[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46428-46434]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0794; Product Identifier 2017-NM-175-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-25-
02, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2012-25-02 requires
revising the airworthiness limitations section (AWL) of the
instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) of the maintenance
requirements manual by incorporating new procedures for repetitive
inspections for cracking of the rear pressure bulkhead (RPB). AD 2012-
25-02 also requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate a
revised task which requires an improved non-destructive inspection
procedure. Since we issued AD 2012-25-02, additional in-service crack
findings resulted in the development of a structural modification to
the RPB. This proposed AD would mandate modification of the RPB and
would add repetitive inspections for cracking of the RPB web, which
would terminate certain actions in this proposed AD. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0794; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0794;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-175-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy

aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those
comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2012-25-02, Amendment 39-17283 (77 FR 73902, December
12, 2012) (``AD 2012-25-02''), for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-
600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2012-25-02
requires revising the AWL of the ICA of the Canadair Regional Jet
Maintenance Requirements Manual by incorporating new procedures for
repetitive detailed and special detailed inspections for cracking of
the RPB. AD 2012-25-02 also requires revising the maintenance program
to incorporate a revised task specified in a certain temporary
revision, which requires an improved non-destructive inspection
procedure; and adds airplanes to the applicability. AD 2012-25-02
resulted from multiple reports of cracks on the forward face of the RPB
web. We issued AD 2012-25-02 to detect and correct cracking in the RPB,
which could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2012-25-02 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2012-25-02, additional in-service crack findings
resulted in the development of a structural modification to the RPB.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2011-30R2, dated June 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Cracks on the forward face of the Rear Pressure Bulkhead (RPB)
web have been discovered on three CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes in-service.
    A Temporary Revision has been made to Part 2 of the Maintenance
Requirements Manual (MRM) to revise the existing AWL task by
introducing an improved Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) procedure
to ensure that fatigue cracking of the RPB is detected and
corrected.
    The original issue of this [TCCA] AD [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2012-25-02] mandated the incorporation of a new NDI procedure for
AWL task number 53-61-153.
    Additional in-service findings have resulted in the issue of
revision 1 of this [TCCA] AD, which mandates a structural
modification to the rear pressure bulkhead with revised threshold
and repeat inspection intervals. This modification is intended to
preclude the onset of multiple site fatigue damage for the remaining
service life of the aeroplane. If not corrected, a failure of the
RPB could result in loss of structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    Revision 2 of this [TCCA] AD requires an inspection to be
carried out prior to modification of the RPB. This revision also
requires an additional modification to be completed on the RPB prior
to terminating AWL task number 53-61-153. It also includes
provisions to account for certain repairs as well as [alternative
methods of compliance] AMOCs issued to earlier revisions of this
[TCCA] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0794.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information.
     Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-53-61-1230,
Revision F, dated November 7, 2011. This service information describes
procedures for a repair to the pressure bulkhead web frame station (FS)
621.00, lintel installation.
     Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-1240, Revision D, dated October
31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a repair
and modification to FS 621.00 pressure bulkhead web.
     Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-5828, Revision A, dated March
16, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a repair to
FS 621.00 pressure bulkhead web at left buttock line (LBL) 27.5.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the
actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with
14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative
method of compliance according to paragraph (p)(1) of this proposed AD.
The request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The MCAI includes the following statement: ``If it is not possible
to complete all of the instructions in the SBs [service bulletins] . .
. due to the configuration of the aircraft, contact Bombardier Inc. for
approved instructions.'' This issue is addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, which
states that ``If a change in a product affects your ability to
accomplish the actions required by the AD in any way, you must request
FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance . . .'' Since we do
not currently have the authority to delegate AMOC approvals to foreign
civil aviation authorities, the FAA is responsible for these approvals.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 457 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                      Parts cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 917 work-hours x $85 per hour =  Up to $6,000...........  Up to $83,945..........  Up to $38,362,865.
 Up to $77,945.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-25-02, Amendment 39-17283 (77 FR 73902, December 12, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

Bombardier Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0794; Product Identifier 2017-
NM-175-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 29, 2018.

 (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-25-02, Amendment 39-17283 (77 FR 73902,
December 12, 2012) (``AD 2012-25-02'').

