[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28041-28045]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12851]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83402; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the NYSE
American Equities Price List and the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule
Related to Co-Location Services in Connection With the Re-Launch of
Trading on NYSE National, Inc. and Proposed NYSE National Co-Location
Services

June 11, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 30, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE American'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Equities Price
List (``Price List'') and the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (``Fee
Schedule'') related to co-location services in connection with the re-
launch of trading on NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') and
proposed NYSE National co-location services. The Exchange also proposes
to make a non-substantive change to remove obsolete text from the Price
List and Fee Schedule. The proposed change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List and Fee Schedule
related to co-location \4\ services in connection with the re-launch of
trading on NYSE National and proposed NYSE National co-location
services. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make changes to
General Note 1 and General Note 4 of the Price List and Fee Schedule to
add references to NYSE National. The Exchange also proposes to make a
non-substantive change to remove obsolete text from the Price List and
Fee Schedule, with respect to the wireless connection to third party
data provided by the Toronto Stock Exchange (``TSX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Commission in 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299
(September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-80). The Exchange operates a
data center in Mahwah, New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which
it provides co-location services to Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 31, 2017, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''), the
indirect parent of the Exchange, acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of NYSE National through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE
Group.\5\ As a result, NYSE National is an affiliate of the Exchange.
On February 1, 2017, NYSE National ceased trading operations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79902 (January 30,
2017), 82 FR 9258 (February 3, 2017) (SR-NSX-2016-16). Prior to its
acquisition, NYSE National was named ``National Stock Exchange,
Inc.''
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80018 (February 10,
2017), 82 FR 10947 (February 16, 2017) (SR-NSX-2017-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE National filed proposed rule changes to re-launch trading
operations.\7\ NYSE National has stated that it anticipates re-
launching trading operations in the second quarter of 2018. In
connection with the anticipated re-launch of NYSE National's trading
operations, NYSE National has filed a proposed rule change to offer the
same co-location services and fees offered by the Exchange, the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE LLC'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'' and, together with NYSE LLC, the ``Affiliate SROs''), which are
its affiliates.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17, 2018)
(notice of filing of Amendment No. 1 and order granting accelerated
approval of a proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1,
to support the re-launch of NYSE National, Inc. on the Pillar
Trading Platform) (``NYSE National Trading Rules Approval''). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82819 (March 7, 2018), 83
FR 11098 (March 13, 2018) (SR-NYSENat-2018-02).
    \8\ See SR-NYSENat-2018-07 (May 18, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the proposed rule change become both
effective and operative immediately upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NYSE National Trading Rules Approval, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Note 1
    General Note 1 of the Price List and Fee Schedule provides that a
User \10\ that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service shall not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-
location service charged by the other Affiliate SROs.\11\ The Exchange
proposes to add NYSE National to General Note 1 to the Price List, as
follows (additions underlined, deletions in brackets):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60213
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70176 (August 13,
2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67). Some
Users do not connect to the Exchange or the Affiliate SROs, but
rather provide services to other Users co-located at the data
center. Id.

    A User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant to the NYSE American Equities Price List shall not
be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location service
charged pursuant to the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule or by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE), [and] NYSE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arca, Inc. (NYSE Arca) and NYSE National, Inc. (NYSE National).

    The Exchange proposes to add NYSE National to General Note 1 to the
Fee Schedule, as follows (additions underlined, deletions in brackets):

    A User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant to this Fee Schedule shall not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location service charged pursuant to
the NYSE American Equities Price List or by the Exchange's
affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE), [and] NYSE Arca, Inc.
(NYSE Arca) and NYSE National, Inc. (NYSE National).

    By including the proposed reference to NYSE National, General Note
1 would provide that the fees a User pays for co-location services
would not depend on whether the User connects to none, one, some, or
all of the Exchange, the Affiliate SROs, and NYSE National.
General Note 4
    General Note 4 of the Price List and Fee Schedule provides that,
when a User purchases access to the Liquidity Center Network (``LCN'')
or the internet protocol (``IP'') network, the two local area networks
available in the data center,\12\ a User receives (a) the ability to
access the trading and execution systems of the Exchange and Affiliate
SROs, and (b) connectivity to any of the listed data products
(``Included Data Products'') that it selects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79728 (January 4,
2017), 82 FR 3035 (January 10, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-126).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add NYSE National to the list of trading
and execution system providers in the first sentence of the first
paragraph, thereby expanding the definition of ``Exchange Systems''
which Users may access to include NYSE National. It also proposes to
add NYSE National to the lists of affiliated entities in the first,
third and fourth sentences. The proposed changes are as follows
(additions underlined, deletions in brackets):

    When a User purchases access to the LCN or IP network, it
receives the ability to access the trading and execution systems of
the NYSE, NYSE American, [and] NYSE Arca and NYSE National (Exchange
Systems), subject, in each case, to authorization by the NYSE, NYSE
American, [or] NYSE Arca or NYSE National, as applicable. Such
access includes access to the customer gateways that provide for
order entry, order receipt (i.e. confirmation that an order has been
received), receipt of drop copies and trade reporting (i.e. whether
a trade is executed or

cancelled), as well as for sending information to shared data
services for clearing and settlement. A User can change the access
it receives at any time, subject to authorization by NYSE, NYSE
American, [or] NYSE Arca, or NYSE National. NYSE, NYSE American,
[and ]NYSE Arca and NYSE National also offer access to Exchange
Systems to their members, such that a User does not have to purchase
access to the LCN or IP network to obtain access to Exchange
Systems.

