[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1145-1146]
[FR Doc No: 2011-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 349-168; 2407-134]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

December 30, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a: Application Type: Request for drought-based temporary variance
of the Martin Project rule curve and minimum flow releases at the Yates
and Thurlow Project.
    b: Project Nos.: 349-168 and 2407-134.
    c: Date Filed: November 30, 2010.
    d: Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e: Name of Project: Martin Hydroelectric Project (P-349) and Yates
and Thurlow Hydroelectric Project (P-2407).
    f: Location: The Martin Dam Project is located on the Tallapoosa
River in the counties of Coosa, Elmore, and Tallapoosa, Alabama. The
Yates and Thurlow Project is located on the Tallapoosa River in the
counties of Elmore and Tallapoosa, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h: Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason Powers, Alabama Power Company, 600
18th Street North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203-8180, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 15 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]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_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears 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. Description of Request: Alabama Power is requesting a drought-
based temporary variance to the Martin Project rule curve. The rule
curve variance would be in effect from the date of Commission approval
to March 1, 2011, and would allow the licensee to maintain the winter
pool elevation 3 feet higher than normal, at elevation 483 feet instead
of elevation 480 feet. In association with the Martin rule curve
variance, the minimum flows from the Thurlow reservoir (P-2407) would
be temporarily modified as follows until May 1, 2011: (1) When
downstream Alabama River flows are reduced 10%, discharge would be the
greater of \1/2\ Yates inflow or 2 times inflow at the upstream Heflin
gage; (2) when downstream Alabama River flows are reduced 20%, the
discharge would be 350 cfs; and (3) if Alabama River flows are reduced
to 2,000 dsf, the discharge would be 400 cfs.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http:[sol][sol]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.
    You may also register online at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``PROTEST,'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served
upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on
the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by
agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file
comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-48 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5437-5438]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-053; ER14-630-028; ER10-2319-044; ER10-
2317-044; ER13-1351-026; ER10-2330-051.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, AlphaGen Power
LLC, BE Alabama LLC, BE CA LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility
Contract Funding, L.L.C.
    Description: Non-Material Change in Status of the J.P. Morgan
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 1/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160119-5455.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4073-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Complaince Filing for Service
Agreement No. 2962 to be effective 6/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 1/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160120-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-325-007; ER13-2409-007; ER11-4498-011; ER11-
4499-011; ER11-4500-010; ER11-4507-009; ER12-128-008; ER11-4501-012;
ER12-979-011; ER14-2858-006; ER11-4363-007; ER12-2448-011; ER12-2542-
007.
    Applicants: Enel Cove Fort, LLC, Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC,
Smoky Hills Wind Farm, LLC, Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC, Enel
Stillwater, LLC, Canastota Windpower, LLC, EGP Stillwater Solar, LLC,
Caney River Wind Project, LLC, Rocky Ridge Wind Project, LLC, Origin
Wind Energy, LLC, Osage Wind, LLC, Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC,
Prairie Rose Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Enel Cove Fort, LLC, et.
al. under ER14-325, et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160119-5448.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-457-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 20160120-Errata_Pearblossom
Certificate of Concurrence-SvcAgmt3480 to be effective 12/2/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160120-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-754-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State NITSA Rev 7 to be
effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160120-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-755-000.
    Applicants: Frontier El Dorado Refining LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: HollyFrontier El Dorado
Refining LLC Notice of Succession Filing to be effective 1/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160120-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-756-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 3320, Queue No. X3-043 to be effective 3/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160121-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01799 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 29263]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Air Excursions, LLC for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2009-6-11), Docket DOT-
OST-2008-0318.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Air
Excursions, LLC, fit, willing, and able to engage in interstate
scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
June 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2008-0318 and addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590,
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the
Order to Show Cause.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn J. Remo, Chief, Air Carrier
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-307), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(202) 366-9721.

    Dated: June 12, 2009.
Christa Fornarotto,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-14418 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]


