[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75711-75713]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30434]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. SIPA-169; File No. SIPC-2010-01]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Bylaw Change Relating to SIPC Fund Assessments on SIPC Members

November 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 3(e)(1) of the Securities Investor Protection
Act of 1970 (``SIPA''), 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(e)(1), notice is hereby given
that on October 8, 2010, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation
(``SIPC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed bylaw change. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed bylaw change from
interested persons.

I. Description of Proposed Bylaw Change

    Section 4(c)(2) of SIPA requires SIPC to impose assessments upon
its member broker-dealers deemed necessary and appropriate to establish
and maintain a broker-dealer liquidation fund administered by SIPC (the
``SIPC Fund'') and to repay any borrowings by SIPC used to liquidate a
broker-dealer. Pursuant to this authority, SIPC collects an annual
assessment from its members. The amount of the annual assessment is
prescribed by SIPA and the SIPC

bylaws. For example, if SIPC has an outstanding loan from the
Commission, SIPA provides that SIPC assess its member broker-dealers
\1/2\ of 1% of the gross revenues from their securities business.\1\ In
addition, if the SIPC Fund aggregates or is likely to aggregate less
than $2.5 billion for six months or more, SIPC must raise each member's
assessment to \1/2\ of 1% of net operating revenues.\2\ When the SIPC
Fund is at its targeted level, SIPC collects a minimum assessment as
provided for in SIPA. The current target level for the SIPC Fund is
$2.5 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78ddd(d)(1)(A)(ii).
    \2\ SIPC Bylaws, Article 6, Section (a)(1)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended SIPA to change the minimum assessment
from an amount not to exceed $150 to an amount not to exceed 0.02
percent of the gross revenues from the securities business of the SIPC
member.\3\ Under Article 6 of the SIPC bylaws, SIPC must assess its
members a minimum amount ($150) unless certain conditions apply.
Because in some cases an assessment of $150 would exceed 0.02 percent
of the gross revenues, the SIPC Assessment bylaw must be amended to be
consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act. First, SIPC has proposed to amend
Article 6, Section 1(a)(1)(B) of the SIPC bylaws by replacing ``$150''
with the term ``0.02 percent of the net operating revenues from the
securities business.'' This amendment clarifies that the minimum
assessment for members, once the SIPC Fund reaches its target, is 0.02
percent of a member's net operating revenues, not $150. Second, SIPC
has proposed deleting Section 1(a)(3) of Article 6, which stated that
$150 was the minimum assessment a SIPC member would be required to pay
in any calendar year. These amendments were approved by SIPC's Board of
Directors on September 16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Dodd-Frank Act, Section 929V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, SIPC's bylaw changes refer to ``net operating
revenues'' instead of ``gross revenues.'' Since 1991, when assessing on
a percentage basis (i.e., not a flat $150 minimum assessment), SIPC has
based the assessment amount on a percentage of net operating revenues,
not gross revenues, from the securities business. In 1991, a SIPC Task
Force study found that securities firms no longer structured their
business on a gross revenue basis but instead used a net operating
revenue basis, which excludes interest expense and dividend expense in
accounting for revenue. SIPC bases its assessment on the net revenues
associated with that business, which it believes is consistent with
SIPA. Basing the assessment on net operating revenues as opposed to
gross revenues will decrease the amount of the assessment in most
situations. However, under SIPA, SIPC may adjust the basis for
collecting assessments and the amount of assessments as long as the
assessments are within the parameters prescribed in SIPA.\4\ Using a
minimum assessment of 0.02 percent of net operating revenues would not
cause the amount of the assessment to exceed the maximum amount
permitted for the minimum assessment under Section 4(d)(1)(C) of SIPA,
as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78ddd(c)(2) and 78lll(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, when SIPC changed its assessment methodology from gross
revenues to net operating revenues, the Commission published notice of
the proposed change and requested comment.\5\ The comments received
were in support of the proposed change, which made the assessments more
consistent with how industry revenues are calculated.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of
Proposed Bylaw Change Relating to SIPC Fund Assessments on SIPC
Members, Rel. No. SIPA-156, 56 FR 51952 (Oct. 16, 1991).
    \6\ Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Order Approving
Proposed Bylaw Change Relating to SIPC Fund Assessments on SIPC
Members, Rel. No. SIPA-157, 56 FR 60145 (Nov. 27, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Need for Public Comment

    Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA provides that SIPC must file with the
Commission a copy of proposed bylaw changes. That section further
provides that bylaw changes shall take effect 30 days after filing,
unless the Commission either; (i) disapproves the change as contrary to
the public interest or the purposes of SIPA, or (ii) finds that the
change involves a matter of such significant public interest that
public comment should be obtained. Thus, under Section 3(e)(1) of SIPA,
a proposed bylaw change does not have to be noticed for public comment.
However, under Section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA, the Commission can find that
``such proposed change involves a matter of such significant public
interest that public comment should be obtained,'' in which case, the
Commission may, after notifying SIPC in writing of such finding,
require that the proposed bylaw change be considered by the same
procedures as a proposed rule change including, among other things,
publication in the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment.
    The SIPC Fund, which is built from assessments on its members and
the interest earned on the fund, is used for the protection of
customers of members liquidated under SIPA to maintain investor
confidence in the securities markets. In light of this fact and that
the bylaw change provides for a new minimum assessment methodology, the
Commission finds, pursuant to Section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA, that the
proposed bylaw change involves a matter of such significant public
interest that public comment should be obtained and that the procedures
applicable to proposed SIPC rule changes in Section 3(e)(2) of SIPA
should be followed. As required by Section 3(e)(1)(B) of SIPA, the
Commission has notified SIPC of this finding in writing.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SIPC-2010-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SIPC-2010-01. 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/other.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SIPC-2010-01 and should be
submitted on or before December 27, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30434 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32964-32965]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0736]

Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 10 and 11, 2014,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a
disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Shanika Craig, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: On July 10 and 11, 2014, the committee will discuss the
safety of laparoscopic power morcellator devices as it pertains to
their potential to disseminate and upstage a confined, but undetected
(occult) uterine malignancy during laparoscopic hysterectomy or
myomectomy. FDA is convening this committee to seek expert scientific
and clinical opinion on the risks and benefits of these types of
devices when used for these procedures, based on available scientific
data. The committee will make recommendations regarding the appropriate
use, premarket testing, labeling, and other risk mitigations

(including the use of containment bags) for these devices.
    On July 11, 2014, during the afternoon session, the committee will
also be asked to discuss the regulatory classification of laparoscopic
power morcellator devices when used to cut and extract tissue during
gynecologic laparoscopic procedures and to assist FDA in determining
the appropriate level of regulatory control necessary for this device
type, including discussion of class II (special controls) or
reclassification to class III (subject to premarket approval
application (PMA)).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) plans to
provide a live webcast of the July 10 and 11, 2014, meeting of the
Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee. While CDRH is working to make webcasts available to the
public for all advisory committee meetings held at the White Oak
campus, there are instances where the webcast transmission is not
successful; staff will work to reestablish the transmission as soon as
possible. The link for the webcast is available at: https://colaboration.fda.gov/obgyd/, or further information regarding the
webcast, including the Web address for the webcast, will be made
available at least 2 days in advance of the meeting at the following
Web site: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/default.htm. Select the link for 2014 Meeting Materials.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
24, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for both days of this meeting. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June
16, 2014. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 19, 2014.
    FDA will work with the manufacturers of laparoscopic morcellators
and containment bags who wish to make presentations to ensure that
adequate time, separate from the approximate time slots for the general
open public hearing session, is provided. Manufacturers interested in
making formal presentations to the committee should notify the contact
person on or before June 18, 2014. Manufacturers with common interests
are urged to coordinate their oral presentations.
    FDA is opening a docket for public comment on this document. The
docket number is FDA-2014-N-0736. The docket will close on August 11,
2014. Interested persons are encouraged to use the docket to submit
electronic or written comments regarding this meeting. Submit
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments received on
or before July 1, 2014, will be provided to the committee for their
consideration. Comments received after July 1, 2014, will be taken into
consideration by the Agency.
    Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management, Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD
20852. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Comments are
to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Divisions of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 3, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-13290 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24025-24029]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08562]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0692; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00140-E;
Amendment 39-22016; AD 2022-08-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PT6A-34, -34B, -34AG, -114, and -
114A model turboprop engines. This AD was prompted by several reports
of low-time fractures of compressor turbine (CT) blades resulting in
loss of power or in-flight shutdown (IFSD) of the engine. This AD
requires replacement of certain CT vanes. This AD also requires removal
from service of certain CT blades when these blades have been operated
with certain CT vanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0692; 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, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), 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: Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all P&WC PT6A-34, -34B,
-34AG, -114, and -114A model turboprop engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 17, 2020 (85 FR 49981). The NPRM was
prompted by several reports of low-time fractures of CT blades
resulting in loss of power or IFSD of the engine. In the NPRM, the FAA
proposed to require replacement of certain CT vanes. The NPRM also
proposed to require the removal from service of certain CT blades when
these blades have been operated with certain CT vanes. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF 2019-30R1, dated December 17, 2019
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe
condition on these products. The MCAI states:

    There have been several reported events of low time CT blade
fractures resulting in power loss/In-flight shutdown (IFSD) on post
P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) 1669 configured PT6A-114 engines,
featuring new CMSX-6 CT blades. In addition, relatively low time
failures of Non-P&WC CT blades have also been reported on PT6A-34
and -114 series engines.
    In service data shows that these low time failures were reported
on engines that had CT vanes installed that were repaired in
accordance with repair specification number STI 72-50-254 held by
Southwest Turbine Inc. (STI). Most of the affected engines are
installed on single-engine powered aeroplanes and some events have
resulted in the loss of the aeroplane and fatalities.
    Dimensional checks and operational testing of the subject STI
repaired CT vane removed from an incident engine, revealed that it
did not conform to the engine manufacturer's CT vane type design
criteria. The noted variations and features in the STI repaired CT
vane can cause airflow distortion and subsequent aerofoil excitation
of the CT blades resulting in High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) failure of
the CT blades. Test data indicates that the stress levels induced in
CT blades by the adverse effect of subject airflow distortion
exceeds the design requirements for CMSX-6 CT blades.
    An IFSD or loss of power on a single-engine powered aeroplane
under certain conditions can lead to an unsafe condition as seen in
some past events. [Transport Canada] AD CF-2019-30 was issued on 19
August 2019 to address the potential hazard of power loss/IFSD as a
result of CT blade failures on engines with CT vanes installed that
were repaired in accordance with repair specification number STI 72-
50-254.
    This [Transport Canada] AD revision, CF-2019-30R1, is issued to
update the background information and to clarify the affected P&WC
CT blade Part Numbers (P/Ns).

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0692.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from 13 commenters. The commenters were
Southwest Turbine Inc. (STI), an individual commenter, and 11 anonymous
commenters. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Required Actions

    STI requested that the FAA revise the reference in paragraph
(g)(1)(i), Required Actions, of this AD from ``. . . non-STI-repaired
CT vane'' to ``. . . non-STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vane. . .'' The
commenter reasoned that this AD specifically addresses CT vanes
repaired using STI Repair Specification STI 72-50-254 (STI 72-50-254).
Therefore, operators should be allowed to install CT vanes not repaired
using STI 72-50-254 and repaired within STI's current FAA rating.
Additionally, STI reasoned that this change would mirror the language
in the Corrective Actions, paragraph 1, of Transport Canada AD CF-2019-
30R1.
    The FAA agrees and updated paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD to refer
to CT vanes not repaired using STI 72-50-254. This change places no
additional burden on operators who are required to comply with this AD.

