[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21720-21722]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2959; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-008-AD;
Amendment 39-18470; AD 2016-07-25]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports indicating that the ram air turbine (RAT) assembly may fail to
operate if deployed at low airspeeds. This AD requires replacing either
the RAT pump and control module assembly or the entire RAT assembly. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RAT assembly to operate
at low air speeds. The volume fuse on the RAT assembly may be activated
in-flight before the RAT is deployed. This may lead to improper pump
hydraulic pressure offloading when the RAT is needed. Failure of the
RAT to operate in an all engine out event would result in loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 18, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 18,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2959.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2959; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
July 24, 2015 (80 FR 43972) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by
reports indicating that the RAT assembly may fail to operate if
deployed at low airspeeds. The NPRM proposed to require replacing
either the RAT pump and control module assembly or

the entire RAT assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the RAT assembly to operate at low air speeds. The volume fuse on the
RAT assembly may be activated in-flight before the RAT is deployed.
This may lead to improper pump hydraulic pressure offloading when the
RAT is needed. Failure of the RAT to operate in an all engine out event
would result in loss of control of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines stated that it supports the NPRM.

Request for Correction of RAT Minimum Design Speed

    Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to state that the RAT
minimum design speed is 120 knots, not 130 knots. Boeing explained that
the RAT will remain operational as the airplane decelerates through the
minimum RAT design speed of 120 knots, not 130 knots. Boeing expressed
that the performance of the RAT was shown to meet the Boeing Model 787
requirement that specifies 120 knots as the minimum RAT design speed.
    We agree that the RAT will remain operational as the airplane
decelerates through the minimum RAT design speed of 120 knots, not 130
knots. However, that specific information is in the preamble of the
NPRM, which is not restated in this final rule. Therefore, no changes
have been made to this final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    The Air Line Pilots Association requested that we revise the
compliance time of 36 months, to 12 months because the 36 months
compliance time is too long, and that 12 months would be more suitable.
    We disagree with the request to revise the compliance time. No data
was submitted to substantiate the request made by the commenter.
Engineering analysis indicates that 36 months is an appropriate
compliance time to complete the required actions of this AD, and
provides an acceptable level of safety. Most ADs, including this one,
permit operators to accomplish the requirements of an AD at a time
earlier than the specified compliance time; therefore, an operator may
choose to perform the actions required by this AD earlier then the
specified compliance time. We have made no changes to this final rule
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290015-00,
Issue 002, dated November 25, 2014. The service information describes
procedures for replacing either the RAT pump and control module
assembly or the RAT assembly including an installation test and
corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.........................  7 work-hours x $85 per              N/A             $595           $7,140
                                       hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-07-25 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18470; Docket No. FAA-
2015-2959; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-008-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB290015-00, Issue 002, dated November 25, 2014.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that the ram air
turbine (RAT) assembly may fail to operate if deployed at low
airspeeds. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RAT
assembly to operate at low air speeds. The volume fuse on the RAT
assembly may be activated in-flight before the RAT is deployed. This
may lead to improper pump hydraulic pressure offloading when the RAT
is needed. Failure of the RAT to operate in an all engine out event
would result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the RAT pump and control module assembly or the RAT assembly,
including an installation test and applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290015-00, Issue 002, dated November
25, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB290015-00, Issue 001, dated September 4, 2014, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean J. Schauer,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM 130S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6479; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB290015-00, Issue
002, dated November 25, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 26, 2016.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-07839 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 26090-26091]
[DOCID:fr08my07-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-8-000]

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C; Notice of the Change in Location of the
Public Comment Meetings for the Guardian Expansion and Extension
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

May 1, 2007.
    On April 13, 2007, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Guardian Expansion and
Extension Project, proposed by Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. Issuance of
the draft EIS began a 45-day public comment period which will end on
May 29, 2007. In addition to accepting written comments on the draft
EIS, the Commission staff will be hosting public comment meetings in
the project area to accept oral comments as listed in the following
table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Public meeting date and time                   Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 7 p.m.     Olympia Resort and Conference
 (CST).                              Center, 1350 Royale Mile Road,
                                     Oconomowoc, WI 53066, Phone: (262)
                                     369-4999.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 7 p.m.   Bauer Ramada Plaza Hotel, 1 North
 (CST).                              Main St., Fond du Lac, WI 54935,
                                     Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 7 p.m.    Regency Suites and Conference Center
 (CST).                              Downtown Green Bay, 333 Main St.,
                                     Green Bay, WI 54301, Phone: (920)
                                     432-4555.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment Procedure