1)  Comment:  Please provide a detailed outline of the provisions of this rulemaking that deviate from the recommendations of ICAO and provide a detailed justification and policy rationale for why EPA is proposing to deviate from these recommended standards.  The United States has an obligation under the Article 2.4 TBT Agreement to follow international standards unless those standards would be ineffective and inappropriate.  Specifically, Article 2.4 states,
      "Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfillment of the legitimate objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological problems."
Response:  There are only two provisions in this draft proposed rule which are different than those adopted by ICAO or its Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP).   The first is related to how potential exemptions from meeting Tier 6 (CAEP/6) NOx standards are defined and the second is related to reporting requirements. Each of these is discussed below.
	This proposal implements a new requirement limiting the number of legacy engines that can continue to be sold even though they only comply with the previous NOx emission standards to 75 engines per type certificate holder (e.g., per manufacturer). The ICAO Working Group responsible for this issue developed similar language that limited the number of potential exemptions to 75 per type certificate rather than per type certificate holder.
	In our outreach to stakeholders preceding the drafting of this proposed rule, it became apparent that while the ICAO process resulted in 75 exemptions per type certificate the actual need expressed by the industry was for 75 exemptions per type certificate holder with some flexibility in case of unanticipated hardship as we have proposed.  We worked these ideas with all of the manufacturers and they support the language we are proposing. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) did not object to these ideas either, but they did indicate that their regulation to adopt ICAO's production cut-off and exemptions was already too far along to be modified to align with the newly agreed upon interpretation of 75.  The 75 per type certificate holder approach is the correct outcome; it helps to assure that the emission benefit of the standard is achieved, it meets the needs of industry, and it sets an appropriate basis (i.e. per type certificate holder) for future considerations.  We plan to continue our dialogue with EASA with the goal of harmonizing ICAO's ETM and their regulation with our draft proposal.
	 Regarding reporting requirements, ICAO sponsors an emissions data bank (EDB) to provide information to the public on aircraft engines and their HC, CO, NOx and smoke emission levels.  This information is reported to the ICAO point of contact voluntarily and aperiodically by the manufacturers. The point of contact has retired and despite our overtures to ICAO to address the EDB's incompleteness we identified in the EDB, ICAO has taken no definitive steps to identify a new point of contact or to resolve the lack of currency and completeness of the EDB.  As part of the mandatory GHG reporting rule (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html), we adopted mandatory reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part 87 which require manufacturers to report aircraft engine CO2 emissions together with more general information describing the engine model and its characteristics. The provisions in this draft proposal simply add a separate requirement to report HC, CO, NOx, and smoke emissions, consistent with the existing ICAO database, includes the relatively few smaller thrust turbofan or turboprop engines not included in the EDB and asks for information on annual production and production status.  It adds no significant burden on the manufacturers beyond what is required to respond to the EDB or required separately in the GHG reporting rule.  Any incremental burden is minimal.  The collection of this information is authorized under section 114(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  Specifically, under the CAA, we are authorized to require any person who is subject to the Act to establish and maintain necessary records, make reports, and provide such other information as we may reasonably require in discharging our obligations under the Act.  (See 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a)(1))
      Such a reporting requirement is appropriate because we are the regulatory authority for aircraft engine emissions standards, and we need this information to work with FAA to develop the U.S. positions for emissions standards at ICAO. We also require it to review exemption requests, for example, by examining the history of production.  Examples of how this type of information has already been used to develop ICAO policy are contained in the following recent ICAO/CAEP papers:
   * CAEP/8-WG3-WP6-14, Production Cut-Off Working Paper, March 2009
   * CAEP WG3 Presentation, Production Cut-Off Provisions for Jet Engines, April 2009
   * CAEP WG3 Presentation, Change in Average NOx Emissions, April 2009
   * ICAO Steering Group, WP39, Production Cut-Offs and Associated Flexibilities for ICAO Engine Emission Standards Working Paper, June 2009
   * ICAO Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group, IP Paper, Aircraft NOx Emissions Control Information Paper, October 2009
   * CAEP/8-WP/52, NOx Stringency Working Paper, February 2010
   * CAEP/8-WP/15, Environmental and Economic Assessment of the NOx Stringency Scenarios Working Paper, February 2010
   * CAEP/8  - IP/14, Economic Assessment of the NOx Stringency Scenarios Information Paper, February 2010
 2)  Comment: How did EPA choose which non-attainment areas to display in Table 4 on page 25?  Why are areas that encompass some of the Nation's larger "hub" airports (such as Boston, New York and Dallas-Fort Worth) not included?
 Response: We chose the nonattainment areas for illustrative purposes and have since expanded the number of nonattainment areas described in the proposal. These now include the airports identified by the commenter.  A draft of this list is attached.  We anticipate that a total of 41 nonattainment areas will be identified in the proposal. To select these nonattainment areas, commercial service aircraft emissions inventories were analyzed for areas where airports had either a high number of commercial service operations or large populations in the nearby vicinity.  We identified the top 25 nonattainment areas in each of these two categories, and after eliminating duplicates, 41 nonattainment areas remained for the assessment.  Collectively these 41 nonattainment areas include 200 airports that account for 70 percent of commercial air traffic.
3)  Comment: It is acknowledged that section 233 of the Clean Air Act preempts States from adopting or enforcing any aircraft engine emissions standard unless such standard is identical to EPA's.  Nonetheless, because EPA is proposing to revise text in the Code of Federal Regulations with respect to this statutory preemption, additional discussion addressing EPA's argument that this rule will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 would be helpful.   At a minimum, EPA should clarify the explanation provided on page 131 to remove some apparent inconsistencies in the text.  Suggested revisions are:
      This action does not have federalism implications.  It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.  As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards.  This rule proposes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to more accurately reflect the statutory preemption established by the Clean Air Act.  This rule does not impose any new preemption merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law.   Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Response: We agree, and we made this change as the commenter indicated.
4)  Comment: In the discussion in the preamble about military engines, EPA states that it is "not proposing any specific provisions with respect to engines installed on military aircraft," explaining that such aircraft fall outside the scope of the emissions rules by operation of the regulatory language that brings covered aircraft within the rules (because the FAA rules do not require the certification of military engines). In the table on page 114, however, EPA suggests that proposed § 87.1 ("Definitions") contains a definition of "military aircraft." In fact, consistent with the earlier discussion, there is no such definition in § 87.1.
Response:  The language in the draft proposal clarifies that our standards do not apply to military engines.  The definition is required to ensure that the regulations are not misinterpreted to mean that civilian aircraft engines produced for military applications are subject to the production cutoff, as described in our response to comments 1 and 5.
5)  Comment: Recommend revising the table to cite § 87.3 ("General applicability and requirements"), since it really pertains to applicability and since it doesn't actually refer to any particular definition in § 87.1. For consistency with the statutory FAA provisions, EPA may also wish to use the terminology in 49 USC § 40125(c), i.e. "aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces." The note in the table on page 114 might be revised to say, for instance, "The regulations of this part do not apply to aircraft owned or operated by the Armed Forces, including aircraft owned by the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as some other aircraft not owned by DoD."