Request To Remove Engines From Applicability

    STI requested that the FAA remove P&WC PT6A-34, -34B, and -34AG
model turboprop engines from paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD.
The commenter reasoned that of the 20 P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade failures,
only six blade failures occurred with STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes
installed. Those six blade failures occurred on engines with CT vanes
repaired using STI 72-50-254, which were installed in P&WC PT6A-114A
model turboprop engines.
    In addition, the commenter suggested that the only STI-repaired CT
vane installed on engines that has experienced CT blade failures was CT
vane part number (P/N) 3029051. The commenter continued that CT vane,
P/N 3029051, is not eligible for installation in P&WC PT6A-34, -34B,
and -34AG model turboprop engines, and therefore, these model engines
should be removed from the applicability of this AD.
    STI cited Docket No. FAA-2013-0766 (AD 2014-17-08, 79 FR 52172,
September 3, 2014), which was superseded by AD 2014-17-08R1, (80 FR
24791, May 1, 2015), and the FAA's responses to public comments in the
preamble of these ADs. While referencing these ADs, STI underlined
specific portions of public comments involving the P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade
being an unproven CT blade replacement that has experienced low-time
failures and has been identified for removal in P&WC PT6A-34 model
turboprop engines. STI indicated that the FAA acknowledged the failure
mode in other P&WC engines, specifically including PT6A-34 turboprop
engines, was well understood and stated there have been no failures of
P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades in PT6A-34 turboprop engines with STI 72-50-254
repaired CT vanes. STI commented that, for these reasons, the STI 72-
50-254 repaired CT vane rings cannot be the cause of PWC CMSX-6 CT
blade failures in PT6A-34 series engines.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA recognizes that STI-repaired CT vane P/N
3029051 is not eligible for installation in P&WC PT6A-34, -34B, and -
34AG model turboprop engines. The FAA notes, however, that an
additional affected part-numbered STI-repaired vane is eligible for
installation in P&WC PT6A-34, -34B, and -34AG model turboprop engines.
In addition, CT blade failures have occurred with STI-repaired CT vanes
installed in P&WC PT6A-34, -34B, and -34AG model turboprop engines and
are susceptible to the unsafe condition of this AD. Further, Table 2 of
Southwest Turbine Repair, Inc., STI 72-50-254, Revision 08, dated April
14, 2019, lists P&WC PT6A-34, -34B, -34AG model turboprop engines as
eligible for this repair.
    The FAA issued AD 2014-17-08 (79 FR 52172, September 3, 2014) and
AD 2014-17-08R1 (80 FR 24791, May 1, 2015) to require replacement of
P&WC IN100 CT blades with P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades. Although there have
been failures of the P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades with CT vanes not repaired
by STI, the FAA has found the failure rate of CT blades with CT vanes
not repaired by STI to be approximately one-tenth of those that were
repaired by STI.

Request To Restrict Applicability to Certain CT Blades

    STI requested that the FAA revise paragraph (c), Applicability, of
this AD to indicate removal of STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes should
not apply to engines operating with pre-P&WC SB PT6A-72-1669 and pre-
P&WC SB PT6A-72-1690 IN100 CT blades. The commenter reasoned that the
MCAI and the NPRM addressed the unsafe condition of failure of P&WC
CMSX-6 CT blades. The commenter stated that the AD should not require
STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes to be removed when operated with P&WC
IN100 CT blades.
    The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (c), Applicability, of
this AD to limit the AD applicability to turboprop engines with certain
CT blades installed. Although most CT blades failures have occurred
with P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades installed, the FAA's data indicate that
several P&WC IN100 CT blade failures occurred with STI-repaired CT
vanes before incorporating procedures in P&WC SB PT6A-72-1669 and P&WC
SB PT6A-72-1690. Consequently, this AD requires that any CT vane with
P/N 3029051, 3032151, or 3123001 repaired in accordance with STI 72-50-
254 be removed from service.

Request To Restrict Applicability by CT Vane Part Number

    STI requested that the FAA update paragraph (c), Applicability, of
this AD to indicate that only STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes P/N
3029051 or P/N 3123001 are affected by this AD. STI reasoned that all
the P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade failures that they are aware of occurred in
PT6A-114A engines operating with STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vane P/N
3029051. STI continued that there is no evidence that identifies
discrepant conditions or CT blade failures with any other part numbered
STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes.
    The FAA disagrees that only STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vanes P/N
3029051 or 3123001 are affected by the unsafe condition addressed by
this AD. The FAA has reviewed data that shows failures of another CT
vane P/N in addition to the two P/Ns referenced by the commenter. In
response to this comment, the FAA updated paragraph (g)(1)(i), Required
Actions, of this AD to require the removal from service of any affected
CT vane, P/N 3029051, 3032151, or 3123001, repaired in accordance with
STI 72-50-254.

Request To Require Installation of Dampers/Dampeners

    STI, an individual commenter, and two anonymous commenters
suggested that the FAA require operators install under platform seals
(dampers or dampeners) introduced by P&WC SB PT6A-72-1769, dated
December 21, 2015. One commenter reasoned that of the 20 CMSX-6 CT
blade fatigue failures that have occurred, none had occurred when
dampeners were installed. Based on a study and testing by P&WC, the
commenter determined that the dampeners appeared to have solved the
ongoing problem of P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade failures, regardless of which
CT vane was installed. The commenter suggested that the FAA withdraw
the NPRM and replace it with an AD requiring the installation of the
dampeners.
    An anonymous commenter and an individual commenter referred to P&WC
documentation in which P&WC indicated that failures of P&WC CMSX-6 CT
blades in normal operation were caused by vibratory stress, and the
previous generation of CT blades did not exhibit this problem. To
reduce these vibratory stresses, P&WC introduced dampers. The two
commenters suggested requiring dampers and CT vane clocking to reduce
vibratory stresses.
    The FAA disagrees with the suggestion to require operators to
install under platform seals to address the unsafe condition. Although
data suggest dampeners and clocking reduce vibratory stresses,
dampeners and clocking do not eliminate the unsafe condition caused by
the installation of the STI-repaired CT vanes.