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 7002 through 8025 inclusive, 8030, and 8034.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracks on the
forward face of the rear pressure bulkhead (RPB) web, and additional
in-service crack findings which resulted in the development of a
structural modification to the RPB. We are issuing this AD to
address cracking in the RPB, which could result in reduced
structural integrity and rapid decompression of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Retained Revision of the Maintenance Program With New Terminating
Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-25-02, with a new terminating action. Except for the airplane
having serial number 7002, within 60 days after January 16, 2013
(the effective date of AD 2012-25-02): Revise the maintenance
program by incorporating the revised inspection requirements
specified in airworthiness limitation section (AWL) 53-61-153 of
Bombardier temporary revision (TR) 2B-2187, dated June 22, 2011, to
Appendix B-Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2 of the Bombardier
CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). The initial
compliance times for the task are at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Doing the actions required
by paragraph (j) or (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of
this paragraph, for the repaired area only. Accomplishment of the
actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes on which the special detailed inspection
specified in AWL 53-61-153 of Bombardier TR 2B-2187, dated June 22,
2011; or Canadair Regional Jet TR 2B-2109, dated October 13, 2005;
has not been done as of January 16, 2013 (the effective date of AD
2012-25-02): The initial compliance time for AWL 53-61-153 is at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of
this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,500 total flight
cycles or less as of January 16, 2013: Before the accumulation of
12,000 total flight cycles.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 10,500 total
flight cycles as of January 16, 2013: Within 1,500 flight cycles
after January 16, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-02).
    (2) For airplanes on which the special detailed inspection
specified in AWL 53-61-

153 of Bombardier TR 2B-2187, dated June 22, 2011; or Canadair
Regional Jet TR 2B-2109, dated October 13, 2005; has been done as of
January 16, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2012-25-02): The initial
compliance time for AWL 53-61-153 is within 4,360 flight cycles
after accomplishing the most recent special detailed inspection, or
within 1,500 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent
detailed inspection as specified in AWL 53-61-153 of Canadair
Regional Jet TR 2B-2109, dated October 13, 2005, whichever occurs
later.

 (h) Retained No Alternative Actions or Intervals With New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2012-25-02, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraphs
(j)(3), (l)(2), and (m) of this AD, after accomplishing the
revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used other than
those specified in Bombardier TR 2B-2187, dated June 22, 2011, to
Appendix B-Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2 of the Bombardier
CL-600-2B19 MRM, unless the actions and intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.

 (i) Retained General Revision of the MRM With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2012-25-02, with no changes. The maintenance program revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy
of Bombardier TR 2B-2187, dated June 22, 2011, into Appendix B-
Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2 of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
MRM. When this TR has been included in general revisions of the MRM,
the general revisions may be inserted in the MRM, provided the
relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in
this TR.

 (j) New Requirements of This AD: Inspections, Modification, and
Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2),
and (j)(3) of this AD at the time specified, except as provided by
paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD.
    (1) At the applicable time specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(j) of this AD: Do a nondestructive inspection for cracking of the
forward face of the fuselage station (FS) 621 pressure bulkhead, in
accordance with AWL 53-61-153 of Bombardier TR 2B-2187, dated June
22, 2011, to Appendix B-Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2 of the
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 MRM.
    (2) At the applicable time specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(j) of this AD: Modify the RPB and do a nondestructive inspection
for cracking of the FS 621 pressure bulkhead web, in accordance with
Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-53-61-1240, Revision
D, dated October 31, 2016.
    (3) Before further flight after accomplishing the modification
required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Revise the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the inspection
requirements at the threshold and repetitive inspection times
specified in the in-service deviation inspection requirements (SDIR)
of Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-1240, Revision D, dated October 31,
2016.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE18.000

 (k) Corrective Action

    (1) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (j)(2), (l)(1), or (m) of this AD: Before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch,
FAA; Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the
approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-1230, Revision F, dated
November 7, 2011, or Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-1240, Revision D,
dated October 31, 2016, as applicable, or using a method approved by
the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.

 (l) Alternative Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes on which the actions required by paragraphs (j)(1)
and (j)(2) of this AD were performed before the effective date of
this AD using the REOs identified in figure 2 to paragraph (l) of
this AD: In lieu of accomplishing the actions required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (l)(1)
and (l)(2) of this AD within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD.
    (1) Perform a special detailed inspection for cracking of Zone B
of the RPB web, in accordance with Part B of Bombardier REO 601R-53-
61-1240, Revision D, dated October 31, 2016.
    (2) Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
by incorporating the inspection requirements at the threshold and
repetitive inspection times specified in Part B of the SDIR of
Bombardier REO 601R-53-61-1240, Revision D, dated October 31, 2016.
The inspection threshold is measured from the time of incorporation
of the applicable REO specified in figure 2 to paragraph (l) of this
AD.
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE18.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE18.002

 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

 (m) Alternative Actions for Airplane Serial Number 7610

    For any airplane having serial number 7610: In lieu of
accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD;
within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a
reinforcement of K601R36010--A at left buttock line (LBL) 27.5 and
perform a special detailed inspection for cracking of the FS 621
pressure bulkhead web at LBL 27.5, in accordance with Bombardier REO
601R-53-61-5828, Revision A, dated March 16, 2017. Before further
flight after accomplishing the reinforcement, or within 60 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise
the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by
incorporating the inspection requirements that include threshold and
repetitive inspection times as specified in the SDIR of Bombardier
REO 601R-53-61-5828, Revision A, dated March 16, 2017.