	Whether or not EPA changes the cite or uses the terminology in 49 U.S.C., EPA's clarification in the preamble that military/armed forces aircraft are not covered by the rules and that such aircraft includes non-DoD aircraft is very helpful and much appreciated.
Response:   The definition states that military aircraft means "aircraft owned by, operated by, or produced for sale to the armed forces or other agency of the federal government responsible for national security (including but not limited to the Department of Defense)."  The table entry has been revised accordingly.
6)  Comment: Recommend adding the words "that are required to be" to § 87.3(a) to read: "The regulations of this part apply to engines on all aircraft that are required to be certificated by FAA under 14 CFR Part 34 except as specified...."  In the preamble, EPA points out that manufacturers sometimes voluntarily certify engines that FAA does not require to be certificated and clarifies that it is EPA's intent to exclude engines which FAA does not require to be certificated, whether or not they are, in fact, certificated. The proposed language does not, however, say that and could be read that voluntary certification brings an engine within the purview of the regulations.
Response: We have made the change.  The new language is below:
   §87.3   General applicability and requirements.
   (a) The regulations of this part apply to engines on all aircraft that are required to be certificated by FAA under 14 CFR part 33 except as specified in this paragraph (a).  These regulations do not apply to the following aircraft engines:
   (1) Reciprocating engines (including engines used in ultra light aircraft).
   (2) Turboshaft engines such as those used in helicopters.
   (3) Engines used only in aircraft that are not airplanes.  For purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), "airplane" means a fixed-wing aircraft that is heavier than air.
   (4) Engines not used for propulsion.
7)  Comment: Recommend checking the internal cross-reference in §87.1 to ensure it is the correct cite.

Response: We validated the cross reference.