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add NYSE National to the
table of Included Data Products set forth in General Note 4.
Toronto Stock Exchange
    The Exchange offers Users the option to receive certain market data
feeds from third party markets through a wireless connection. The
description of the charge for the TSX wireless connection in the Price
List and Fee Schedule states that ``[c]ustomers with an existing
wireless connection to TSX at the time the Exchange makes the service
available will not be subject to an initial charge or receive 30-day
testing period.'' Because the wireless connection to the TSX has become
effective, the statement is obsolete. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the statement from the Price List and Fee Schedule.
General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \13\ and
(iii) a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange, one or both of its Affiliate SROs,
or NYSE National.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \14\ See 78 FR 50471, supra note 11, at 50471. The Affiliate
SROs have also submitted substantially the same proposed rule change
to propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSE-2018-23 and SR-
NYSEArca-2018-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, because it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the amendments would update General Note 1 to
reflect NYSE National's provision of co-location services. By including
the proposed reference to NYSE National, General Note 1 would provide
that the fees a User pays for co-location services would not depend on
whether the User connects to none, one, some, or all of the Exchange,
the Affiliate SROs, and NYSE National. For example, to charge one User
three times for a cage because that User connects to the Exchange, NYSE
National, and an Affiliate SRO, when another User that buys the same
size cage and only connects to the Exchange only pays once, would not
promote just and equitable principles of trade. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed amendments to General Note 1 are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers because charging a User for co-location services
based on how many markets to which a User connects could result in the
Exchange, NYSE National and the Affiliate SROs receiving the proceeds
from multiple fees despite only providing a service once.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the amendments would update General Note 4 to
reflect NYSE National's provision of co-location services. By expanding
the definition of ``Exchange Systems'' to include the NYSE National
trading and execution system, incorporating references to NYSE
National, and adding NYSE National to the list of Included Data
Products, the Exchange would provide market participants with clarity
as to what access and connectivity a User receives when it purchases
access to the LCN or IP network, thereby making the description more
accessible and transparent.
    Further, the Exchange believes that revising General Note 4 to
provide a more detailed description of the access and connectivity to
NYSE National that Users would receive with their purchase of access to
the LCN or IP network would promote just and equitable principles of
trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free
and open market and a national market system as it would make clear
that all Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network
would receive the same access to the NYSE National trading and
execution systems and connectivity to NYSE National data and would not
be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant
LCN or IP network access. In addition, a User would not be required to
use any of its bandwidth to access the NYSE National trading and
execution system or connect to NYSE National data unless it wishes to
do so. A User only receives the access to Exchange Systems and
connectivity to Included Data Products that it selects, and a User can
change such access or connectivity it receives at any time, subject to
authorization from the data provider or relevant Exchange or Affiliate
SRO.
    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive change to remove
obsolete text with respect to the wireless connection to TSX data would
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest because the amendment would clarify Exchange
rules and alleviate any possible market participant confusion caused by
the obsolete reference.

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers, because the change would result in the Exchange offering co-
location services related to access and connectivity to NYSE National,
an affiliate of the Exchange, on the same terms and in the same manner
as it offers access and connectivity to the Exchange and the Affiliate
SROs. By adding NYSE National to General Notes 1 and 4, the proposed
change would ensure that the fees a User pays for co-location services
would not depend on whether the User connects to none, one or more of
the Exchange, the SRO Affiliates and NYSE National. For example, a User
that connects to the Exchange, NYSE National, and an Affiliate SRO, and
another User that only connects to the Exchange, would both receive the
same services for the same fee, including the same access and
connectivity with their purchase of access to the LCN or IP network.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive change to
remove obsolete text with respect to the wireless connection to TSX
data would be reasonable because the change would have no impact on
pricing. Rather, the change would remove obsolete information from the
description of the pricing for the service, alleviating possible market
participant confusion.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the use of co-location
services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on
an equal basis (i.e., the same range of products and services are
available to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the change would result
in the Exchange offering co-location services related to access and
connectivity to NYSE National, an affiliate of the Exchange, on the
same terms and in the same manner as it offers access and connectivity
to the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs. By adding NYSE National to
General Notes 1 and 4, the proposed change would ensure that the fees a
User pays for co-location services would not depend on whether the User
connects only to none, one or more of the Exchange, the SRO Affiliates
and NYSE National. Further, the Exchange believes that revising General
Note 4 to provide a more detailed description of the access and
connectivity to NYSE National that Users would receive with their
purchase of access to the LCN or IP network would make clear that all
Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would
receive the same access to the NYSE National trading and execution
systems and connectivity to NYSE National data and would not be subject
to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the relevant LCN or IP
network access.
    In addition, a User would not be required to use any of its
bandwidth to access the NYSE National trading and execution system or
connect to NYSE National data unless it wishes to do so.
    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive change to remove
obsolete text with respect to the wireless connection to TSX data would
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it would
have no impact on pricing or existing services. Rather, the change
would remove obsolete information from the description of the pricing
for the service, alleviating possible market participant confusion.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\23\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposed rule changes may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it would
allow the Exchange to offer co-location services related to access and
connectivity to NYSE National to coincide with the relaunch of the NYSE
National and its proposed co-location services. The Exchange also notes
that waiver would alleviate the possibility of confusion that could be
caused by inconsistencies between the Exchange's Price List and NYSE
National co-location services that are to be included in NYSE
National's price list. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest as it would allow the Exchange to offer co-locations
services in the form of access and connectivity to NYSE National
without undue delay. Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-23. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-23 and should be submitted
on or before July 6, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12851 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17604-17605]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093]
RIN 2127-AG51