Comments on Root Cause of CT Blade Failure

    An individual commenter questioned whether Transport Canada CF-
2019-30R1, the MCAI on which the FAA's NPRM is based, tested a
representative sample of affected CT blades and

whether the root cause of the unsafe condition was determined
accurately. The commenter suggested that the MCAI is based on testing
of a single STI-repaired CT vane from an engine that suffered
catastrophic CT blade failure during an engine test run following an
overhaul. The commenter stated that P&WC engineers documented that the
root cause of the CT blade failure was undetermined and that the STI-
repaired CT vane was not a representative sample due to sustained
damage.
    An anonymous commenter noted that of the 16 P&WC CMSX-6 blade
failures, 11 had P&WC CT vanes installed. The commenter stated that
this equates to an approximate 70% failure rate with the P&WC CT vanes.
The commenter questioned how a CT vane made by an alternate supplier
can be blamed as the cause of these failures.
    The FAA disagrees with these comments. The MCAI and this AD are not
based exclusively on testing of a single STI-repaired CT vane.
Transport Canada and the FAA reviewed data from 38 CT blade failure
events prior to issuance of the MCAI and this AD. The relative rates of
CT blade failure are not simply the ratio of the number of events, but
also includes the number of engines with each part type installed.
Although there have been failures of the P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades with
non-STI repaired CT vanes installed, the FAA has found the failure rate
of CT blades with non-STI repaired CT vanes to be approximately one-
tenth of the failure rate of those that were repaired by STI.

Comments That the P&WC CMSX-6 CT Blades Are the Cause of Failures

    Several anonymous commenters and an individual commenter cited the
history of P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade failures and the resulting P&WC service
bulletins involving procedures to inspect and replace the CT blades.
The commenters stated these failures occurred with factory manufactured
zero-time P&WC model engines and engines in operation with both P&WC CT
vanes and STI-repaired CT vanes installed. According to an individual
commenter, the evidence to condemn the STI-repaired CT vane would also
apply to the P&WC CT vane. Considering that factory manufactured, zero-
time P&WC engines have experienced CT blade failures, the commenters
concluded that unsafe condition with these blades cannot be the result
of a repair process.
    Further, an anonymous commenter referenced a 2018 case in Dallas
County, Texas involving P &WC. The commenter summarized the case to
include blade development and problems encountered from coating cracks
migrating into the base material, gap platform, vibratory stress near
the operating rotational speed of the engine and other areas of concern
with the CT blade development. The commenter recommended that the FAA
review Analytical Summary D9297 (P&WC<PHONE_NUMBER>80), and Analytical
Summary E7739, dated September 24, 2013 (P&WC<PHONE_NUMBER>17), which,
the commenter states, both determined the problem to be the CT blade.
    An anonymous commenter suggested that the FAA demand all documents
relating to the process and development of the P&WC CMSX-6 CT blade to
include testing, emails, minutes of meetings, and any sworn testimony
given, prior to deciding on the proposed AD. The commenter suggested
that the CT blade is the root cause of the failures, the manufacturer
is dictating the AD, and the manufacturer is going after a competitor.
    STI cited National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Report, No.
WPR14FA024, dated October 14, 2015, which detailed an October 21, 2013
failure involving an STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vane. STI commented that
NTSB made no findings that indicated STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vane
contributed to the event.
    An anonymous commenter stated they had a P&WC PT6A-114A model
turboprop engine undergoing overhaul and 18 P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades
failed the process compensated resonance testing per P&WC SB PT6A-72-
1762. The commenter suggested that these failures indicate that there
is a design flaw or quality escape with P&WC CMSX-6 CT blades.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenters that there is an unsafe
condition affecting the P&WC CT blades. The FAA has reviewed event
reports, analyses, and test reports to make this determination.

Request To Consider Inaccuracy Tolerance

    STI requested that the FAA consider an inaccuracy tolerance of 30%
when reviewing test data. STI cited P&WC report E8093 that indicates a
30% variance in repeatability of non-intrusive stress measurement
(NSMS) CT blade tip deflection of a P&WC CT vane. STI suggested that
P&WC retest prior configurations to determine the cause of variation in
repeatability.
    The FAA disagrees to consider inaccuracy tolerance. P&WC examined
three STI-repaired CT vanes via dimensional inspection, one of which
was also tested using Non-intrusive Stress Measurement System (NSMS),
and determined the STI-repaired CT vanes did not meet P&WC's type
design criteria. The STI-repaired CT vane that P&WC tested had
scratches not exceeding a depth of 0.5 mils that did not alter the
dimensional aspects of the CT vane casting and assembly when measured
and did not preclude the engine from running during the NSMS testing.

Question About the Number of CT Blade Failures

    An anonymous commenter asked how many CT blade failures have
occurred after incorporating P&WC SB PT6A-72-1768 and P&WC SB PT6A-72-
1769. Another anonymous commenter asked how many CT blade failures on
turboprop engines, equipped with CT vane P/N 3079351-01, which is the
third generation of single crystal blade used by P&WC in the affected
engines, have occurred after incorporating P&WC SB PT6A-72-1749.
    The FAA notes that no known failures of CT blades have occurred
after incorporating P&WC SB PT6A-72-1768, P&WC SB PT6A-72-1769, or P&WC
SB PT6A-72-1749.