8)   Comment: The draft rule contains provisions that may exceed reasonable interpretations of the statutory phrase "standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant" (standards).  If everything in the draft rule is considered a standard, an obligation would be created under CAA section 7572 for other agencies besides EPA to adopt and implement through their authorities.
Response: Without specifying the provisions in question or even examples of such provisions, it is not possible for us to provide a specific response to this comment.  However, the definition of a standard in section 302(k) of the CAA broadly defines "emission standard" to mean "a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter."  Within this context, provisions that are not simply a numerical expression of an emission limit or standard, but are necessary to make the numeric limit enforceable may be broadly considered as part of the "standards" EPA is directed to promulgate.  Such provisions have historically been included in EPA programs, including emission standards for aircraft engines.  Therefore, we believe that all of the provisions of the draft proposed rule are appropriately within the scope of EPA's authority to promulgate emission standards. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has read EPA's aircraft engine emissions standard-setting authority to be particularly broad. No one has challenged EPA's authority to include in such standards provisions addressing exemptions (existing section 87.7); incorporation by reference of ICAO technical materials (existing section 87.8); or test procedures and emissions measurement, and determination of compliance (existing subparts G and H).
9)  Comment: The EPA has proposed that a new annual report be submitted by engine manufacturers detailing the production of various engine models.  Much of this information is available elsewhere.
Response: See our response to comment 1) above.  Some of the information that EPA is seeking is already submitted to the FAA.  However, we have been informed that this information is unavailable to us because of FAA's confidentially agreements with the engine manufacturers.
Comment: It is unclear whether the report can be viewed as a standard ....
Response: Please refer to our discussion on the meaning of the term standard in our response to comment number 8).  Our authority to request such information is discussed in response to comment 1).
Comment: ... there does not appear to be a clear regulatory need for the report.  Can EPA provide a clear rationale for why this report would be required, or consider not requiring this report?  What specifically would the information be used for?
Response: See our response to comment 1).
Comment: Would collecting this information require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
Response: Yes, we have prepared a draft ICR for this purpose, See our response to comment 1) for details on our authority.
10)  Comment: The EPA has proposed a new "exemption" process under which manufacturers could continue to produce certain engines after the standards have changed.  In general, industry usage of exemptions has remained low. The new process includes joint filings and unclear lines of authority and decision.
Response:  The exemption process is not new.  Exemption provisions have been included in the EPA and FAA regulations for decades.  The proposed revisions to the existing exemption provisions are virtually identical in all material respects to the process specified in ICAO's Annex 16 and ETM.
      The draft proposal would require that a manufacturer submit its exemption request simultaneously to EPA and to FAA.  We believe that this would facilitate a more timely consultation process between the two agencies.  We think that a manufacturer would be very willing to do this in order to help expedite this review.  There should be no real burden associated with a duplicate submission because the contents would be identical, except perhaps for the addressee on the cover letter and the cost of mailing.  Finally, both EPA's current regulations and FAA's require that exemption requests be submitted in duplicate to the FAA, presumably to facilitate dispatching a copy to EPA.  Our proposal simply eliminates this two step handling process.
      We are unsure what could be unclear about the lines of authority and decision.  The draft regulations clearly state that exemptions must be approved by the FAA under 14 CFR part 34.  We have made the preamble clearer relative to the FAA being the process owner. Regarding EPA's role in granting exemptions, our current §87.7(c) regulations and current §34.7(c) FAA regulations state that EPA must concur with the DOT/FAA decision to grant an exemption.   The draft proposal clarifies that this would be a "written" concurrence to prevent any misunderstandings and to provide a historical record of our decision.
Comment: It [the exemption process] appears inconsistent in its use of terms that are well known in the industry, and attaches new concepts to them.
Response: We are unaware any significant terminology in the draft proposal regarding exemptions that is inconsistent with terms that are well known in the industry, or attaches new concepts to them.  Further, the lack of any specific examples in this comment makes it difficult for us to respond.  We have retained the word "exemption" in the draft proposal because it is used in the current EPA regulation, in ICAO's Annex 16, and in ICAO's ETM.  Thus it is very familiar to stakeholders and is unambiguous.
Comment: No attempt has been made to detail the costs of the new process to other agencies, or to industry applicants.
Response: Addressing the other agencies first, our draft proposal does not describe the costs of the exemption process to any other government entity.  As noted above, the exemption process is not new.  We have proposed some revisions to clarify what a manufacturer should include in the petition for exemption, which in large part is what is currently required or has generally been submitted by manufacturers in previous exemption requests.  We believe the only definite incremental change in the process is differentiating spare engines from new engines (as discussed in our response to Comment 11).  This differentiation should not represent substantial change relative to the status quo.  The United States' position at CAEP fully supported the spare engine versus new engine exemptions provisions, which were adopted by CAEP.  The United States' Interagency Group on International Aviation (IGIA) concurred on the United States' position to support the adoption of these provisions at ICAO/CAEP.  Thus, in following the United States' position at CAEP, we have proposed these provisions, based upon ICAO's Annex 16 and ETM.
      Regarding cost to the industry, exemptions are a voluntary regulatory flexibility for the benefit of the engine manufacturers directly, and the airframe manufacturers and airlines indirectly.  Exemptions can avoid costs that may otherwise be incurred by these entities if they had to comply with certain emission standards.  EPA and the industry consider these provisions to be useful voluntary flexibilities.
11)  Comment: Similarly, the EPA proposes a new designation of "exempt-spare" engines that may be produced outside of production limits.  The draft rule does not account for how this would impact certification processes and regulations of other agencies.  The draft rule does not acknowledge the regulatory requirements or their costs that would fall on other agencies from adopting a new category of engine marking ...."
Response: Please refer to our response to Comment 10 on accounting for other agencies processes and costs with regard to spares.
Comment: "... and a new system by which the EPA expects them [spares] to be traceable. The concept of installing a "spare" engine presumes there is a system in place by which individual engines are tracked on individual aircraft by operation (emphasis added).  The reality is that there is no such system in place to track engines with this new designation. The rule contains no acknowledgement of the cost that could result from a full consideration of such a requirement, including the tremendous cost on the FAA to promulgate and implement such a system.
Response:  The current EPA and FAA regulations provide for exemptions regardless of the intended use of an engine, i.e., whether it is intended to be attached to an all new aircraft, or for temporary use as a spare engine when the original engine is removed for maintenance.  Further, ICAO's current Annex 16 specifies that such engines shall have their identification plates marked "EXEMPT" and the exemption noted in the permanent engine record.  The FAA Part 45 regulations currently require both of these.
      The draft proposal follows ICAO's ETM, which splits the overall exemption category described above into "new" and "spare" engines.  This division was made to recognize that spare engines have no adverse effect on the environment because a spare must have emissions that are equivalent or better than the engine it is replacing.  Making this distinction allowed the exemption provisions for spare engines to be streamlined to the point that engine manufacturers are not required to obtain prior approval to produce or ship spare engines.  Only an annual report containing such items as the engine serial number, type of aircraft receiving the engine(s), and use of each engine (spare or new installation) are to be reported to EPA.  The streamlined requirements for spare engines do not require that "...individual engines are [be] tracked on individual aircraft by operations."  The draft proposal does not contemplate a new system by which spare engines would be traceable.