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Roof Crush Resistance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: In May 2009 we published a final rule that upgraded the
agency's safety standard on roof crush resistance. In this document, we
correct two errors in that rule. We also identify errors in the
preamble to that rule.

DATES: This rule is effective May 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may call J. Edward
Glancy, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 2009, as part of a comprehensive
plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of
death and serious injury in those crashes, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 22348) \1\ a final rule substantially upgrading
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush
Resistance. The upgraded standard is designated FMVSS No. 216a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this document, we correct two errors in that rule. We also
identify errors in the preamble to that rule.
    We note that we are also publishing two separate documents related
to the May 2009 final rule. One is a fuller response to comments
submitted by the National Truck Equipment Association on our proposal
to upgrade FMVSS No. 216. The other is a response to petitions for
reconsideration of the May 2009 final rule.

Correcting Amendments

    One of the correcting amendments incorporates a provision that was
discussed in the preamble but inadvertently omitted from the regulatory
text. As explained in the preamble, the agency decided to exclude a
narrow category of multi-stage vehicles from FMVSS No. 216, multi-stage
trucks with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not
built using a chassis cab or using an incomplete vehicle with a full
exterior van body. We included a specific discussion concerning
incomplete vehicles with a full exterior van body in the preamble,\2\
but the regulatory text inadvertently omitted the reference to
incomplete vehicles with a full exterior van body. We are correcting
FMVSS No. 216a by adding that phrase at S3.1(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR at 22373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other correcting amendment corrects a cross-reference to the
seat positioning procedure for the 50th percentile male dummy of FMVSS
No. 214 Side Impact Protection. The reference is included in the
introductory text of S7.2 of FMVSS No. 216a. As corrected, S7.2
specifically cross-references the seat positioning procedure for the
50th percentile male ES-2re dummy in S8.3.1 of FMVSS No. 214.

Errors in Preamble

    Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering, LLC (SAFE) brought to our
attention errors in the preamble that incorrectly attributed to it the
comments of another organization, Safety Analysis, Inc. Both of these
organizations submitted comments.
    The errors were included in a section of the preamble titled ``Roof
Crush as a Cause of Injury'' beginning at 74 FR 22378, and in the
immediately following section titled ``Agency Response'' at 74 FR
22379. Each of the references to SAFE in these sections should have
been attributed to Safety Analysis, Inc. SAFE noted that there is no
affiliation between SAFE and Safety Analysis, Inc. and also stated the
most of the positions taken by SAFE in its comments are diametrically
opposed to the positions taken by Safety Analysis, Inc. We apologize
for these errors.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, and Tires.

0
Accordingly, 49 CFR part 571 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.216a is amended by revising S3.1(a)(4) and S7.2
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  571.216a  Standard No. 216a; Roof crush resistance; Upgraded
standard.

* * * * *
    S3.1 Application.
    (a) * * *
    (4) Trucks built in two or more stages with a GVWR greater than
2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) not built using a chassis cab or using
an incomplete vehicle with a full exterior van body.
* * * * *
    S7.2 Adjust the seats in accordance with S8.3.1 of 49 CFR 571.214.
Position the top center of the head form specified in S5.2 of 49 CFR
571.201 at the location of the top center of the Head Restraint
Measurement Device (HRMD) specified in 49 CFR 571.202a, in the front
outboard designated seating position on the side of the vehicle being
tested as follows:
* * * * *