    Instructions for submitting written comments are included in the
draft EIS and the Notice of Availability that were issued on April 13,
2007. These documents can be found on the FERC Internet Web site as
discussed below. Oral comments presented at the public comment meetings
will be given the same consideration as written comments received by
mail before the close of the public comment period on May 29, 2007.
    As with previous public meetings on the Guardian Expansion and
Extension Project, attendees will be asked to provide their name and
address so that any project-related environmental information issued by
the Commission may be mailed to all attendees. Additionally, those
wishing to provide oral comments will be asked to put their name on a
Speakers List. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to
provide oral comments, speakers may be asked to limit their
presentations to 5 minutes in order that all speakers may be
accommodated. Transcripts of the public comment meetings will be
prepared and placed into the FERC's public record.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8703 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28879-28881]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13075]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86117; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Listed Company Manual
for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To Reduce the Continued
Listing Standards for Public Holders From 300 to 100 and To Enable the
Exchange To Exercise Discretion To Allow Special Purpose Acquisition
Companies a Reasonable Time Period Following a Business Combination to
Demonstrate Compliance With the Applicable Quantitative Listing
Standards

June 14, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On October 1, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the NYSE Listed Company
Manual (``Manual'') for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies
(``SPACs'') \3\ to reduce the minimum number of public holders required
for continued listing from 300 to 100, and to enable the Exchange to
exercise discretion to allow SPACs a reasonable time period following a
business combination to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
quantitative listing standards. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on October 18, 2018.\4\ The
Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\5\ On November
29, 2018, the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\6\ On January 15, 2019, the Commission issued
an order instituting proceedings (``OIP'' or ``Order Instituting
Proceedings'') under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ The
Commission received one additional comment letter, from the same
commenter, on the OIP.\8\ On April 15, 2019, the Commission designated
a longer period within which to issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change.\9\ This order disapproves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that throughout this order we have used
the term ``SPAC'' or ``SPACs.'' These terms have the same meaning as
``Acquisition Company'' which is the term used by the Exchange in
the Manual.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84420 (October 12,
2018), 83 FR 52854 (October 18, 2018) (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Jeffrey P.
Mahoney, General Counsel, Council of Institutional Investors, dated
November 8, 2018 (``CII Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84680 (November 29,
2018), 83 FR 62942 (December 8, 2018).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84984 (January 15,
2019), 84 FR 0855 (January 31, 2019).
    \8\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Jeffrey P.
Mahoney, General Counsel, Council of Institutional Investors, dated
February 11, 2019 (``CII Letter II'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85644 (April 15,
2019), 84 FR 16299 (April 18, 2019). The date was extended until
June 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Background on SPACs

    A SPAC is a special purpose acquisition company whose business plan
is to raise capital in an initial public offering (``IPO'') and, within
a specific period of time, engage in a merger or acquisition with one
or more unidentified companies. Among other things, a SPAC must keep
90% of the gross proceeds of its IPO in an escrow account until the
date of a business combination.\10\ The SPAC must complete one or more
business combinations, having an aggregate fair market value of at
least 80% of the value of the escrow account, within 36 months of the
effectiveness of the IPO registration statement.\11\ Additionally,
public shareholders who object to a business combination have the right
to convert their common stock into a pro rata share of the funds held
in escrow.\12\ Following a business combination, the combined company
must meet the Exchange's requirements for initial listing of an
operating company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 102.06 of the Manual. Section 102.06 also
contains additional quantitative requirements to list a SPAC.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See Section 102.06(b) of the Manual.
    \13\ This includes the requirement to maintain a minimum of 400
round lot holders. See Sections 102.01A and 802.01B of the Manual.