12)  Comment: EPA requests comment on a proposed "voluntary" emissions credit program.  EPA has not acknowledged the lack of regulatory infrastructure on which to overlay such a program, or the fact that they intend for other agencies to administer it under its own regulations.   Moreover, the offset program applies to engine manufacturers getting credit for producing a certain number of better engines in trade for ones that pollute more.  However, manufacturers do not know or control where their engines are operated, nor can the presumption be made that all are operated the same amount, producing a comparable amount of pollutant.   The idea is based on an unstated presumption that there will be some benefit in the United States, or even in certain domestic areas.  It is further tied into the unclear exemption process described previously.  The cost of such a system is not described, nor is the presumed benefit of its existence.
Response: Voluntary emissions credit programs such as emissions credit averaging, banking, and trading are a part of almost every EPA mobile source vehicle/equipment and fuel regulation. In all cases, participation in these programs is voluntary, as they are an optional compliance flexibility a manufacturer may elect to exercise if the manufacturer determines an advantage in doing so. It is simply the intent of these types of provisions to encourage engine manufacturers to certify and sell engines with emissions technology better than that required by the emission standards. These provisions essentially reward these efforts through a market-based emission credit program, which can be used to offset higher emissions from other models, which may more difficult or more expensive to control.  This flexibility is commonly used by manufacturers in sectors where it is available and is highly valued by them.
      As noted in the comment at this point we are not proposing specific provisions; rather,  in the Preamble to this draft proposal we are seeking comment and input on how such a program could be structured to enhance future compliance efforts and reduce compliance costs. We are including additional descriptive detail in a memo to the docket.
	The comment asserts that there is an unclear link to possible future exemption allowances.  While the viability of an emissions credit program for aircraft engines remains to be seen (hence the request for comment), one potential use of such credits could be substitution for exemptions or as part of a justification for an increase of the number allowed exemptions above a set maximum. Furthermore, the comment asserts that some other agency would implement such a program if ultimately enacted.  Such an assertion is premature and unsubstantiated because we are only seeking comment at this time.
13)  Comment: It is unclear why EPA is proposing to include ICAO guidance material (known as the Environmental Technical Manual or ETM for emissions) in the regulatory text.  Adoption of international guidance material eliminates valid means of regulatory guidance already in place, changes it from advisory to mandatory (which was not ICAO's intent) and eliminates compliance flexibility.  A clear example is EPA's proposal regarding what constitutes a derivative engine, which was clearly intended as guidance.  No accounting for costs to other Agencies for implementing this requirement or industry compliance is accounted for.  From a broader governmental perspective, this is an issue that goes beyond emissions, and would set a dangerous precedent.  ICAO guidance material is not designed to function as mandatory regulation, and often embodies compromises that the U.S. agrees to only because it is adopted as guidance.  If the U.S. turns guidance into regulations, it could tempt others to adopt, as regulations, ICAO guidance material that we object to.  It would also undermine countries' willingness to adopt guidance material in the future.
Response:  This comment raises issues with regard to regulatory text in EPA's draft NPRM, which would incorporate language on when a derivative engine version is to be treated as new for emissions purposes. EPA and FAA worked closely within ICAO/CAEP Working Group 3 (WG3) Certification Task Group (CTG) in crafting this language.  The United States position at CAEP supported this language, and the provisions were adopted at ICAO/ CAEP.
	Provisions such as these with regard to derivative engines are needed in regulations to define the scope and applicability of the regulations; to give them context and clarity for the manufacturers; and to allow for their unambiguous and equitable implementation.  If one examines the draft regulatory language, it is clear that it explains under what conditions new standards apply and under what conditions they do not.
      With respect to the specific comment on the definition of a derivative engine, we are adopting the definition and related provisions agreed to by ICAO. In response to the comment, we have revised the regulatory text to provide the certificating authority (i.e. FAA) with the discretion to apply good engineering judgment in the implementation of these provisions.
      However, we would assert that this definition is still necessary in the regulations because it is necessary to implement the provisions agreed to at ICAO and addresses a long standing shortcoming in the regulations by more fully prescribing the applicability of the standards in these situations.  We cannot regulate through guidance.
14)  Comment: In discussing the inclusion of ICAO materials, the draft rule engages in a discussion of "commercial" and "non-commercial" aircraft engines.  The distinction between an engine used in commercial operation vs. non-commercial operation has no basis in the reality of regulated aircraft operations.  An individual aircraft, for example, can switch status between flights.  From a broader perspective, creating commercial and non-commercial definitions by classes of equipment rather than usage would also set a dangerous precedent, and would conflict with existing statutory and regulatory definitions.
Response: The commenter may be unaware that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial aircraft turbine engines already exists in the current EPA regulations.  This distinction was made in our 1982 final rule after consultation with the FAA.  The draft proposal would actually do what the commenter prefers by applying the turbine engine standards without regard to operation category.  Perhaps the commenter's confusion arises from the fact that current FAA regulations already apply the standards without distinction.  In other words, the draft proposal actually updates and harmonizes EPA regulations to align with current FAA regulations.
15)  Comment:  The draft rule includes the adoption of technical appendices to ICAO standards and recommended practices.  EPA's adoption of these standards through incorporation by reference (IBR) is inappropriate as there are legal implications of proper notice, the requirement to access a foreign publication to properly understand the requirements of a codified standard, and even language and format. There are also issues of cost in adopting the technical changes that the EPA does not acknowledge.
Response:  The Office of the Federal Register is charged by Congress to publish regulations.  As part of this charge, Congress has specifically directed the Federal Register to work with federal agencies to use Incorporation by Reference to properly and efficiently communicate regulatory requirements.  We routinely use this approach in our regulatory text.
16)  Comment: In several places, the proposed rule discusses military aircraft engines.  While certain engine manufacturers certify engines that have both military and civilian applications, these are generally treated as civilian and under existing regulatory authorities.  If the EPA finds that their authority extends to engines produced only for installation on military airplanes, then that regulation should remain within their sole jurisdiction and not be considered a standard that other agencies will adopt or enforce.
Response:  To clarify, we are not intending to assert authority over exclusively military engines, and as needed, we have modified and clarified any text we thought the commenter could have found misleading.  Our interest in addressing this issue in the proposal is discussed in the responses to comments 4) and 5).
17)  Comment: It is several reviewers' view that the EPA draft would require another federal agency to change its regulatory approach, add scope and costs to regulatory oversight with unclear benefits, incorporate practices not endorsed by aviation's international standard-setting body, and produce confusion and misunderstanding in a global industry.  There is no acknowledgment of the costs associated with such regulations, the changes to the current regulations, the burdens placed on other agencies for adoption and implementation, and no consideration of what benefits from the changes might accrue.  If the EPA chooses to adopt them as its regulations alone, the provisions would be at considerable odds with the current regulatory system of aircraft engine certification in place under existing regulations. One approach at least one reviewer recommends would be for EPA to limit its rulemaking proposal to adopting only the ICAO oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions standards agreed upon at the CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 meetings. This approach could be implemented similarly to other historical ICAO CAEP outcomes.
Response: The commenter suggests that EPA is proposing sweeping changes from current practice. In our response to comment 1) we identified only one diversion from the outcome at CAEP/8 and one additional provision which EPA is proposing to implement under its own authority.  Furthermore, while none of these are inconsistent with the basic ICAO provisions, there a few instances where we are adding clarifications and detail to help ensure the proper implementation of the program.  ICAO is not a regulatory body and thus has not included these details.
18)  Comment: The proposed rule does not indicate the fact that this EPA CAA rulemaking is subject to CAA section 307(d), 42 USC 7607(d).