    Issued on: April 2, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-7909 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21815-21820]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0415; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-256-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Model 737 airplanes. The original NPRM would have
required repetitive inspections, lubrications, and repetitive repairs/
overhauls of the ball nut and ballscrew and attachment (Gimbal)
fittings for the trim actuator of the horizontal stabilizer; various
installation(s); and corrective actions if necessary; as applicable.
The original NPRM resulted from a report of extensive corrosion of a
ballscrew used in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer trim
actuator (HSTA). This action revises the original NPRM by adding
airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM
to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load path for the
ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the HSTA and subsequent wear and
failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control
of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by May 16,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 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-2008-0415;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-256-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737 airplanes. That
original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2008
(73 FR 22840). That original NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections, lubrications, and repetitive repairs/overhauls of the ball
nut and ballscrew and attachment (Gimbal) fittings for the trim
actuator of the horizontal stabilizer; various installation(s); and
corrective actions if necessary; as applicable.
    That original NPRM resulted from a report of extensive corrosion of
a ballscrew used in the drive mechanism

of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) on a Model 757
airplane. Extensive corrosion of the primary load path ball bearings in
the ballscrew assembly, if not corrected, could result in an undetected
failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the drive
mechanism of the HSTA and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary
load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal
stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
    The ballscrew assembly on Model 757 airplanes is similar to those
on the affected Model 737 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may
be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    We are considering additional rulemaking to address the identified
unsafe condition on Model 757 airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-27A1277,
Revision 2, dated January 8, 2010 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes); and 737-27A1278, Revision 1,
dated January 7, 2010 (for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and
-500 series airplanes). Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-27A1277,
Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007; and 737-27A1278, dated May 24, 2007;
were referred to in the original NPRM as the appropriate sources of
service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. The
revisions of the service information incorporate the following changes:
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2,
dated January 8, 2010, adds Model 737-900ER airplanes to Group 2 of the
effectivity, clarifies certain inspections necessary in Work Packages 1
and 2, and contains certain editorial changes.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision 1,
dated January 7, 2010, corrects the work instructions for the
horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) name plate identification
information in Work Package 4 and clarifies certain inspections
necessary in Work Packages 1 and 2 and contains certain editorial
changes. In addition, the Horizontal Stabilizer Gearbox End Play Test
is added because the gearbox backlash inspection is only identified in
the airplane maintenance manual for Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900
airplanes, but is also applicable to Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400,
and -500 airplanes.

Actions Since Issuance of Original NPRM

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have changed this
supplemental NPRM to include the revised service information, which
expands the applicability of the original NPRM. We have also revised
paragraph (h) of the original NPRM (paragraph (g) of the supplemental
NPRM) to include credit for actions accomplished before the effective
date of the AD in accordance with previous revisions of the service
information.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.

Request To Change Applicability

    Boeing asked that we revise the applicability in the original NPRM
to specify that it applies to all Model 737 airplanes instead of
listing the minor models associated with the referenced service
information. Boeing stated that this would avoid possible supersedure
of the AD or certification maintenance requirements on future type
certification programs.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have
changed paragraph (c) and the SUMMARY section of this supplemental NPRM
to refer to all Model 737 airplanes.

Request To Clarify Procedures in Referenced Service Information

    Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member Air Tran
Airways (Air Tran) stated that the referenced service information is
very difficult to interpret and cites examples from the service
information. Air Tran stated that the accomplishment instructions
specified in the service information contain language that is not
specific and can not be used to make definitive determinations with
regard to serviceability. Air Tran cited an example in Section
3.B.1.d.(2) of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1,
dated July 25, 2007, which specifies ``Large amounts of grease present
* * *''. This language is not specific and open to a high degree of
subjectivity. Air Tran added that other examples are in Section
3.B.1.n.(1) of this service bulletin, which specifies ``majority of
grease,'' and in several places in Figures 1 and 2 of this service
bulletin. Air Tran notes that the work instructions in Section 3.B. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25,
2007, do not exactly match the instructions provided with the figures.
Air Tran stated that having two sets of work instructions makes if
difficult to follow, and could result in missed or partially
accomplished work steps. Air Tran adds that Section 3.B.1.d.(8)(c) of
this service bulletin provides instructions to check for obvious
differences in thread shape between thread grooves ``as given in CMM
27-41-01.'' Air Tran noted that CMM 27-41-01 does not provide any
procedure for checking for obvious differences. Air Tran also noted
that the subject section should specify ``refer to'' rather than ``as
given in.''
    Qantas has similar views to Air Tran and added that referring to
the procedures specified by Air Tran for the on-wing inspection will be
confusing to mechanics because the procedures are not designed to be
completed on-wing. Qantas also suggested a better explanation and
pictures be added to Section 3.B.1.n.(1) of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007, to quantify what
is normal and what is an indication of a failure. Qantas noted that
where there is evidence of a grease seal starting to fail, but no
metallic debris, replacement of the unit should be deferred for up to
five days, this would ease the burden of excess airplane down time.
Qantas also noted that Section 3.B.1(o) of the procedures is not
specified in the requirement table in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007. Qantas
suggested it be included in that paragraph. Qantas also asks that the
detailed inspection criteria specified in Section 3.B.1.(d) of this
service bulletin be clarified.
    We agree that the procedures in the referenced service information
should be clarified. We asked Boeing to revise the subject service
information to provide better guidance and further clarification of the
tasks that are specified. Boeing revised the service information as
requested, as noted under the ``Actions Since Original NPRM was
Issued'' and ``Relevant Service Information,'' sections of this AD and
further clarification of the procedures is provided in those revisions,
as well as the deletion of unnecessary procedures. Some portions of the
task descriptions were left open to allow operators some latitude in
accomplishing the tasks. We have revised this AD to refer to the new
service information.
    We agree that processes referred to by the commenters are not
designed for on-wing or on-airplane inspections. Boeing provides
clarification of the intent of these processes in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2, dated January 8, 2010. Therefore, we
have made no change to the