 (n) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (j)(3), (l)(2), or (m) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p)(1) of this
AD.

 (o) Terminating Actions for Paragraph (g) of This AD

    (1) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (j) or
(l) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD, for the repaired area only.
    (2) Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (m) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes on which the actions required by paragraph (j)
or (l) of this AD have been done and on which the modification and
inspection specified in REO 601R-53-61-1230 Revision F, dated
November 7, 2011, have been done and there were no inspection
findings: The actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD are
terminated.

 (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:
(516) 228-7300; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-25-02, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions in paragraphs (g), (k),
and (l) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

 (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-30R2, dated June 12,
2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0794.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 24, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19735 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9735-9736]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13239-002]

Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC.; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions,
Recommendations, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Unconstructed Project.
    b. Project No.: 13239-002.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Parker Knoll Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located at Parker
Mountain, near the Town of Richfield, Piute County, Utah. The project
would occupy 458.7 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Daniel Dygert, Attorney, Parker Knoll Hydro,
LLC, 399 North Main Street, Suite 250, Logan, Utah;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
law.com">[email protected]law.com.
    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-13239-002.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage
system, with an initial fill from the existing Otter Creek reservoir,
and would include the following new facilities: (1) An approximately
175-foot-high upper main dam with a crest length of approximately 1,650
feet and one saddle dam; (2) an upper reservoir with a storage capacity
of approximately 6,780 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately
110 acres; (3) an approximately 100-foot-high lower dam with a crest
length of approximately 1,750 feet and two saddle dams; (4) a lower
reservoir with storage capacity of approximately 6,760 acre-feet and a
surface area of approximately 130 acres; (5) a 2,390-foot-long and 27-
foot-diameter headrace tunnel; (6) a 2,200-foot-long and 27-foot-
diameter vertical shaft; (7) a 1,000-foot-long and 27-foot-diameter
steel-lined penstock tunnel; (8) a 7,126-foot-long and 35-foot-diameter
tailrace tunnel; (9) a powerhouse containing four variable speed,
reversible pump-turbine units with a minimum rating of 250 megawatt
(MW); (10) an approximately 585-foot by 340-foot substation; (11) a 16-
inch-diameter and 68,000-foot-long fill pipeline and system; (12)
approximately one mile of 345-kV transmission line; and (13)
appurtenant facilities. The project would occupy 458.7 acres of federal
land and would have an estimated annual generation of 2,630 gigawatt
hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h, above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Commission issues draft EIS--December 2018.
Comments on draft EIS--January 2019.
Commission issues final EIS--June 2019.

    Dated: March 1, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04604 Filed 3-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32357-32359]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14731]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9964-85-Region 1]

Notice of EPA's Action To Postpone the Effective Date of the EPA
Region 1 Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permits for Stormwater Discharges From Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems in Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
that it took action to postpone the effective

date of its Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Stormwater Discharges
from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in
Massachusetts. By its action, EPA postponed the July 1, 2017 effective
date of the permit for one year, to July 1, 2018. EPA's postponement is
available at: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/MS4_MA.html.

DATES: Postponement date is June 29, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Murphy, Stormwater and
Construction Permits Section OEP 06-4, Environmental Protection Agency,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912;
617.918.1615; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As stated in its postponement action,
pursuant to section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 705), and for the reasons stated below, the EPA postponed the
effective date of the EPA-issued General Permits for Stormwater
Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in
Massachusetts (Massachusetts permit) from July 1, 2017 to July 1, 2018.