Comment About Repair Variation in P&WC CT Vanes

    STI commented that P&WC regularly returns to service overhauled CT
vanes that exhibit greater variation in repair than that of STI-
repaired CT vanes. STI stated that P&WC's inspection requirements for
new CT vanes are different than overhauled CT vanes, and deviating
features found on P&WC's overhauled CT vanes are not inspected prior to
release.
    The FAA cannot confirm STI's comment regarding P&WC's returned-to
service part variation. Most engine new-part inspection specifications
differ from those for used or overhauled parts. As stated in an earlier
comment reply, the FAA reviewed data from 38 CT blade failure events to
address the unsafe condition in this AD. Although there have been
failures of CT blades with CT vanes not repaired by STI, the FAA has
found the failure rate of CT blades with CT vanes not repaired by STI
is approximately one-tenth of those that were repaired by STI.

Comment About Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Regulating the
Regulators

    Two anonymous commenters suggested that this AD is an example of
the OEM regulating the regulators.
    The FAA disagrees. The data reviewed by the FAA shows that CT blade
stresses are significantly higher in engines with STI-repaired CT
vanes,

compared to those with P&WC CT vanes installed. In addition, event data
reviewed by the FAA shows that CT blade failure events are
approximately 10 times greater in engines equipped with STI-repaired CT
vanes as opposed to P&WC CT vanes.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Southwest Turbine Repair, Inc., STI 72-50-254,
Revision 08, dated April 14, 2019. This service information describes
procedures for repair of the compressor turbine vane ring assembly.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 907 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that 63 engines will need
to replace the CT vanes and CT blades.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace CT vanes...........  16 work-hours x $85 per         $115,789        $117,149      $7,380,387
                                         hour = $1,360.
Remove and replace CMSX-6 CT blade set  16 work-hours x $85 per          $90,271         $91,631      $5,772,753
                                         hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.

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:

2022-08-13 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp.: Amendment 39-22016; Docket
No. FAA-2020-0692; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00140-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 27, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. PT6A-34, -
34B, -34AG, -114, and -114A model turboprop engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of low-time fractures of
compressor turbine (CT) blades resulting in loss of power or in-
flight shutdown of the engine. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the CT blade. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 250 flight hours (FHs) or 270 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:
    (i) Remove from service any CT vane, part number (P/N) 3029051,
3032151, or 3123001, repaired in accordance with Southwest Turbine
Inc. (STI) Repair Specification STI 72-50-254 (STI 72-50-254) and
replace with a non-STI 72-50-254 repaired CT vane.
    (ii) Remove from service any CMSX-6 CT blade that has been
operated on an affected engine with any CT vane repaired in
accordance with STI 72-50-254.
    (2) [Reserved]

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
engine a CT vane, P/N 3029051, 3032151, or 3123001, that was
repaired in accordance with STI 72-50-254.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (781) 238-
7199; email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF 2019-30R1, dated December
17, 2019, for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada
AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0692.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on April 7, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08562 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38247-38249]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60384; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Modify Its Optional Anti-Internalization Functionality

July 24, 2009.
    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 July 22, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``Nasdaq'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as effecting a change described
under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to modify its optional anti-internalization functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is underlined and proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
4757. Book Processing
    (a) System orders shall be executed through the Nasdaq Book Process
set forth below:
    (1)-(3) No Change.
    (4) Exception: Anti-Internalization--Market participants may direct
that quotes/orders entered into the System not execute against quotes/
orders entered under the same MPID. [In such a case, the later entered
of the quote/orders will be cancelled back to the entering party.] In
such a case, if the interacting orders from the same MPID are
equivalent in size, both orders will be cancelled back to their
entering parties. If the interacting orders from the same MPID are not
equivalent in size, share amounts equal to size of the smaller of the
two orders will be cancelled back to their originating parties with the
remainder of the larger order being retained by the System for
potential execution.
* * * * *
    (b) and (c) Not applicable. [sic]

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is proposing to modify its voluntary anti-internalization
functionality. Under the proposal, market participants entering quotes/
orders under a specific market participant identifier (``MPID'') may
voluntarily direct that they not execute against other quotes/orders
entered into the System under the same MPID. In such a case, if the
orders from the same MPID are equivalent in size, both orders will be
cancelled back to their entering parties. If the orders from the same
MPID are not equivalent in size, share amounts equal to [sic] size of
the smaller of the two orders will be cancelled back to their
respective originating parties with the remainder of the larger order
being retained by the System for potential execution.
    The above replaces Nasdaq's currently approved, but not yet
operational, anti-internalization functionality that would