supplemental NPRM regarding this issue.
    Qantas also asked that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277,
Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007, be revised. Qantas stated that the
footnote at the top of page 10 of that service bulletin specifies
``Boeing recommends that operators continue to perform lubrication
tasks for the Stabilizer Trim Actuator given in Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Section 1 and 737 AMM 12-22-41.'' Qantas added that the
MPD task requires lubrication every 1,600 flight hours or 8 months, and
paragraph 3.B.1., of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277,
Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007, specifies doing the same task every
1,600 flight hours or 12 months. Qantas noted that the Boeing 737 MPD
and service bulletin tasks should not both be required. Qantas stated
that the FAA or Boeing should clarify the lubrication tasks specified
in that service bulletin, so operators can take credit for doing the
task in accordance with that service bulletin.
    We agree with the commenter. Boeing revised the service information
specified in the ``Relevant Service Information'' and ``Actions Since
Original NPRM was Issued'' sections of this supplemental NPRM. The
referenced note has been removed and a new note added to Table 1 of
paragraph 1.E., Compliance, of both service bulletins, specifying that
accomplishing the lubrication task in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1277 or 737-27A1278 meets the intent of the lubrication task in
the associated MPD.

Clarify Difference in Compliance Time Intervals

    Boeing and US Airways asked that the compliance time interval
specified in the original NPRM for the repetitive repair/overhaul be
changed from 20,000 or 25,000 flight cycles to 20,000 or 24,000 flight
hours (depending on airplane configuration) for Model 737-100, -200, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Boeing stated that Tables 1 and 2
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, dated May 24, 2007,
specify the correct interval. Boeing adds that the subsection,
Repetitive Repair/Overhaul, should be changed from ``and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 20,000 or 25,000 flight cycles * * *'' to ``and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 or 24,000 flight hours * *
*'' US Airways reiterated the Boeing comment and recommends the
difference be clarified.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The repetitive interval
referred to in the original NPRM is incorrect. The correct interval of
20,000 flight hours or 24,000 flight hours (depending on airplane
configuration) is specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1278, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010. We have clarified the
compliance time in this supplemental NPRM by referring to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010.

Clarify Difference in Secondary Service Information Reference

    US Airways asked that the secondary service information referenced
in Note 1 of the original NPRM be clarified. US Airways stated that
Note 1 refers to Linear Motion Service Bulletin 7901708, Revision A,
dated July 26, 2005; however, the service bulletin supplied to US
Airways from Linear Motion specifies Revision B.
    We agree with the commenter. Since Revision B merely corrects a
typographical error, Linear Motion Service Bulletin 7901708, Revisions
A and B, both dated July 26, 2005, are acceptable. We have revised Note
1 of this supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Request for Credit for Accomplishing Previously Issued Service
Information

    US Airways referenced paragraph (h) of the original NPRM which
specified ``Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, dated July
21, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.'' US Airways asked that a similar paragraph be
added to give credit for previous accomplishment of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, dated May 24, 2007.
    We agree with the commenter and have changed paragraph (g) of this
supplemental NPRM to give credit for certain actions done in accordance
with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, dated May 24, 2007.

Request To Clarify Compliance Times

    Boeing asked that an additional statement be added to the
compliance time in paragraph (g) of the original NPRM to clarify that
it is dependent on the airplane configuration defined in the referenced
service information. Boeing stated that the multiple recommended
compliance times may be confusing to operators as there is no
distinction of dependence on airplane configuration for the initial
compliance times. Boeing suggested clarifying the compliance time by
adding ``(depending upon airplane configuration called out in the SB)''
in parenthesis.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons provided. We have
changed paragraph (g) of the supplemental NPRM to include the phrase
``depending on airplane configuration'' in parenthesis following the
compliance time reference.