I. Background

    EPA Region 1 issued the Massachusetts permit on April 4, 2016, with
an effective date of July 1, 2017. Region 1 issued the previous general
permit for Small MS4s in Massachusetts in 2003, which expired and was
administratively continued for MS4s covered under that permit in 2008.
EPA Region 1 issued the 2016 Massachusetts permit following issuance of
the Commonwealth's CWA section 401 certification by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The final 2016
permits were jointly issued by EPA and MassDEP, along with EPA's 632-
page Response to Comments document.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the Region issues NPDES permits in Massachusetts,
the Commonwealth maintains separate permitting authority under
Massachusetts law. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21, Sec.  43; Mass. Code
Regs. tit. 314. When the Region issues an NPDES permit in
Massachusetts, MassDEP typically jointly issues a permit under state
law. See In re City of Marlborough, 12 E.A.D. 235, 236 n.3 (EAB
2005); In re Westborough, 10 E.A.D. 297, 300 n.2 (EAB 2002). EPA's
action in postponing the effective date of the Massachusetts permit
does not affect the requirements of the permit issued by MassDEP
under Massachusetts law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Massachusetts Permit allows eligible small MS4s in
Massachusetts to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater
discharges. Approximately 260 towns and other municipalities, which
include a number of state and federally owned entities such as
colleges, Veterans Administration hospitals, prisons and military bases
in Massachusetts, are eligible to seek coverage under the permit.
    Several parties filed petitions for review of the Massachusetts
permit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Petitioners
are the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR), Conservation Law
Foundation/Charles River Watershed Association, National Association of
Homebuilders, the City of Lowell, and the Town of Franklin. The D.C.
Circuit has consolidated these petitions. See Center for Regulatory
Reasonableness, et al. v. EPA, No. 16-1246 (D.C. Circuit).
    On April 21, 2017, the D.C. Circuit granted CRR's motion to
indefinitely stay the briefing deadlines. Under the original briefing
schedule, petitioners would have filed their opening briefs on May 8,
2017. CRR cited several justifications in its motion to stay the
original briefing deadlines, including providing time for the New
Hampshire small MS4 general permit's judicial review period to end,
providing time to address certain questions about the administrative
record, and deadlines that the petitioners were facing in non-related
litigation. EPA did not oppose this motion. Motions to govern further
proceedings are due July 20, 2017.
    On May 26, 2017, three of the petitioners (the Massachusetts
Coalition of Water Resources, the City of Lowell, and the Town of
Franklin, hereafter the ``Requestors'') submitted a letter asking EPA
Region 1 to postpone the July 1, 2017 effective date for one year
pending judicial review under section 705 of the APA.

II. Discussion

    Upon consideration of the request, and for the reasons set forth
below, EPA determined that justice requires postponement of the
effective date.\2\ Therefore, pursuant to APA section 705, EPA
postponed the July 1, 2017 effective date for one year to July 1, 2018.
EPA is providing notice of this postponement to the public, including
all petitioners, all commenters, and all known potential permittees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Region 1 Regional Administrator is authorized to act on
behalf of EPA in this matter pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(l), which
grants regional administrators the authority to issue final NPDES
permit decisions, which includes determining when a permit will take
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Request

    The Requestors' May 26 letter asked EPA to postpone the July 1,
2017 effective date of the Massachusetts permit in the ``interests of
justice'' because, the Requestors asserted, (1) the permit represents a
significant expansion of EPA's CWA authority and the court must decide,
among other things, whether EPA acted within its bounds by requiring
that discharges meet water quality standards in addition to meeting the
Maximum Extent Practicable (``MEP'') standard; (2) it will align the
Massachusetts permit's effective date with the effective date of the
virtually identical New Hampshire small MS4 general permit, which was
issued in January 2017, raises the same legal issues, and has also been
challenged in the D.C. Circuit (as well as the 1st Circuit); and (3)
although irreparable harm is not required for EPA to postpone the
effective date under APA section 705, without it the towns will suffer
irreparable harm by immediately expending resources that may ultimately
prove to be unnecessary and wasted to avoid non-compliance and risk of
enforcement.

B. Analysis

    In postponing the effective date of the Massachusetts permit, EPA
stated in its findings that justice requires postponing the July 1,
2017 effective date of the Massachusetts permit for one year pending
judicial review. EPA would like to explore the use of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) in this case in order to engage with the
various petitioners and jointly see if there might be a resolution that
could avoid the need for litigation. EPA believes that it is fair to
postpone the effective date of the permit so that eligible MS4s in
Massachusetts that could seek coverage under the permit would not be
subject to enforceable permit terms and conditions under the
Massachusetts permit that could change as a result of ADR. Postponing
the effective date for one year pending judicial review should give EPA
ample time to determine what, if any, changes are appropriate in the
permit and to determine next steps.
    Pending any such decision by the Agency, postponing the effective
date of the permit for one year will postpone certain obligations--and
the associated costs--that would otherwise be incurred in the first
year's implementation of the Massachusetts permit. Such costs would
include monetary and staff time for preparation and submittal of a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by the permit. Also in the first
year, in the absence of the postponement of the permit's

effective date, the MS4s would have to update portions of their
existing Stormwater Management Plans. Given the status of the
litigation, the possibility that the parties will engage in ADR and
that the Agency may decide to make changes to the permit, the Agency
believes it is reasonable to defer imposition of these obligations and
costs for the period of the postponement.
    Moreover, postponing the effective date by one year will have the
benefit of matching the Massachusetts permit's effective date with the
effective date of the New Hampshire small MS4 general permit, which EPA
Region 1 issued on January 18, 2017 and will take effect on July 1,
2018. Various parties have filed petitions for review of the New
Hampshire permit in the D.C. Circuit, as well as one petition in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. EPA is also interested in
exploring the use of ADR in that case. EPA has filed a motion with the
First Circuit to transfer the petition that was filed there to the D.C.
Circuit so that all of the New Hampshire petitions may be consolidated.
Aligning the effective dates could promote efficiency in the resolution
of both cases by facilitating the development of a unified ADR process
that would address those issues raised in both permit appeals.