cancel the later entered of interacting orders from the same MPID.
Nasdaq is modifying its anti-internalization functionality based on
additional input from system users as well as the Commission's recent
approval of various versions of anti-internalization functionality for
the BATS and NYSE Arca exchanges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-BATS-2009-022 and SR-NYSEArca-2009-058. Nasdaq's
proposed anti-internalization functionality is similar to BAT's MMTP
Decrement and Cancel and NYSE Arca's STP Decrement and Cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anti-internalization functionality is designed to assist market
participants in complying with certain rules and regulations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'') that preclude and/
or limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as
principal with orders generated for those accounts. It can also assist
market participants in reducing execution fees potentially resulting
from the interaction of executable buy and sell trading interest from
the same firm. Nasdaq notes that use of the functionality does not
relieve or otherwise modify the duty of best execution owed to orders
received from public customers. As such, market participants using
anti-internalization functionality will need to take appropriate steps
to ensure that public customer orders that do not execute because of
the use of anti-internalization functionality ultimately receive the
same execution price (or better) they would have originally obtained if
execution of the order was not inhibited by the functionality.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections [sic] 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the
proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Nasdaq notes that similar functionality has previously [sic] approved
for other markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ See SR-BATS-2009-022 and SR-NYSEArca-2009-058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in 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. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. In addition,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to
provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay as well
as the five business-day pre-filing requirement so that the benefits of
this functionality to Nasdaq market participants expected from the rule
change can be implemented on August 3, 2009, when the Exchange expects
to have the technological changes in place to support the proposed rule
change. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
\10\ to make this functionality available without delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest.\11\ The
Commission notes that the proposal is similar to rules of other
exchanges and thus does not raise any novel regulatory issues.\12\ The
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing to allow the
Exchange to implement the functionality without delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \11\ The Commission is also waiving the five business-day pre-
filing requirement.
    \12\ See BATS Exchange Rule 11.9(f) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.31(qq).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-071 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-071. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2009-071 and should
be submitted on or before August 21, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18274 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50537-50538]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Regulatory Guidance Concerning Household Goods Carriers Requiring
Shippers To Sign Blank or Incomplete Documents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Regulatory Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issues
regulatory guidance to clarify the appropriate and intended use of
blank or incomplete documents under 49 CFR 375.501(d). Carriers may
require shippers to sign incomplete, but not blank, documents so long
as the omitted information is limited to: (1) The actual weight of the
shipment, in the case of non-binding estimates; and (2) unforeseen
charges incurred in transit. This guidance also clarifies that carriers
may not require shippers to sign ``Revised Written Estimates,''
``Rescissions of Old Estimate,'' or other documents authorizing the
carrier to rescind an estimate unless the shipper and carrier mutually
agree to amend the estimate, and the shipper signs a new estimate
before the carrier loads the shipment.

DATES: Effective date: This regulatory guidance is effective on August
15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth E. Rodgers, Division Chief,
Commercial Enforcement, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA)
    (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803) provides that ``the Secretary may
issue regulations, including regulations protecting individual
shippers, in order to carry out this part with respect to the
transportation of household goods by motor carriers subject to
jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 135. The regulations and
paperwork required of motor carriers providing transportation of
household goods shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible
consistent with the protection of individual shippers.'' (49 U.S.C.
14104(a)(1)). In the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub.
L. 106-159, December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1750), which established FMCSA
as a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), Congress authorized the Agency to regulate motor carriers
transporting household goods for individual shippers.

Background

    This document provides regulatory guidance on the Agency's
interpretation of 49 CFR 375.501(d)(1) and (2). Those sections, which
were adopted as a part of a technical amendment in 2004 (69 FR 10570
(Mar. 5, 2004)), provide:

    (d)(1) You may provide the individual shipper with blank or
incomplete estimates, orders for service, bills of lading, or any
other blank or incomplete documents pertaining to the move.
    (2) You may require the individual shipper to sign an incomplete
document at origin provided it contains all relevant shipping
information except the actual shipment weight and any other
information necessary to determine the final charges for all
services performed.

    The original version of Sec.  375.501(d), published as an interim
final rule, prohibited carriers from requiring individual shippers to
sign blank or incomplete estimates, orders for service, bills of
lading, or any other blank or incomplete documents pertaining to the
move. (68 FR 35064 (June 11, 2003)). In response to industry comments,
the Agency amended Sec.  375.501(d) to permit carriers to require
shippers to sign incomplete documents so long as the documents contain
all of the relevant shipping information. In doing so, the Agency
recognized that certain information, such as actual final weight and
other transit charges, may not be available until after the shipment is
in transit.

Basis for This Notice

    The Agency has received numerous consumer complaints concerning
household goods carriers and brokers that are requiring shippers to
sign blank or incomplete documents and then adding unauthorized charges
later. Specifically, the complaints identify carriers that required
shippers to sign a blank or incomplete form entitled ``Revised Written
Estimate'' or ``Rescission of Old Estimate.'' This form, when fully
executed and completed, authorizes the carrier to rescind the original
estimate and give a new estimate under the guise of ``changed
circumstances.'' ``Changed circumstances'' generally occur when a
shipper requests additional services or provides additional goods for
shipment. Although the form, on its face, may be used for legitimate
changes requested by shippers, in many cases, it is being used to
defraud shippers who have not requested additional services or changes
to their moves.
    Verified consumer complaints show that some carriers require
shippers to execute this incomplete or blank document before loading
shipments and then use the form to rescind the original estimates. The
carrier then improperly converts non-binding estimates to binding
estimates for significantly increased amounts or alters the pre-
existing binding estimates once the shipment is in transit. The carrier
makes these changes without the shippers' knowledge after the shipment
is in transit. The practical effect of this practice is to force
shippers unknowingly to waive their rights to the consumer protection
regulations as set forth at 49 CFR 375.403 and 375.405.
    Carriers using these practices interpret Sec.  375.501(d)(2) to
authorize this conduct. Such carriers also cite Sec.  375.501(d)(2) to
support using ``Revised Written Estimate''/``Rescission of Old
Estimate'' forms, which were specifically designed in response to the
2004 technical amendments. The FMCSA rejects this interpretation and
believes that such conduct is unlawful. The 2004 amendments were
intended to address the fact that certain information related to the
shipment could not be determined until after the shipment was in
transit. The FMCSA did not amend Sec.  375.501(d) to allow carriers to
supersede the stringent consumer protections provided in part 375. In
most cases brought to the Agency's attention, carriers have used blank
or incomplete documents to increase estimates after loading without the
consent or knowledge of shippers.
    The FMCSA rejects these carriers' interpretation of 49 CFR
375.501(d) and believes that their conduct violates existing
regulations in part 375. The FMCSA is issuing this regulatory guidance
to eliminate any ambiguity or confusion concerning the scope of these
regulatory provisions and to protect consumers from future harm.