Response:  We do not find this necessary because the CAA itself makes the proposed rule subject to 307(d).  (See section 307(d)(1)(F)).  Otherwise, EPA rules that are subject to section 307(d) similarly do not specify as such, but rather cite to the entire CAA as their authority. See, e.g., Primary National Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule, 75 FR 35520, 35592/col.1 (June 22, 2010). However, we have no objection to adding his citation if it adds clarity.

19)  Comment: "...§87.44 Reporting CO2 emissions. (a)(1) For any type certificates involving compliance with NOx emission standards that are issued on or after January 1, 2014, you must report CO2 emissions to the Designated EPA Program Officer. You may include this information in the certification report described in §87.42 or in a separate submission.
   (2) For any type certificates involving compliance with NOx emission standards that are issued before January 1, 2014, you must report CO2 emissions along with your emission levels of regulated NOx to the Designated EPA Program Officer.
   (b) Determine CO2 emission rates by direct measurement or by calculation from measured fuel mass flow rates for CO2 emissions from fossil and biogenic sources separately.  These methods are described in Appendices 3 and 5 to ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in §87.8).  Report CO2 emissions separately for each operating mode.  If you test more than one engine, report the average value of emissions for each operating mode.  Round CO2 emissions of CO2 emissions from fossil and biogenic sources to the nearest whole gram and gram/kilo-Newton..."

Response:  We do not intend to revise the CO2 reporting requirements. The collection of information for CO2 under the mandatory GHG rules and the new information we are proposing to require for other pollutants is authorized under separate authorities.  To make this clear and in response to the comment, we propose creating a new section in the regulations to cover these new requirements and leave the existing CO2 reporting requirements untouched in §87.64.

                     Attachment for Response to Comment 2
Nonattainment Area

Albuquerque, NM
Anchorage, AK
Aspen
Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA
Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI
El Paso, TX
Greater Connecticut, CT
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA
Louisville, KY-IN
Memphis, TN-AR
Milwaukee-Racine, WI
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA
Providence (entire State), RI
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Reno, NV
Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA
Sacramento Metro, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
San Diego, CA
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
San Joaquin Valley, CA
Seattle-Tacoma, WA
St. Louis, MO-IL
Syracuse, NY
Washington, DC-MD-VA


[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1794-1796]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55053; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to
Trade iShares[supreg] S&P Global Index Funds and iShares[supreg] MSCI
EAFE Index Fund Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

January 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 18, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposal
from interested persons and to approve the proposal on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities'') proposes to trade shares
(``Shares'') of the following index funds (``Funds'') \3\ pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e-mail dated January 4, 2007 from Michael Cavalier,
Assistant General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc. to Mitra Mehr, Special
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, reflecting a
technical correction to the names of the relevant funds.

 iShares S&P Global Energy Sector Index Fund (Symbol: IXC)
 iShares S&P Global Financials Sector Index Fund (IXG)
 iShares S&P Global Health Care Sector Index Fund (IXJ)
 iShares S&P Global Telecommunications Sector Index Fund (IXP)
 iShares S&P Global Information Technology Sector Index Fund
(IXN)
 iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund (ITF)
 iShares S&P Latin America 40 Index Fund (ILF); and
 iShares MSCI EAFE Index Fund (EFA)

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.nysearca.com), at the principal office of the

Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to trade the Shares pursuant to UTP. The
index underlying each Fund (``each, an Index'') consists of both U.S.
and/or foreign stocks. The investment objective of each Fund is to
provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and
yield performance of its underlying Index. In seeking to achieve its
respective investment objective, each Fund utilizes a ``representative
sampling'' strategy, which is a passive investment strategy, to track
its applicable Index. Each Fund will attempt to hold a representative
sample of the Index's component securities utilizing quantitative
analytical models. At least 90% of each Fund's total assets will be
invested in the Index's component securities. Each Fund also may invest
up to 10% of its total assets in stocks that are not included in its
Index.
    The Commission previously approved the original listing and trading
of the Shares on the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'').\4\ The
Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering
trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules
governing the trading of equity securities. The trading hours for the
Shares on the Exchange are the same as those set forth in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.34, except that the Shares, with the exception of
iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund, will not trade during the Opening
Session (4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