C. Conclusion

    Based on the above, EPA concluded that justice requires
postponement of the effective date. Thus EPA postponed the July 1, 2017
effective date of the Massachusetts permit for one year to July 1,
2018.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Ken Moraff,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2017-14731 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22368-22370]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0003; Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace and Revocation of
Class E Airspace; Cape Girardeau, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace
and to revoke Class E airspace at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, Cape
Girardeau, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Marion VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program. The name of the localizer would also
be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0003, Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-5 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class D airspace; amend the Class E surface
airspace; amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface; and revoke the Class E airspace area designated as
an extension to Class D airspace at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport,
Cape Girardeau, MO, to support instrument flight rule operations at
this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2021-0003, Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-5.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Amending the Class D airspace at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport,
Cape Girardeau, MO, by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the
021[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to
4.4 miles north of the airport; and adding an extension 1 mile each
side of the 106[deg] bearing from the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC
extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.4 miles east of
the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC;
    Amending the Class E surface airspace at Cape Girardeau Regional
Airport by removing the vertical limit on the airspace as it is not
required; adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 021[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 4.4 miles north
of the airport; and adding an extension 1 mile each side of the
106[deg] bearing from the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC extending
from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.4 miles east of the Cape
Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC;
    Removing the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to
Class D and Class E surface area at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport as
it is no longer required;
    And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Cape Girardeau Regional Airport by removing the
Cape Girardeau VOR/DME and associated extension from the airspace legal
description; updating the bearing of the north extension to 021[deg]
(previously 023[deg]); updating the bearing of the east extension to
106[deg] (previously 108[deg]) and changing the reference of the
extension to the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC (previously the
airport); updating the bearing of the south extension to 201[deg]
(previously 203[deg]); and updating the bearing of the west extension
to 286[deg] (previously 280[deg]); and updating the name of the Cape
Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC (previously Cape Girard Regional Localizer)
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Marion VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated
July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

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

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE MO D Cape Girardeau, MO [Amended]

Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'31'' N, long. 89[deg]34'15'' W)
Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'18'' N, long. 89[deg]33'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,800 feet within a 4.1-mile radius of Cape Girardeau Regional

Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 021[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.4
miles north of the airport, and within 1 mile each side of the
106[deg] bearing from the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC extending
from the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.4 miles east of the
Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE MO E2 Cape Girardeau, MO [Amended]

Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'31'' N, long. 89[deg]34'15'' W)
Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'18'' N, long. 89[deg]33'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-
mile radius of Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, and within 1 mile
each side of the 021[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 4.1-mile radius of the airport to 4.4 miles north of the
airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 106[deg] bearing from
the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC extending from the 4.1-mile
radius of the airport to 4.4 miles east of the Cape Girardeau RGNL:
RWY 10-LOC. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ACE MO E4 Cape Girardeau, MO [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Cape Girardeau, MO [Amended]

Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'31'' N, long. 89[deg]34'15'' W)
Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC
    (Lat. 37[deg]13'18'' N, long. 89[deg]33'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Cape Girardeau Regional Airport, and
within 1.9 miles each side of the 021[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.6-mile radius of the airport to 7.3 miles north
of the airport, and within 3.8 miles each side of the 106[deg]
bearing from the Cape Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC extending from the
6.6-mile radius of the airport to 14 miles east of the Cape
Girardeau RGNL: RWY 10-LOC, and within 2 miles each side of the
201[deg] bearing from the airport from the 6.6-mile radius of the
airport to 7.5 miles south of the airport, and within 2 miles each
side of the 286[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
6.6-mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles west of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 19, 2021.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-08740 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 68495-68497]
[DOCID:fr18no08-143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2008-0171]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes a collection of phase-in information on the
Appendix A-1 phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant crash protection'' for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the
comment be provided. Note that all comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mrs. Carla
Cuentas, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Room W43-417, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Mrs. Cuentas' telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify
the relevant collection of information by referring to this Docket
Number (Docket Number NHTSA-2008-0171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before a proposed collection of information is submitted to OMB for
approval, Federal agencies must first publish a document in the Federal
Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with
members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations
describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's
regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment
on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Appendix A-1 of FMVSS No. 208 Phase-in Reporting
Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-NEW.
    Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard form.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: 49 U.S.C. 30111
authorizes the issuance of FMVSSs and regulations. The agency, in
prescribing a FMVSS or regulation, considers available relevant motor
vehicle safety data, and consults with other agencies, as it deems
appropriate. Further, the statute mandates that in issuing any FMVSS or
regulation, the agency considers whether the standard or regulation is
``reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is
prescribed,'' and whether such a standard will contribute to carrying
out the purpose of the Act. The Secretary is authorized to invoke such
rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out these
requirements. Using this authority, the agency issued FMVSS No. 208,
``Occupant crash protection,'' to aid the agency in achieving many of
its safety goals. This notice requests comments on the collection of
information for the phase-in reporting requirements related to the
implementation of Appendix A-1 of this standard. Under the phase-in, 50
percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be
certified as meeting FMVSS No. 208 when tested with the child restraint
systems in Appendix A-1, and all vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 must be so certified.
    Description of the need for the information and proposed use of the
information: NHTSA needs this information to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers are certifying their applicable vehicles as meeting FMVSS
No. 208 when tested with the child restraint systems in Appendix A-1.
NHTSA will use this information to determine whether a manufacturer has
complied with the requirements during the phase-in period.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
NHTSA estimates that 22 vehicle manufacturers will submit the required
information. For each report, the manufacturer will provide, in
addition to its identity, address, etc., several numerical items of
information. The information includes, but is not limited to, the
following items:
    (a) The number of vehicles manufactured in the current production
year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous
production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time,
manufacturing passenger cars for sale in the United States must report
the number of passenger cars manufactured during the current production
year.
    (b) The number of vehicles that meet the requirements of Standard
No. 208 when using the child restraint systems specified in Appendix A-
1 of that standard.
    Each manufacturer shall maintain records of the Vehicle
Identification Number for each vehicle for which information is
reported under Sec.  585.36 until December 31, 2013.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA estimates that it
will annually take each of the 22 affected manufacturers an average of
one hour to comply with these requirements. Using a cost estimate of
$35 per hour, this results in a total annual cost of $770 (22
manufacturers x 1 hour per manufacturer x $35 per hour).
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Department, including whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the
burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\1\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents
submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions
of your submissions.\2\ Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality
Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the
agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the
OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
    \2\ Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in
preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may
be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\3\ In
addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the
methods set forth above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: November 13, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-27320 Filed 11-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55517-55519]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67778; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Handling of Stop and Stop Limit Orders

September 4, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On May 24, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend FINRA's rules relating to the handling of
stop orders and stop limit orders. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received four comment letters regarding the proposal.\4\ On
July 19, 2012, the Commission designated a longer period to act on the
proposed rule change, until September 4, 2012.\5\ On August 9, 2012,
FINRA submitted a response to the comment letters.\6\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67085 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33537 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated June
26, 2012 (``SIFMA Letter''); Gary J. Sjostedt, Director, Order
Routing and Sales, TD Ameritrade, Inc., dated June 27, 2012 (``TD
Ameritrade Letter''); and Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading
LLC, dated July 9, 2012 (``KOR Letter''); and web comment from
Virgil F. Liptak, dated July 3, 2012 (``Liptak Letter''). The
comment letters received by the Commission are available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2012-026/finra2012026.shtml.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67471, 77 FR 43620 (July
25, 2012).
    \6\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Racquel L. Russell, Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory
Policy and Oversight, FINRA, dated August 9, 2012 (``FINRA
Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA proposes to amend its rules governing the handling of stop
orders. FINRA Rule 6140(h) currently provides that a member may, but is
not obligated to, accept a stop order or a stop limit order in a
designated security.\7\ A buy stop order becomes a market order when a
transaction takes place at or above the stop price, and a sell stop
order becomes a market order when a transaction takes place at or below
the stop price.\8\ When a transaction occurs at the stop price, a stop
limit order to buy or sell becomes a limit order at the limit price.\9\
Accordingly, FINRA rules provide that stop orders and stop limit orders
are triggered (i.e., become a market or a limit order) by a transaction
in a security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA Rule 6140(a) defines a ``designated security'' as any
NMS stock as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47).
    \8\ See FINRA Rule 6140(h)(1)(A)-(B).
    \9\ See FINRA Rule 6140(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA now proposes to also allow members to offer customers stop
orders and stop limit orders that would be triggered by a transaction
or by an event other than a transaction (e.g., a quotation).\10\ FINRA
has indicated that some firms and their customers prefer alternative
triggers for activating stop orders and stop limit orders.\11\
According to FINRA, some members believe that, for certain securities,
quotations may serve as a better indicator of the current price than
transactions.\12\ For example, quotations for thinly traded securities
may be continuously updated, whereas there may be limited trading in
the securities.\13\ However, FINRA also states that some members and
customers prefer to have transactions trigger stop orders and stop
limit orders, and believe that customers could be disadvantaged