Regulatory Guidance

Part 375--Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce;
Consumer Protection Regulations

Sections interpreted
    Section 375.501(d)(1) and (2) Blank or incomplete documents:
    Question 1: May household goods motor carriers require shippers to
sign blank documents before loading a shipment?
    Guidance: No, movers may not require shippers to sign blank
documents before loading a shipment. Movers may provide blank documents
to shippers for information purposes only.
    Question 2: May household goods movers require shippers to sign
incomplete documents before loading the shipment?
    Guidance: A mover may require a shipper to sign an incomplete, but
not blank, document before loading at the shipment's origin so long as
the document contains all of the relevant shipment information. Movers
may only omit information that cannot be determined before loading,
such as actual shipment weight in the case of shipments moved under
non-binding estimates or unforeseen charges incurred in transit.
    Question 3: May household goods movers require shippers to sign
``Revised Written Estimates,'' ``Rescissions of Old Estimate'' or other
documents authorizing the mover to rescind the estimate as a condition
of loading a shipment?
    Guidance: Movers may not require shippers to sign ``Revised Written
Estimates,'' ``Rescissions of Old Estimate'' or other documents
authorizing the mover to rescind the estimate as a condition of loading
the shipment unless the shipper and carrier mutually agree to amend the
estimate and the shipper signs a new estimate before the carrier loads
the shipment. In accordance with 49 CFR 375.501(f), 375.401(h) and
375.403(a)(6), both the shipper and the mover must mutually agree to
any amendment to a shipping order before loading the shipment. Section
375.501(d) does not alter this requirement.

    Issued on: August 8, 2011.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-20665 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 748-749]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0218]

Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs
Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide
advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting
will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public
comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 27, 2019, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-0218. The docket will close on March
26, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by March 26, 2019. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before March 26, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic
filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the
end of March 26, 2019. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier
(for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
    Comments received on or before March 13, 2019, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-0218 for ``Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two

copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be
confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review this copy,
including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of
comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential
information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the
Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact
information be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Chee, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:
301-847-8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA)
208646, submitted by AllerQuest, LLC, for a skin-test kit (proposed
trade name PRE-PEN Plus) that combines the approved product PRE-PEN
(benzylpenicilloyl polylysine for injection) with penicillin G
potassium, penicilloic acid, penilloic acid, and amoxicillin sodium,
for the proposed indication to detect IgE sensitization to penicillin
antigens and reliably rule out the potential for immediate life-
threatening penicillin allergic reactions with a high degree of
probability in patients with history of possible IgE-dependent
penicillin allergy. The discussion will include study design
considerations, the contribution of each of the components, and whether
the submitted data provide substantial evidence of efficacy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions made to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before March 13, 2019, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before March 5, 2019. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by March 6, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Cindy Chee (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 23, 2019.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00492 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60818-60819]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14220-000]

Draper Irrigation Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14220-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 27, 2011, and supplemented on September 9,
2011.
    d. Applicant: Draper Irrigation Company.
    e. Name of Project: Big Willow Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Big Willow Hydroelectric Project is located
adjacent to Draper Irrigation Company's water treatment plant on the
plant's raw municipal waterline in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
The land on which all the project structures are located is owned by
the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Bryan Bryner, Smith Hartvigsen, PLLC, 175
South Main Street, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111; (801) 413-
1600.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for Filing Responsive Documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
    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 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, it must

also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The Big Willow Hydroelectric Project
consists of: (1) A building containing one turbine generating unit
having an installed capacity of 511 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant
facilities. The project's average annual generation is 1,414,329
kilowatt-hours.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, P-14220, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions To Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests 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 protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMMENTS'',
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS; '' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing
the original and seven copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An
additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.
    r. Waiver of Pre-Filing Consultation: On March 9, 2011, the
applicant requested the agencies to support the waiver of the
Commission's consultation requirements under 18 CFR 4.38(c). On April 5
and May 11, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service and the Utah
Resource Development Coordinating Committee, respectively, concurred
with this request. Therefore, we intend to accept the consultation that
has occurred on this project during the pre-filing period and we intend
to waive pre-filing consultation under section 4.38(c), which requires,
among other things, conducting studies requested by resource agencies,
and distributing and consulting on a draft exemption application.

    Dated: September 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25216 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36966-36967]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77978; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User
Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location
Section of the Fee Schedule To Reflect the Changes

June 2, 2016.
    On April 4, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
establish fees relating to certain end users, amend the definition of
Affiliate, and amend the co-location section of the Fee Schedule to
reflect the changes. The Commission published the proposed rule change
for comment in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016.\3\ On April 29,
2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77640 (April 18,
2016), 81 FR 23780 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 made technical changes relating to the
General Notes numbering and references in the Co-location section of
the Fee Schedule.
    \5\ The Commission notes that it did receive two comment letters
on a related filing, NYSE-2016-11, which are equally relevant to
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether the

proposed rule change should be disapproved. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ designates July 21, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEMKT-
2016-15), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13476 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency,

 Region IX, Air Division

	Technical Support Document

	for

	EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

	on revisions to the

	Arizona State Implementation Plan

as submitted by the State of Arizona

for the Maricopa County Air Quality Department

	EPA's Analysis of

 Maricopa County Air Quality Department

Rule 300 - Visible Emissions

March 2010

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel

Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)

Rule 300 - Visible Emissions

1. Rule Adoption and Submittal Chronology

On April 12, 1982 (47 FR 15579), EPA incorporated MCAQD Rule 30, Visible
Emissions into the Arizona SIP. This rule was amended and renumbered as
Rule 300 on July 13, 1988 and submitted to EPA on January 4, 1990.
However, EPA did not take action on this submittal.  Rule 300 was
further amended on August 5, 1994 and February 7, 2001, but these
versions were not submitted for approval to EPA.