Request To Use Continuous Maintenance Program/Move Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) Tasks to Referenced Service Information

    ATA on behalf of its member American Airlines reiterated the
American Airlines comment that, except for accomplishing the
installation of the strengthened ballnut retainers, all remaining
requirements are part of the Model 737-800 continuous maintenance
program and are subject to the type certification maintenance program
rules. American Airlines stated that there are no historical
indications for Model 737-NG airplanes that warrant an AD. American
Airlines did not agree that the requirements in the AD that pertain to
different airplane models with different designs and component
manufacturers are strong enough to suspend parts of a continuous
maintenance program. American Airlines added that if we have data not
cited in the NPRM that substantiates an AD then the specified tasks
should be removed from the continuous maintenance program. American
Airlines concluded that continuous maintenance tasks such as inspection
and lubrication typically have no terminating action by definition.
    Air Tran supported the requirement to accomplish the installation
of the strengthened ballnut retainers, but also requested that we allow
the use of maintenance tasks and states that the lubrication
requirements of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1,
dated July 25, 2007, are similar to those in Boeing 737NG MPD Task 27-
102-00 and the inspection requirements are similar to those in Boeing
737NG MPD Task 27-110-00. Air Tran added that the full requirements of
Boeing 737NG MPD Tasks 27-102-00 and 27-110-00 should be incorporated
into the AD and the subject MPD tasks removed from the Boeing 737NG MPD
to avoid confusion. Qantas also asked that Boeing 737NG MPD Task 27-
110-00-1 be incorporated into Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007. Qantas stated that if this
task is included operators will not perform duplicate tasks from the
Boeing 737NG MPD and referenced service information.
    We infer that ATA, American Airlines, Air Tran, and Qantas are

asking that the Boeing 737NG MPD Tasks specified in the original NPRM
be removed, except for accomplishing the installation of the
strengthened ballnut retainers, because all remaining requirements are
part of the maintenance program. We do not agree with the commenters.
We proposed mandating the maintenance tasks and intervals because of
the criticality of maintaining the horizontal stabilizer control
system; the consequences of not performing the maintenance tasks; and
the service history attributed to lack of adequate horizontal
stabilizer system maintenance on other airplanes. These maintenance
actions can affect the safety of the airplane if they are not performed
in a timely manner. We approve the maintenance review board report
(MRBR), which is the basis for the MPD; the MRBR is an industry
document that can only be changed by the MRB. The overlap is noted in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25,
2007, which identifies the MPD tasks. No revision to the MRBR is
currently planned. Failure to perform the actions in this supplemental
NPRM can lead to an unsafe condition; therefore, we have made no change
to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
    Sun Country Airlines (Sun Country) stated that operators may need
clarification on whether or not ``restore,'' as identified in Boeing
737NG MPD Item 27-108-00, meets the intent of the actions in the
original NPRM. Sun Country stated that the repetitive actions specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July
25, 2007, are closely related to Boeing 737NG MPD Items 27-102-00, 27-
108-00, and 27-110-00, in procedure as well as interval. Sun Country
asked if operators following these MPD items can take credit for those
already established maintenance requirements in lieu of the actions in
the original NPRM. Sun Country added that because these MPD items
already exist it would be advisable to change them to certification
maintenance requirements (CMR) instead of mandating AD action.
    We agree that certain requirements in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1277, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2007, are similar to those
tasks in the Boeing 737NG MPD. Boeing revised the referenced service
information to address this issue. A note was added to the compliance
tables in the service information stating that accomplishing the
lubrication task in the service information meets the intent of Boeing
737NG MPD lubrication Task 27-102-00. We do not agree that the MPD
Items should be changed to CMR requirements, because CMR requirements
are established as part of the type certification of an airplane and
are not initiated due to in-service issues. There are certain
differences between the MPD tasks and the proposed requirements in the
supplemental NPRM (e.g., inspections of the cable drum and electrical
connector are not part of the actions specified in the referenced
service information). We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM
in this regard.

Request To Include Serial Numbers for Ballnut Tube Retainer Units

    ATA on behalf of its member Air Tran noted that the identification
of multiple airplane groups creates some confusion regarding which
ballnut tube retainer units need to be installed. Air Tran asked that
the AD identify the specific serial numbers of the units requiring
modification to ensure that all affected units are covered.
    We do not agree with the commenters. Operators can determine if the
modification has been incorporated by verifying the part number on the
component or doing a visual inspection of the ballscrew assembly. The
proposed requirements in this supplemental NPRM prohibit the
installation of affected unmodified ballscrews on certain airplanes. As
standard practice, the airplane manufacturer addresses affected
airplanes in the delivered condition in the effectivity of its service
information. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.

Request To Review Paragraph 1.E. of the Referenced Service Information

    Qantas asked that we review whether the desired level of inspection
will be achieved using the current Boeing 737 CMM. Qantas stated that
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision
1, dated July 25, 2007, specifies an overhaul every 25,000 flight
hours; Boeing 737 CMM 27-45-12 recommends the unit to be tested and
disassembled only to the extent necessary to repair test failures.
Qantas required vendors to strip the unit and complete visual and
magnetic particle inspections.
    We do not agree with the commenter. The intervals and tasks
necessary for the lubrication, detailed inspection and overhaul/repair
of the HSTA described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277,
Revision 2, dated January 8, 2010, and proposed in this supplemental
NPRM, address the unsafe condition of an undetected failure of the
ballscrew primary load path and subsequent wear and failure of the
secondary load path for affected airplanes. Due to these factors, we
have determined that the desired level of inspection will be achieved
when performing an HSTA overhaul. We have made no change to the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Extend Overhaul Life Limit