Eastern Time) unless the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value
(``IOPV'') is calculated and disseminated during that time. The iShares
S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund will trade during the Opening Session since
there is no overlap in trading hours of the Opening Session and the
foreign markets trading the S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund securities. Also
the last calculated IOPV for this Fund is available to investors during
the Opening Session by means of the consolidated tape or major market
data vendors and remains unchanged during the Opening Session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44700 (August 14,
2001), 66 FR 43927 (August 21, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quotations for and last sale information regarding the Shares for
each Fund are disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System.
The provider of each underlying Index disseminates the value of such
index intra-day on a real-time basis as individual component securities
of the underlying Index change in price. The intra-day value of each
underlying Index is disseminated every 15 seconds throughout Amex's
trading day by organizations authorized by each respective underlying
Index provider. Amex disseminates the net asset value (``NAV'') for
each Fund on a daily basis and the final dividend amounts that each
Fund pays.
    To provide updated information relating to the Shares for use by
investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem them,
Amex disseminates the IOPV for each Fund as calculated by a securities
information provider. The IOPV is disseminated on a per-share basis
every 15 seconds during regular Amex trading hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m. or 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time, depending on the time Amex specifies
for the trading of the Shares.
    For the iShares S&P/TOPIX 150 Index Fund, there is no overlap in
trading hours between the foreign markets trading the underlying Index
component securities and Amex. Therefore, for this Fund, the IOPV is
calculated based on closing prices in the principal foreign market for
securities in the Fund portfolio, which are then converted from the
applicable foreign currency to U.S. dollars. The IOPV for this Fund is
updated every 15 seconds during Amex's regular trading hours of 9:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time, as applicable, to reflect
changes in currency exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the
applicable foreign currency.
    Each of the other Funds includes companies trading in markets with
trading hours overlapping Amex's regular trading hours. During the
overlap period for these Funds, an IOPV calculator updates an IOPV
every 15 seconds to reflect price changes in the principal foreign
markets, and converts such prices into U.S. dollars based on the
current currency exchange rates. When the foreign market or markets are
closed but Amex is open for trading, the IOPV is updated every 15
seconds to reflect changes in currency exchange rates.
    The IOPV may not reflect the value of all securities included in
the applicable underlying Index, and the IOPV does not necessarily
reflect the precise composition of the current portfolio of securities
held by each Fund at a particular point in time. Therefore, the IOPV on
a per-share basis disseminated during Amex's regular trading hours
should not be viewed as a real-time update of the NAV of a particular
Fund, which is calculated only once a day. The IOPV is intended to
closely approximate the value per-share of the portfolio of securities
for a Fund and provide for a close proxy of the NAV at a greater
frequency for investors.
    The Commission has granted each Fund an exemption from certain
prospectus delivery requirements under Section 24(d) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act'').\5\ Any product description used in
reliance on the Section 24(d) exemptive order will comply with all
representations made and all conditions contained in the application
for orders under the 1940 Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-24(d).
    \6\ See In the Matter of iShares, Inc., et al., Investment
Company Act Release No. 25623 (June 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the trading of the Shares, the Exchange would
inform ETP Holders in an Information Circular of the special
characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares, including
how they are created and redeemed, the prospectus or product
description delivery requirements applicable to the Shares, applicable
Exchange rules, how information about the value of each underlying
Index is disseminated, and trading information.
    In addition, before an ETP Holder recommends a transaction in the
Shares, the ETP Holder must determine that the Shares are suitable for
the customer, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a)-(b).
    The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance
procedures applicable to derivative products to monitor trading in the
Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to
monitor Exchange trading of the Shares.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market, and
to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act
\9\ because it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering
trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules
governing the trading of equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-38. This
file number should be included on the

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all

subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-38 and should
be submitted on or before February 6, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit
investors by increasing competition among markets that trade the
Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 12(f) of the Act,\12\ which permits an exchange to trade,
pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another
exchange.\13\ The Commission notes that it previously approved the
listing and trading of the Shares on Amex.\14\ The Commission also
finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the
Act,\15\ which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a
security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing
for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange
extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets this
requirement because it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus
rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing
rules governing the trading of equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \13\ Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78l(a), generally
prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national
securities exchange unless the security is registered on that
exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act
excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an
exchange ``extends UTP.'' When an exchange extends UTP to a
security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were
listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so
listed and registered.
    \14\ See supra note 3.
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\16\ which sets forth
Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for
the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Quotations for and last sale information regarding the
Shares are disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System.
Furthermore, an IOPV calculator updates the applicable IOPV every 15
seconds to reflect price changes in the principal foreign markets and
converts such prices into U.S. dollars based on the current currency
exchange rate. When the foreign market or markets are closed but Amex
is open for trading, the IOPV is updated every 15 seconds to reflect
changes in currency exchange rates. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34
describes the situations when the Exchange would halt trading when the
IOPV or the value of the Index underlying one of the Funds is not
calculated or widely available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by
Amex, the original listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have
authority to trade the Shares pursuant to this order.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following
representations:
    1. The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to monitor
the trading of the Shares.
    2. In connection with the trading of the Shares, the Exchange would
inform ETP Holders in an Information Circular of the special
characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
    3. The Information Circular would inform participants of the
prospectus or product delivery requirements applicable to the Shares.

This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these
representations.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before
the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register. As noted previously, the Commission previously found
that the listing and trading of the Shares on Amex is consistent with
the Act. The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue
that should cause it to revisit that earlier finding or preclude the
trading of the Shares on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Therefore,
accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit investors by
creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for
the Shares.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-38) is
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-390 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30300]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0414]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Root River, Racine, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary
deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Main
Street Bridge at Mile 0.31 and the State Street Bridge at Mile 0.53
over the Root River, at Racine, WI. This deviation will temporarily
change the operating schedule of the bridge to accommodate the City's
special summer events for 2010. This temporary deviation allows the
bridge to remain secured to masted navigation on the dates and times
listed.

DATES: This deviation is effective on June 19, 2010 from 7:40 a.m. to
10:40 a.m. for the Main Street Bridge and on July 5, 2010 and July 6,
2010 from 7 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 8:05 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. each day for
the Main and State Street bridges.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0414 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0414 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Racine, Wisconsin, who owns and
operates both drawbridges, has requested a temporary deviation from the
current operating regulations set forth in 33 CFR 117.1095 to
facilitate efficient management of all transportation needs and provide
timely public safety services during these special events. In
accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time periods. These deviations from the operating regulations are
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
F.M. Midgette,
Acting Captain, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-12981 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52470]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1198-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Terminating Negotiated Rate
PAL Agreements--Koch Energy Services, LLC to be effective 8/31/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150818-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-806-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Docket No. RP08-426 Compliance
Filing to be effective 5/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 8/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150817-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21435 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42908-42909]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