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

B. Description of the Proposed Changes to SPAC Listing Standards

    The Exchange has proposed two changes to its SPAC listing
requirements. First, the Exchange has proposed to reduce the number of
public stockholders required for continued listing of a SPAC, prior to
consummation of a business combination, from 300 to 100.\14\ According
to the Exchange, SPACs have difficulty demonstrating compliance with
the 300 public stockholders continued listing requirement because there
is limited retail investor interest in SPACs, and those who do invest
in SPACs tend to hold their shares until a transaction is announced.
The Exchange also stated its belief that the number of stockholders is
less relevant for SPACs than for operating companies, because ``the
price of [a SPAC] is based primarily on the value of the funds it holds
in trust, and the [SPAC]'s shareholders have the right to redeem their
shares for a pro rata share of that trust in conjunction with a
Business Combination.'' For these reasons, NYSE asserted that SPACs,
historically ``trade close to the value in the trust, even when they
have had few shareholders,'' and that these ``trading patterns suggest
that the low number of shareholders has not resulted in distorted
prices.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Public stockholders exclude holders that are directors,
officers, or their immediate families and holders of other
concentrated holdings of 10% or more. See Section 802.01B ``Criteria
for Acquisition Companies'' of the Manual.
    \15\ The Exchange also articulated other arguments, including
that Exchange Traded Funds are ``somewhat similar'' and do not have
as high of a continued listing shareholder requirement as SPACs. See
Notice, supra, note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange has proposed to give itself discretion to
allow SPACs a reasonable time period following a business combination
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable quantitative listing
standards for an operating company, rather than requiring SPACs to
immediately comply with such standards. These listing standards
include: (1) A price per share of at least $4.00; (2) a global market
capitalization of at least $150,000,000; (3) an aggregate market value
of publicly held shares of at least $40,000,000; and (4) other
quantitative requirements set forth in Section 102.01A of the Manual,
including the requirement to maintain a minimum of 400 round lot
holders and 1,100,000 publicly held shares.\16\ The Exchange has
proposed to delete the language in Section 802.01B of the Manual
requiring the combined entity to meet these listing standards
``immediately upon consummation of the Business Combination.''
According to the Exchange, it can be difficult for a company, once
listed, to obtain evidence demonstrating the number of its
shareholders, because many accounts are held in street name, so
companies must seek this information from broker-dealers or their
third-party agents. The Exchange stated that the process of identifying
shareholders is especially burdensome for SPACs at the time of the
business combination, because SPAC shareholders have the right to
request redemption of their securities until immediately before
consummation of the business combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section 802.01B of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal and an
additional comment letter, from the same commenter, in response to the
OIP.\17\ The commenter stated that it could not support the proposal as
submitted ``because it does not provide sufficient information for us
to make a determination as to whether our members and the capital
markets would benefit from the proposed changes.'' \18\ The commenter
referenced its prior comments on similar proposals from the Exchange
and Nasdaq, both of which were subsequently withdrawn.\19\ The
commenter noted that the proposed reduction in the minimum number of
holders from 300 to 100 is far more modest than eliminating it
outright, as was proposed in the prior proposals, but believed that
additional information would be helpful in determining whether the
proposal would benefit investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra notes 5 and 8.
    \18\ See supra note 5.
    \19\ See SR-NYSE-2017-53 (proposal to, among other things, lower
the initial holders requirement from 300 to 150 round lot holders
and to eliminate the continued holders requirement from 300 public
stockholders to zero, and to impose a 30-day deadline to demonstrate
compliance with certain initial requirements following a business
combination). The proposal was withdrawn on June 21, 2018 after the
Commission institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposal. See Notice of Withdrawal, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 83570 (June 29, 2018), 83 FR 31628 (July 6,
2018). See also SR-Nasdaq-2017-87 (proposal to reduce round lot
holders on Nasdaq Capital Market for initial listing From 300 to 150
and eliminate public holders for continued listing from 300 to zero,
and impose a deadline to demonstrate compliance with initial listing
requirements within 30 Days following each business combination).
The proposal was withdrawn on June 1, 2018 after the Commission
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposal. See Notice of Withdrawal, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 83383 (June 5, 2018), 83 FR 27055 (June 11, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the OIP, the commenter expressed concerns broadly
that competition between the Exchange and Nasdaq was weakening listing
standards, ``lower[ing] the bar for what goes in the world of SPACs,''
\20\ and is in conflict with the Exchange Act requirement that exchange
rules be designed to protect investors and the public interest. With
respect to the Exchange's proposal, the commenter stated that it did
not believe the Exchange provided sufficient information to determine
whether the commenter's members and the capital markets would benefit
from the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\21\ the Commission shall
approve a proposed rule change by a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to such organization.\22\ The Commission shall
disapprove a proposed rule change if the Commission does not make such
a finding.\23\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden
to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is
on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change,''
and a ``mere assertion that the proposed rule change is consistent with
those requirements . . . is not sufficient.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \22\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \23\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and
operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with
applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific
to support an affirmative Commission finding, and any failure of a
self-regulatory organization to provide this information may result in
the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative
finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is disapproving the
proposed rule change because the information before the Commission is
insufficient to support a finding that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities

exchange.\26\ Specifically, the Commission concludes that it does not
have sufficient information to determine that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, and in particular the
requirements that a national securities exchange's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In disapproving the proposed rule change, the Commission
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of the
minimum number of holders and other similar requirements in exchange
listing standards. For example, the Commission has repeatedly stated in
approving exchange listing requirements, including NYSE's original SPAC
listing standards, that the development and enforcement of adequate
standards governing the listing of securities on an exchange is an
activity of critical importance to financial markets and the investing
public.\28\ Among other things, such listing standards help ensure that
exchange listed securities have sufficient public float, investor base,
and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to
promote fair and orderly markets.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57785 (May
6, 2008), 73 FR 27597 (May 13, 2008) (stating that the distribution
standards, which include exchange holders requirements ``. . .
should help to ensure that the [SPACs'] securities have sufficient
public float, investor base, and liquidity to promote fair and
orderly markets''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58228, (July 25, 2008) 73 FR 44794 (July 31, 2008) (approving Nasdaq
initial and continued listing standards for SPACs).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE has proposed to lower the minimum number of holders required
for continued listing of a SPAC, in the period prior to consummation of
a business combination, from 300 public holders to 100 public holders.
In support of its proposal, NYSE asserts, among other things, that
SPACs often have difficulty demonstrating compliance with the minimum
number of holders requirements because there is limited retail investor
interest in them, and that this requirement is less relevant for SPACs
because they historically trade close to the value of the funds held in
trust, and without distorted prices, even when they have few
shareholders. NYSE, however, has provided no evidence (such as, for
example, information about the number of SPAC delisting proceedings as
compared to the number of delisting proceedings for other types of
listed companies) that SPACs in fact have difficulty complying with the
existing minimum number of holders requirements. In addition, to
support its position that the minimum number of holders requirements
are less relevant for SPACs, NYSE made certain representations about
the current trading characteristics of SPACs when they have few
shareholders. The Commission notes, however, that NYSE's observations
were made when the current minimum number of holders requirements were
in place, and NYSE has provided no evidence that the same observations
would be repeated if these requirements were substantially reduced, as
proposed. In the OIP, the Commission asked several questions relating
to this aspect of the proposal, including whether it would ensure a
sufficient liquid market for NYSE-listed SPACs, whether SPACs would
still trade close to their redemption value or be more prone to
manipulation (both before and after the business combination
announcement), and whether there was any data to support NYSE's
assertions about the nature of SPAC trading or the difficulties faced
by SPACs in meeting existing listing standards. NYSE offered no
additional response, arguments or data in response to these questions
or in support of its proposal, nor did any other commenter.
    NYSE also has proposed to provide itself discretion to allow SPACs
a reasonable time period following a business combination to
demonstrate compliance with the minimum number of holders and other
applicable quantitative listing standards for an operating company,
rather than requiring SPACs to immediately comply with such standards.
NYSE, however, has provided no supporting evidence (such as, for
example, information about the number of SPAC delisting proceedings as
compared to the number of delisting proceedings for other types of
listed companies) that SPACs have particular difficulties demonstrating
compliance with these important requirements. In addition, the
Commission notes that, while NYSE's current listing standards require a
SPAC to have at least 300 public holders prior to the business
combination, NYSE's proposal would reduce that requirement to as few as
100 public holders. Following consummation of the business combination,
the SPAC would be required to have at least 400 round lot holders. In
the OIP, the Commission questioned whether such a structure would be
workable, and how a listed SPAC would ensure it is in a position to
sufficiently increase its number of holders from the proposed 100
public holder threshold (as opposed to the current 300 threshold), even
within the ``reasonable time period'' contemplated by NYSE. The
Commission further noted that the Exchange offered no explanation as to
why SPACs require additional time, following the consummation of a
business combination, to meet all of the other applicable quantitative
listing standards for operating companies, including those relating to
share price, global market capitalization, and the market value of the
publicly-held shares. However, as with the other concerns raised by the
Commission in the OIP, NYSE offered no additional response, arguments
or data in response to these concerns or in support of its proposal,
nor did any other commenter.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that the
record before it does not provide a basis to conclude that the Exchange
has met its burden under the Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice
to demonstrate that its proposed rules change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\31\ that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
and in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \32\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered that, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\33\ the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2018-46) be, and it hereby
is, disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13075 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 52)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13045-13046]
[DOCID:fr18mr10-20]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0026; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5, -5B,
and -7B Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5, -5B, and -7B series turbofan
engines. This proposed AD would require removing from service, nine
stage 3 low-pressure turbine (LPT) disks, identified by serial number
(S/N). This proposed AD results from the discovery of a material
nonconformity requiring removal of the disk before the certified disk
life of certain stage 3 LPT disks. We are proposing this AD to prevent
uncontained failure of the stage 3 LPT disk and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by May 17,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781)
238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0026; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NE-03-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    In February 2009, we were made aware by CFM International, S.A. of
stage 3 LPT disks, part number (P/N) 336-002-006-0, S/Ns DE255844,
DE256388, DE256622, DE256623, DE256625, DE256627, DE256628, DE256631,
and DE256637, being suspect of material non-conformity. This batch of
parts was subject to a quality problem during manufacturing. CFM
International, S.A. states that the manufacturing process has since
been revised to eliminate the quality problem. The non-conformity
requires removal from service of the suspect disks before their
certified life limits. Operating engines with these affected disks to
the certified life limit could result in uncontained failure of the
stage 3 LPT disk and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. This proposed AD would require removing from
service any affected stage 3 LPT disks from engines before their
certified life limit. We are proposing this AD, which would require
removing the affected stage 3 LPT disks from service before
accumulating 9,500 cycles-since-new.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect two engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The pro-rated cost of the
replacement parts is $40,375 per engine. We estimate that no additional
labor costs would be incurred to perform the required disk removals,
because the removals would be done at time of engine shop visit. Based
on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S.
operators to be $80,750.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