    Qantas stated that by making the overhaul life limit mandatory the
airline loses any flexibility in escalating the overhaul life based on
service experience. Qantas added that there is considerable safety
benefit in doing thorough overhauls with feedback of findings; one of
the incentives for doing this is it includes the possibility of an
overhaul life extension. Qantas noted that the original NPRM indicates
an overhaul cost of $3,200; however, a recent procurement exercise by
Qantas indicated the overhaul costs are about $18,000 per unit, not
including any parts replacements. Qantas concluded that there is a
considerable burden if extending the overhaul life is not permitted.
    We do not agree to extend the intervals for maintenance tasks based
on the commenter's service experience. In consideration of the safety
implications, we determined that the compliance time for the
maintenance tasks, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval in
which the overhaul can be done in a timely manner within the fleet,
while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Although we
acknowledge that the overhaul cost may be higher, the estimate in this
supplemental NPRM is limited only to the cost of actions actually
required by the AD, and is based on an estimate from the airplane
manufacturer of the labor hours and subsequent cost necessary to
accomplish those tasks. Therefore, we have made no change to the
supplemental NPRM is this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

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

Explanation of Changes to This Supplemental NPRM

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this supplemental NPRM to
provide the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 27;
flight controls. This code is added to make this supplemental NPRM
parallel with other new AD actions. We have reidentified subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
    We have removed Table 1 of the NPRM from this supplemental NPRM.
Instead, we have provided the full service bulletin citations
throughout this supplemental NPRM.
    Since issuance of the original NPRM, we have increased the labor
rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per
work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,641 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
           Action \1\                    Work hours \1\          Average labor        Parts        Cost per product     registered      Fleet cost \1\
                                                                 rate per hour                            \1\            airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspections............  2 or 4......................             $85  None............  $170 or $340, per            1,641  Between $278,970,
                                                                                inspection cycle.                   and $557,940 per
                                                                                inspection cycle.
Lubrications....................  1 or 3......................              85  None............  $85 or $255, per             1,641  Between $139,485,
                                                                                lubrication cycle.                  and $418,455 per
                                                                                lubrication
                                                                                cycle.
Repairs/overhauls...............  40..........................              85  None............  $3,400 per repair/           1,641  $5,579,400 per
                                                                                overhaul.                           repair/overhaul
                                                                                cycle.
Installations...................  Between 1 and 3.............              85  $2,200..........  Between $2,285 and           1,352  Between $3,089,320
                                                                                $2,455.                             and $3,319,160.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.

    The number of work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if
the accomplishment of the actions in this proposed AD is to be
conducted as new ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice,
the lubrications, detailed inspections, and overhauls are currently
being done as part of normal airplane maintenance. The repair can be
done coincidentally or in combination with the normally scheduled HSTA
and ballscrew overhaul. Therefore, the actual number of necessary
additional work hours will be minimal in many instances. Additionally,
any costs associated with special airplane scheduling will be minimal.
    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Action                            Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove/replace HSTA......................  Between 3 and 8 work hours            $0  Between $418,455 and
                                            x $85 per hour = between                  $1,115,880.
                                            $255 and $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0415; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-256-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 16, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Model 737 airplanes; certificated in
any category.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of extensive corrosion of a
ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer trim
actuator (HSTA). We are issuing this AD to prevent an undetected
failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the drive
mechanism of the HSTA and subsequent wear and failure of the
secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the
horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspections, Lubrications, Repairs/Overhauls, and Applicable Corrective
Actions

    (g) At the applicable compliance time and repeat intervals
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision 1, dated January
7, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2,
dated January 8, 2010; as applicable (depending on airplane
configuration): Do the inspections, lubrications, repairs/overhauls,
installation(s), and applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing
all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision
1, dated January 7, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1277, Revision 2, dated January 8, 2010; as applicable; except as
provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision 1,
dated January 7, 2010; refers to Umbra Cuscinetti Service Bulletin
07322-27-01, dated December 21, 2004; Linear Motion Service Bulletin
7901708, Revision A, or Revision B, both dated July 26, 2005; Boeing
737 Service Bulletin 27-1046, Revision 1, dated April 5, 1974; and
Skytronics Service Bulletin 93004, dated September 1, 2005; as
applicable; as additional sources of service information for
accomplishing the applicable specified actions.

    Note 2: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2,
dated January 8, 2010; refers to Umbra Cuscinetti Service Bulletin
07322-27-01, dated December 21, 2004; as an additional source of
service information for accomplishing the applicable specified
actions.

