifications to
this class of airspace are necessary. First, the areas southeast and
northwest

of the airport are not required and should be removed. Second, a new
area of airspace should be added west of the airport to contain IFR
instrument approaches. This airspace area would be described as
follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 252[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the
4-mile radius to 8.2 miles west of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
    Also, this action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for the airport. This airspace
is designed to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface,
and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The
airspace area would be described as follows: That airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 091[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.4 miles east of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 252[deg] bearing from the
airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 16.3 miles west of the
airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 311[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.6 miles northwest of
General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.
    Additionally, this action proposes to remove the Palmdale Airport,
the Palmdale VORTAC, and the Gen. William J. Fox NDB from the Class E4
legal description. The airport and the navigational aids are not needed
to define the airspace. Removal of the airport and navigational aids
allows the airspace to be defined from a single reference point which
simplifies how the airspace is described.
    Lastly, this action proposes several administrative corrections to
the airspaces' legal descriptions. The geographic coordinates in the
Class D legal description are not correct. In order to match the FAA
database, the geographic coordinates should be updated to lat.
34[deg]44'28'' N, long. 118[deg]13'07'' W. The last sentence in the
Class D and Class E2 legal descriptions contains the term ``Airport/
Facilities Directory'', this term is outdated and should be updated to
``Chart Supplement''. The city name should not appear in the second
line of the airspace text headers. This action proposes to remove the
city name from the second line of the Class D, Class E2, and Class E4
text headers. The airport name in the second line of the text header
does not match the FAA database. This action proposes to update the
airport name from ``Gen. William J. Fox Airfield'' to ``General WM J
Fox Airfield Airport'' in the Class D, Class E2, and Class E4 text
headers.
    Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000. Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AWP CA D Lancaster, CA [Amended]

General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'28'' N., long. 118[deg]13'07'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,800 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of General WM J Fox Airfield
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002, Class E Airspace Designated as a Surface Area

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Lancaster, CA [Amended]

General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'28'' N., long. 118[deg]13'07'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile
radius of General WM J Fox Airfield Airport. This Class E airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established,
in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004. Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension
to a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AWP CA E4 Lancaster, CA [Amended]

General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'28'' N., long. 118[deg]13'07'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile
each side of the 252[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4-mile radius to 8.2 miles west of General WM J Fox Airfield
Airport.

Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or more above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Lancaster, CA [New]

General WM J Fox Airfield Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'28'' N., long. 118[deg]13'07'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each side
of the 091[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-mile
radius to 9.4 miles east of the airport, and within 2 miles each
side of the 252[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 4-
mile radius to 16.3 miles west of the airport, and within 3.8 miles
each side of the 311[deg] bearing from the

airport, extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.6 miles northwest of
General WM J Fox Airfield Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 5, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-25054 Filed 11-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38506-38507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP23-809-000]

LSP University Park, LLC; University Park Energy, LLC; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 23, 2023, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, LSP University Park, LLC and University Park Energy, LLC
hereby petition the Commission for a declaratory order related to ANR
Pipeline Company's recent actions during Winter Storm Elliott.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioners.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original copy of the pleading by U.S. mail to Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions by any other courier in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to, Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 23, 2023.

    Dated: June 7, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12627 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49427-49429]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1001; Special Conditions No. 25-535-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Airplanes; High-Speed
Protection System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with a high-speed protection system that limits nose-down
pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC, and
prevents the airplane from performing the maneuver required under the
Code of Federal Regulations. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective date: September 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe/Cabin
Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1178; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the FAA
approved, an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 airplane has a conventional
layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. It
features a twin-aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.
    The Model A350-900 airplane, like Airbus Model A320, A330, A340 and
A380 series airplanes, has a high-speed protection system that limits
nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC,
and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver
required under Sec.  25.335(b)(1). Special conditions are necessary to
address the Model A350-900 airplane high-speed protection system. These
special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric
maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed,
VD/MD, is established.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 airplane meets the applicable
provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 airplane because of
a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The Airbus Model A350-900 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    A high-speed protection system that limits nose-down pilot
authority at speeds above VC/MC, and prevents the
airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under Sec.
25.335(b)(1). The special conditions identify various symmetric and
non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design
dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