if quotations trigger stop orders and stop limit orders.\14\ For
example, some members are concerned that using quotations as a trigger
could result in an execution at a price that the stock had never traded
at on that day.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA previously proposed to delete in its entirety Rule
6140(h). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63256 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69503 (November 12, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-055). The
Commission disapproved that proposed rule change. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 63885 (February 10, 2011), 76 FR 9062
(February 16, 2011) (Order Disapproving SR-FINRA-2010-055).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33537.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id. FINRA states that some members expressed concern
that quotations may be more vulnerable to abuse because they can be
manipulated to trigger stops and then withdrawn or changed, while
other members noted that using transactions also could result in the
improper triggering of a customer's stop order due to trades at
prices outside of the current market. See id. at 33537 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes permitting a member to accept an order type that
activates as a market or limit order using an event other than a
transaction at the stop price as the trigger, such as a quotation.\16\
The member may not label the order type a ``stop order'' or a ``stop
limit order,'' and must clearly distinguish it from a ``stop order''
and a ``stop limit order.'' \17\ For example, an order type that
triggers using a quotation at the stop price may be labeled a ``stop
quotation order.'' \18\ FINRA believes that requiring members to
distinguish orders triggered by an event other than a transaction from
stop orders or stop limit orders will allow members and customers to
share a uniform understanding that transactions serve as the triggering
event for stop orders and stop limit orders.\19\ In addition, FINRA
proposes that the member offering such an order type must disclose to
the customer, in paper or electronic form, prior to the time the
customer places the order, a description of the order type including
the triggering event.\20\ A member that permits customers to engage in
securities transactions online must also post the required disclosures
on the member's Web site in a clear and conspicuous manner.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FINRA proposes to move the stop order definition from FINRA
Rule 6140(h) to proposed FINRA Rule 5350. FINRA states that this
will ensure that the existing and proposed stop order provisions
apply uniformly to both OTC Equity Securities and NMS stocks. See
id. at 33538.
    \17\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, Supplementary Material .01.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33538.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, Supplementary Material .01.
For example, the disclosure can be made at account opening. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 33538.
    \21\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, Supplementary Material .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA further proposes that a member that routes a customer stop
order or stop limit order to another broker-dealer or exchange for
handling or execution must take reasonable steps to ensure that the
order is handled or executed by the other broker-dealer or exchange in
accordance with proposed Rule 5350(a).\22\ Similarly, under the
proposal, a member that routes an order type using an alternative
trigger (i.e., a trigger other than a transaction) to another broker-
dealer or exchange must take reasonable steps to ensure that the order
is handled or executed by the other broker-dealer or exchange in
accordance with the terms of the order as communicated to the customer
placing the order.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, Supplementary Material .02.
    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that, given the various risks and benefits of each
triggering event, members and their customers should determine the
appropriate triggering event for stop orders and stop limit orders.\24\
In addition, FINRA believes that providing customers and members with
the flexibility to select and offer other triggering events for
alternative order types in accordance with their investment objectives
and business models, while requiring members to disclose a description
of the order type, including the triggering event, prior to the time
the customer places the order, will promote just and equitable
principles of trade.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33538.
    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\26\ KOR Trading LLC (``KOR''), the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), and TD Ameritrade, Inc.
(``TD Ameritrade'') generally supported FINRA's objective to provide
members with flexibility regarding the triggers for stop orders, but
preferred a disclosure-based approach over creation of a new order
type.\27\ An individual commenter believes that FINRA should retain and
enforce Rule 6140(h) as written rather than amend it to accommodate
members that were offering stop orders and stop limit orders triggered
by events other than a transaction and disclosing the triggering event
in brokerage agreements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 4.
    \27\ See KOR Letter; TD Ameritrade Letter; SIFMA Letter.
    \28\ See Liptak Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    KOR stated that the use of disclosures, especially those requiring
affirmative consent, would allow investors flexibility to choose the
trigger for stop orders and stop limit orders, and would reduce the
burden on the industry to create new order types.\29\ KOR also stated
that brokers should increase efforts to educate their customers about
stop orders and stop limit orders.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See KOR Letter.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA stated that, although some of its members would like
flexibility in choosing the applicable trigger for stop orders and stop
limit orders and others would prefer to have one established trigger
point, SIFMA members agree that FINRA should not introduce a new order
type to provide for the desired flexibility.\31\ Instead, SIFMA
advocates a disclosure and negative consent approach in which a firm
would be required to disclose what would trigger a stop order or stop
limit order and, if the customer does not object to the disclosed
trigger, the firm may conclude the customer consents to the use of that
trigger.\32\ SIFMA believes this approach would avoid the costs and
burdens of creating a new order type, including the cost of educating
investors about the new order type.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TD Ameritrade raised concerns that FINRA's proposal would create an
undue burden on the industry by requiring it to incorporate a new order
type without clearly defined benefits, and may create unnecessary
investor confusion.\34\ In addition, TD Ameritrade believes creating a
new order type identifying stop orders and stop limit orders triggered
by a quotation is unnecessary as there is no evidence investors
misunderstand or are harmed by such orders.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See TD Ameritrade Letter.
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responds that the proposed rule change addresses concerns
related to the potential for investor confusion with respect to the
operation of stop orders and stop limit orders, while providing members
the flexibility to offer orders types based on other triggers.\36\
FINRA notes that it has engaged in extensive discussions with its
member firms about the proposed rule change and has taken into account
the input provided by members in formulating the proposed rule
change.\37\ For example, FINRA had considered removing the current
definition of ``stop order'' and substituting a disclosure provision
that would require members to disclose to customers how stop orders
would be triggered.\38\ FINRA states that its members expressed a
number of concerns about this approach, including that it could lead to
investor confusion regarding the handling of stop orders, errors when
routing stop orders for