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1278, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2, dated January
8, 2010; as applicable; specifies an initial compliance time for
accomplishing the initial inspection, lubrication, or repair/
overhaul, this AD requires doing the applicable initial action(s) at
the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1278,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1277, Revision 2, dated January 8, 2010; as applicable.
    (ii) Within the applicable compliance time specified in
paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A), (g)(1)(ii)(B), or (g)(1)(ii)(C) of this AD.
    (A) For the initial detailed inspection and lubrication: Within
6 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (B) For the initial repair/overhaul: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (C) For the installation(s): Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1277, Revision 2, dated January 8,
2010, specifies a compliance time of ``* * * within 25,000 Flight
Hours since the latest horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA)
Overhaul from the date of Revision 1 of this Service Bulletin * *
*,'' this AD requires compliance within 25,000 flight hours since
the last overhaul of the trim actuator of the horizontal stabilizer.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-27A1277, Revision
1, dated July 25, 2007; or 737-27A1278, dated May 24, 2007; as
applicable; are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

Parts Installation

    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
ballscrew assembly in the drive mechanism of the HSTA on any
airplane, unless it has been inspected and modified, as applicable,
in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9410 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24696-24698]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0308; FRL-8063-6]

Pronamide; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources to use the pesticide
pronamide (CAS No. 23950-58-5) to treat up to 8,000 acres of
cranberries to control dodder. The applicant proposes a use which has
been requested in 3 or more previous years, and a petition for
tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. Due to the urgent
nature of the emergency and the very narrow and extremely limited use
being requested, EPA has eliminated the public comment period.
Nonetheless, interested parties may still contact the Agency with
comments about this notice and treatment program.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0308, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the

Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility will be closed to the
public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will
reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA
22202. The mail code for the mailing address will change to (7502P),
but will otherwise remain the same. The OPP Regulatory Public Docket
telephone number and hours of operation will remain the same after the
move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0308. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111)
     Animal production (NAICS code 112)
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. The Massachusetts
Department of Agricultural Resources has requested the Administrator to
issue a specific exemption for the use of pronamide on cranberries to
control dodder. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was
submitted as part of this request.
    As part of this request, the applicant asserts that with the
widespread adoption of water harvesting, dodder infestations have
become practically ubiquitous in the Massachusetts cranberry production
area. The detrimental impact of dodder infestations on cranberry yields
have been reported widely in scientific journals, extension
publications and internal memorandum. Yield losses can range from 12%
in slight infestations up to 100% in severe infestations. Currently
registered herbicides have not been totally effective, leading to a
steady increase in dodder infestations.

    The Applicant proposes to make no more than two pre-emergence
broadcast applications at a rate of 1.0-2.0 lbs of product per acre
(0.5-1.0 lbs acre (a.i.) on 8,000 acres of cranberries. No more than
2.0 lbs of product/acre/season 1.0 lbs a.i. may be made as a result of
single or split application.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA
require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a
specific exemption proposing a use which has been requested in 3 or
more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been
submitted to the Agency.
    As noted above, the Agency is eliminating the comment period due to
the urgent nature of an emergency situation and the very narrow and
extremely limited use being requested. Nonetheless, interested parties
may still contact the Agency with comments about this notice and
treatment program.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 17, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-6288 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58368-58369]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 Notice of Application

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC..........  Docket No. CP12-507-000.
Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.....  Docket No. CP12-508-000,
                                             PF12-3-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2012, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (CCL), located
at 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application in
Docket No. CP12-507-000, under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), as amended, and parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's
regulations for authorization to site, construct, and operate a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) export and import facility to be located
near Corpus Christi, in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas, at the
site of the previously authorized, but never constructed, Corpus
Christi LNG, LLC LNG import terminal.
    In the same application, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.
(CCP) (together Corpus Christi), located at 700 Milam Street, Suite
800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed with the Commission an application in
Docket No. CP12-508-000, under section 7(c) of the NGA and parts 157,
284, and 380 of the Commission's regulations for (1) A certificate of
public convenience and necessity (i) authorizing ccp to construct, own
and operate a new natural gas pipeline, (ii) approving a pro forma
Tariff, and (iii) approving the proposed initial rates for service; (2)
a blanket certificate authorizing CCP to engage in certain self-
implementing routine activities under Part 157, Subpart F, of the
Commission's regulations; and (3) a blanket certificate authorizing CCP
to transport natural gas, on an open access and self-implementing
basis, under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Patricia Outtrim, Cheniere Energy, Inc., 700 Milam Street, Suite 800,
Houston, Texas 77002<PHONE_NUMBER> or Lisa M. Tonery, Fulbright &
Jaworski L.L.P., 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    On December 22, 2011, the Commission staff granted CCL's request to
use the pre-filing process and assigned Docket No. PF12-3-000 for this
proceeding during the pre-filing review of the project. Now, as of the
filing of CCL's application on August 31, 2012, the pre-filing process
for this project has ended. From this time forward, CCL's proceeding
will be conducted in Docket No. CP12-507-000, as noted in the caption
of this Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental cementers will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental cementers will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the nonparty commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free) or TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2012.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23225 Filed 9-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P