Discussion

    Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition originally
adopted in Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations to provide an
acceptable speed margin

between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter-clearance
design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive
speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule
is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent
overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a
conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions,
including non-symmetric conditions.
    To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped,
Airbus should demonstrate that any reduced speed margin, based on the
high-speed protection system in the Model A350-900 airplane, will not
be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust-induced, upsets resulting in
initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the
airplane is protected, by the flight-control laws, from getting into
non-symmetric upset conditions. The special conditions identify various
symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an
appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is
established.
    These special conditions are in lieu of Sec.  25.335(b)(1). Section
25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, is applied
separately (Advisory Circular (AC) 25.335-1A provides an acceptable
means of compliance to Sec.  25.335(b)(2)). The applicant should
conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of
conditions, as described below.
    Special conditions (3) and (4) indicate that failures of the high-
speed protection system must be improbable and must be annunciated to
the pilots. If these two criteria are not met, then the probability
that the established dive speed will be exceeded, and the resulting
risk to the airplane, is too great. On the other hand, if the high-
speed protection system is known to be inoperative, then dispatch of
the airplane could be acceptable under an approved minimum-equipment
list (MEL) containing language similar to special condition (5).
Dispatch under an MEL would require that appropriate reduced operating
speeds, VMO/MMO, are provided in the airplane
flight manual (AFM), and the cockpit display of those reduced speeds,
as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, are
equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed
protection system operative.
    We do not believe that application of the Interaction of Systems
and Structures special conditions (docket no. FAA-2013-0894), or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specification (CS)
25.302, is appropriate in this case because design dive speed is, in
and of itself, part of the design criteria. Stability and control,
flight loads, and flutter evaluations all depend on the design dive
speed. Therefore, a single design dive speed should be established that
will not be exceeded, taking into account the performance of the high-
speed protection system as well as its failure modes, failure
indications, and accompanying AFM instructions.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-35-SC for Airbus
Model A350-900 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
December 24, 2013 (78 FR 77611). No comments were received and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model
A350-900 airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to
the type certificate to include another airplane series incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that series as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplanes.
    1. In lieu of compliance with Sec.  25.335(b)(1), if the flight-
control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate
recovery before the end of the 20-second period specified in Sec.
25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the
greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b), below. The
speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated if
reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.
    a. From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/
MC, the airplane is upset so as to travel a new flight path
7.5 degrees below the initial path. Control application, up to full
authority, is made to try to maintain this new flight path. Twenty
seconds after initiating the upset, manual recovery is made at a load
factor of 1.5 g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load
factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's
pitch control set to neutral. Power, as specified in Sec.
25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until recovery is initiated, at which time
power reduction and the use of pilot-controlled drag devices may be
used.
    b. From a speed below VC/MC, with power to
maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset
so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight
path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose-down
attitude that the system will permit with full control authority, if
less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral
position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery
is initiated. Recovery may be initiated three seconds after operation
of the high-speed warning system by application of a load of 1.5g (0.5
acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is
automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control set
to neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of
decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the
highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval
between successive pilot actions must not be less than one second.
    2. The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin,
established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust-
induced, upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric
attitudes, unless the airplane is protected by the flight-control laws
from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers
described in AC 25-7C, Chapter 2, Section 8, Paragraph 32c.(3)(a) and
(c), may be used to comply with this requirement.
    3. Detected loss of the high-speed protection function must be less
than 10-3 per flight hour.
    4. Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots. The
Operating Limitations Section of the AFM must contain instructions that
reduce the maximum operating speeds, Vmax/Mmax,
to a value that maintains a speed margin between these speeds and

VD/MD that is consistent with showing compliance
to Sec.  25.335(b), without the benefit of the high-speed protection
system.
    5. Dispatch of the airplane with the high-speed protection system
inoperative is prohibited except under an approved MEL that requires
AFM instructions to indicate reduced maximum operating speeds, as
described in special condition (4), above. In addition, the cockpit
display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed
warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the
normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative. Also,
it must be shown that no additional hazards are introduced with the
high-speed protection system inoperative.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19824 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P