Glen Ullin Energy Center, LLC....  EG19-95-000
Wildhorse Wind Energy, LLC.......  EG19-96-000
Blossburg Power, LLC.............  EG19-97-000
GenOn Holdco 1, LLC..............  EG19-98-000
GenOn Holdco 2, LLC..............  EG19-99-000
GenOn Holdco 3, LLC..............  EG19-100-000
GenOn Holdco 4, LLC..............  EG19-101-000
GenOn Holdco 5, LLC..............  EG19-102-000
GenOn Holdco 6, LLC..............  EG19-103-000
GenOn Holdco 7, LLC..............  EG19-104-000
GenOn Holdco 8, LLC..............  EG19-105-000
Hamilton Power, LLC..............  EG19-106-000
Hunterstown Power, LLC...........  EG19-107-000
Niles Power, LLC.................  EG19-108-000
Orrtanna Power, LLC..............  EG19-109-000
Shawnee Power, LLC...............  EG19-110-000
Titus Power, LLC.................  EG19-111-000
Tolna Power, LLC.................  EG19-112-000
Sage Draw Wind, LLC..............  EG19-113-000
231RC 8me LLC....................  EG19-114-000
Canadian Breaks LLC..............  EG19-115-000
RE Gaskell West 2 LLC............  EG19-116-000
Turquoise Nevada LLC.............  EG19-117-000

    Take notice that during the month of July 2, 2019, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators Companies
became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR
366.7(a) (2018).

    Dated: August 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17728 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56898]
[DOCID:fr05oc07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. CGD08-07-022]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Milhomme Bayou, Stephensville,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Stephensville Bridge across Milhomme Bayou, mile 12.2, at
Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. This deviation will test a
change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a
permanent change to the schedule is needed. The deviation will allow
the draw of the Stephensville Bridge to open on signal if at least one
hour of advance notice is given. During the advance notice period, the
draw shall open on less than one hour notice for an emergency and shall
open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.

DATES: This deviation is effective from October 5, 2007 until April 2,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration
Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in evaluating this test schedule by
submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include
your name and address, identify the docket number for this deviation
[CGD08-07-022], indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please
submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no
larger than 8 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to
know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. Comments must be received by December 4, 2007.

Background and Purpose

    St. Martin Parish has requested that the operating regulation on
the Stephensville Bridge be changed in order to operate the bridge more
efficiently. The Stephensville Bridge is located on Milhomme Bayou at
mile 12.2 in Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. The Bridge
has a vertical clearance of 5.8 feet above mean high water, an
elevation of 3.5 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the closed position and
unlimited in the open position. The Stephensville Bridge opens on
signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. This operating schedule has been in
effect since 2002 when this bridge replaced an existing bridge in the
area.
    The previous bridge's operating schedule was, ``shall open on
signal; except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on
signal if at least two hours notice is given. During the advance notice
period, the draw shall open on less than two hours notice for an
emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway
traffic occur.''
    Since the completion of the current bridge, the waterway traffic
has been minimal and during the past twelve months an average of 5
boats per day have requested an opening. Most of the boats requesting
openings are commercial vessels consisting of tugboats with barges and
shrimp trawlers that routinely transit this waterway and are able to
give advance notice.
    Due to this waterway being a secondary route, the Port Allen
Alternate route is the primary route, little impact is expected on
navigation during this test schedule period. Also, prior coordination
with the main waterway user group in the area indicates no expected
impacts.
    A Notice of Proposed Rule Making [CGD08-07-023], is being issued in
conjunction with this Temporary Deviation to obtain public comments.
The Coast Guard will evaluate public comments from this Temporary
Deviation and the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rule Making to
determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is
warranted.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4860 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29185-29187]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0097; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01334-T;
Amendment 39-21559; AD 2021-10-26]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of DC motor pump (DCMP) failures during production
flight tests. This AD requires installing a redesigned DCMP electric
motor assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 6,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-
538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0097.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0097; or in person at Docket Operations

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace
Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Services Section, FAA, New
York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-31, dated September
23, 2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-31) (also referred to as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2021-0097.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier,
Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11163). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of DCMP failures during production flight tests. The NPRM
proposed to require installing a redesigned DCMP electric motor
assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failures of the DCMP
and electrical system generators, which could lead to the loss of
normal electrical power on the airplane. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 100-29-18, Revision 03,
dated December 18, 2014. This service information describes procedures
for installing the redesigned DCMP electric motor assembly, having part
number (P/N) 945202-3 (including a wiring modification and a structural
modification). 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 239 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68 work-hours x $85 per hour = $5,780........................         $18,964          $24,744       $5,913,816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2021-10-26 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-21559; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0097; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01334-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 6, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003
through 20406 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of DC motor pump (DCMP) failures
during production flight tests. These failures caused the electrical
system generators to disconnect due to excessive induced voltage in
the bus, caused by the DCMP overheating at high altitudes. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address failures of the DCMP and electrical
system generators, which could lead to the loss of normal electrical
power on the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Install the
redesigned DCMP electric motor assembly, having part number (P/N)
945202-3, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-29-18, Revision 03, dated December
18, 2014.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, no person may install a DCMP having P/N MB74F-9/-7 on
any airplane.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-29-18, dated
July 2, 2013; Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-29-18, Revision 01,
dated January 21, 2014; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-29-18,
Revision 02, dated July 18, 2014.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (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 responsible Flight Standards 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, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-31, dated September 23, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0097.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven
Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 516-794-
5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-29-18, Revision 03, dated
December 18, 2014.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-
866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 7, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11426 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P