Rule 300 was amended again on March 12, 2008 and submitted to EPA on
July 10, 2008.  This submittal was determined complete by EPA on March
13, 2009. Though we can act only on the most recent version of the
submitted rule, we have reviewed previously submitted versions.

2.  Nonattainment History of Maricopa County

Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, Maricopa
County was initially designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area
for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM10.
Maricopa County failed to attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994 and was
reclassified as a serious PM10 nonattainment area on June 10, 1996. The
region still did not attain the standard by December 31, 2006 and
continues to be classified as a serious nonattainment area for PM10.

Part of Maricopa County and the Apache Junction Pinal County Area were
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective
June 15, 2004.  The 8-hour area was not classified and EPA was going to
treat the area as a "subpart 1 Basic" nonattainment area, until a court
decision in December 2006 vacated our implementing regulations in this
regard.  Although EPA proposed to classify the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area as "marginal" based on 2001-2003 ozone monitoring
data, we have not (as of February 2010) finalized that action.  The
pre-existing 1-hour ozone nonattainment area portion of Maricopa County
was redesignated to attainment and a maintenance plan was approved
effective June 14, 2005.

3.  Rule Summary & Background

MCAQD Rule 300 is intended to limit the emissions of air contaminants
into the ambient air by establishing standards for visible emissions and
opacity. The revisions adopted March 12, 2008 relate to commitments made
in Maricopa’s Five Percent Plan for PM10.  Since the area did not
attain the  PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 2006, Arizona had to submit to
EPA a Five Percent Plan by December 31, 2007.  This Plan must
demonstrate 5% reductions per year in emissions, and MCAQD revised Rule
300 to implement a control measure and increase compliance with existing
rules for the Five Percent Plan.

The March 12, 2008 submitted version of Rule 300 would revise the 1982
SIP–approved version Rule 30 by:

Renumbering the rule to Rule 300, updating the format and adding
sections: 101, Purpose; 102, Applicability; 200, Definitions; 300,
Standards; and 500, Monitoring and Records.

Changing the limit for opacity (Section 301) from 40% to 20% opacity for
a period aggregating more than three minutes in any 60 minute period.

Adding the four exceptions in Section 302: 302.1, Charging Electric Arc
Furnaces; 302.2, Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) and Equipment;
302.3, Firing of Ordnance at Test Facilities; and 302.4, Opacity
Training.

Adding Section 501, Compliance Determination using EPA Method 9 as
modified by EPA Reference Method 203B.

Making various minor editorial changes such as renumbering, definitions,
and several word additions and title changes to improve clarity.

4.  Rule Evaluation

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule
300.

a.  Rule Stringency – Maricopa County is a serious PM10 nonattainment
area, therefore the area is subject to CAA §189 PM requirements
regarding Reasonably and Best Available Control Measures (RACM and
BACM).

b.  Enforceability – CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations
submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable.

c.  Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) and §193 restrict certain SIP
revisions that would relax existing SIP-approved requirements.

EPA must compare the March 12, 2008 version of Rule 300 with the
SIP-approved Rule 30.

The revisions made to Rule 30 and later to Rule 300 strengthen the SIP
rule by lowering the opacity limit from 40% to 20%. This was further
strengthened by changing the procedures for determining compliance with
the 20% opacity limitation from “averaging to aggregating”. This
form of data reduction for 20% opacity standard limits the number of
excursions over the 20% visible emission standard and results in more
consistent compliance with the standard.

The four exceptions included in Section 302 of Rule 300 address a small
number of very specific sources of emissions and each exception includes
reasonable limits on excess emissions of visible emissions.

The addition of Section 500, Monitoring and Records, includes
appropriate test and data reduction methods improving enforceability of
the rule.

Since the MCAQD is classified as a serious nonattainment area for PM10,
the rule must meet requirements for RACM and BACM. Generally, the 20%
opacity limit meets the requirements for both RACM and BACM.

The cumulative changes made to Rule 30 / Rule 300 greatly improve the
clarity, enforceability, and stringency of the rule, and EPA finds that
Rule 300 reasonably fulfills the three evaluation criteria.

5.  Rule Deficiency – No deficiencies were identified in Rule 300.

6.  Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision - The
following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval,
but are recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

Section 200- Definitions: for clarity add a definition of visible
emissions. See, for example, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District Rule 4101, Visible Emissions, section 3.4.

Section 302.1 – Charging Electric Arc Furnaces: please evaluate the
need for this exception since it is possible that there are no electric
arc furnaces for which construction commenced prior to February 2, 1963
currently operating in Maricopa County .

Section 302.2 – Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) and Equipment:
please evaluate non-emergency operational testing requirements for these
emergency diesel generators and equipment and see if there are
reasonable time limits, such as minutes per hour and hours per month to
ensure that excess emissions are limited for this activity. See, for
example, San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 69.4, Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, (b) Exemptions (2) (iii):
“Any emergency standby engine at a nuclear power generating station
subject to the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
provided that the operation of the engine for non-emergency purposes
does not exceed 200 hours per calendar year.”

Section 302.3 Firing of Ordnance at Test Facilities - please define
“short periods of time” and describe a reasonable number of hours
per month or year to ensure that excess emissions from this activity are
appropriately limited by a reasonable time limit.

7.  EPA Action – EPA staff recommends full approval of the July 10,
2008 submittal of MCAQD Rule 300 – Visible Emissions, amended on March
12, 2008.

8.  References

a.  MCAQD Rule 300 - Visible Emissions, adopted March 12, 2008.

b. MCAQD Rule 30 – Visible Emissions, approved into SIP April 12, 1982

c. “Notice of Final Rulemaking, Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Rule 300-Visible Emissions, Date of Adoption: March 12,
2008.”

 PAGE

-   PAGE  2  -