execution to another broker that uses a different trigger for stop
orders, and executions of quotation-triggered stop orders at prices at
which the stock had not traded that day.\39\ FINRA also had considered
retaining the existing rule to require that only transactions trigger
stop orders and stop limit orders.\40\ However, certain FINRA members
were concerned that trades outside the current market, whether
permissible transactions or clearly erroneous trades, could improperly
trigger transaction-based stop orders and stop limit orders, and
believed that quotations may serve as a better indicator of current
market price for thinly traded securities.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See FINRA Response at 4.
    \37\ See id. at 3.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id. at 4.
    \41\ See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes the proposed approach--to retain the default trigger
while permitting the use of other triggers and requiring disclosure of
those triggers--strikes the appropriate balance in addressing the views
expressed by FINRA members.\42\ In particular, FINRA believes that the
proposal would provide members with flexibility in offering various
order types, while also addressing concerns regarding the potential for
investor confusion with respect to the operation of stop orders.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id. at 4.
    \43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to
make explicit in FINRA rules that firms are permitted to offer stop
orders and stop limit orders that are triggered by an event other than
a transaction, such as a quotation, as long as that order type is
clearly differentiated from stop orders and stop limit orders triggered
by a transaction.\44\ Contrary to views expressed by commenters, FINRA
does not believe the proposed rule change would impose additional costs
on members that offer stop orders and stop limit orders given the
current requirement to use a transaction-based trigger for orders
labeled as ``stop'' or ``stop limit,'' thus requiring order types that
use an alternative trigger to be labeled differently.\45\ In addition,
FINRA is concerned that allowing the trigger for stop orders and stop
limit orders to vary solely based on customer consent may diminish the
level of certainty for customers as to how stop orders would be treated
and would result in less uniformity in the handling of stop orders and
stop limit orders.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See id. at 2.
    \45\ See id. at 4.
    \46\ See id. Finally, FINRA notes that it will provide an
implementation period of no less than 90 days following Commission
approval of the proposed rule change to provide members that
determine to offer stop orders and stop limit orders with
alternative triggers with time to make necessary technology changes.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letters received, and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section
15A(b) of the Act \47\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities association.\48\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\49\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b).
    \48\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's proposal would allow the use of transaction-based stop
orders and stop limit orders by providing a uniform definition of
``stop order'' and ``stop limit order'' while also allowing member
firms to offer order types that are triggered by an event other than a
transaction (e.g., a quotation).\50\ The Commission notes that a member
that provides an order type that is triggered by an event other than a
transaction at the stop price cannot label the order type a ``stop
order'' or a ``stop limit order,'' and must clearly distinguish the
order type from a ``stop order'' and a ``stop limit order.'' \51\ In
addition, the member must disclose to the customer, in paper or
electronic form, prior to the time the customer places the order, a
description of the order type including the triggering event.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350.
    \51\ See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, Supplementary Material .01.
    \52\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While several commenters advocated for an alternative approach and
raised concerns regarding a potential burden as a result of the
proposal, the Commission believes that FINRA's proposal would allow
members flexibility in the types of orders they offer and provide for
disclosure to customers regarding the operation of such orders. In this
regard, the Commission notes that FINRA weighed various alternatives
and took into account extensive input from its members in formulating
the proposal.\53\ In addition, the Commission notes FINRA's belief that
the proposal should not impose additional costs on firms that continue
existing practices consistent with FINRA rules.\54\ Further, the
Commission notes FINRA's concern that permitting stop order triggers to
vary solely based on customer consent, as suggested by commenters,
could undermine the ability of customers to understand how their stop
orders would be handled.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 33537; and FINRA Response at
2.
    \54\ See FINRA Response at 4.
    \55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposal sufficiently
addresses issues regarding FINRA's previous proposed rule change, which
would have deleted in its entirety the provisions of FINRA Rule 6140
relating to the handling of stop orders by member firms.\56\ The
Commission believes that FINRA's proposal should enhance the ability of
investors to understand the key attributes of order types offered by
their brokers so that they can make informed choices as to whether to
use a particular type of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63885 (February 10,
2011), 76 FR 9062 (February 16, 2011) (Order Disapproving SR-FINRA-
2010-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\57\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-026) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22142 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P