CFM International, S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0026; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NE-03-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 17,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to CFM International CFM56-5, -5B, and -7B
series turbofan engines with stage 3 low-pressure turbine (LPT)
disks installed with the following serial numbers, (S/Ns) DE255844,
DE256388, DE256622, DE256623, DE256625, DE256627, DE256628,
DE256631, and DE256637. The -5 and -5B series engines are installed
on, but not limited to, Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, and A340
airplanes, and the -7B series engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Boeing 737 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from the discovery of a material
nonconformity requiring removal of the disk before the certified
disk life of certain stage 3 LPT disks. We are issuing this AD to
prevent uncontained failure of the stage 3 LPT disk and damage to
the airplane.

Compliance

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

Removal of Affected Stage 3 LPT Disks From Service

    (f) Before accumulating 9,500 cycles-since-new, remove stage 3
LPT disks from service.
    (g) After the effective date of this AD do not reinstall any
stage 3 LPT disk removed from service per paragraph (f) of this AD
into any engine.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781)
238-7199, for more information about this AD.
    (j) CFM International, S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-5B
S/B 72-0733, dated October 26, 2009, and SB No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-
0743, dated October 26, 2009, pertain to the subject of this AD.
Contact CFM International, Technical Publications Department, 1
Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(513) 552-2816, for a copy of this service information.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 11, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-5861 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26931-26932]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12095]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0413]

Notice of Intent to Designate as Abandoned Supplemental Type
Certificates: S.T.C. Bee, Inc., SA374NW, SA391NW, SA393NW, SA395NW,
SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW (Original Product Type
Certificate Number A-769--Sky Enterprises, Inc.--RC-3)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to designate S.T.C. Bee, Inc., supplemental
type certificates as abandoned; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the FAA's intent to designate S.T.C.
Bee, Inc., Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) Nos. SA374NW, SA391NW,
SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW, as abandoned
and make the related engineering data available upon request. The FAA
has received a request to provide engineering data concerning these
STCs. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting S.T.C. Bee, Inc., and
its heir concerning the STCs. This action is intended to enhance
aviation safety.

DATES: The FAA must receive all comments by December 9, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Send all comments on this notice to
the Federal Aviation Administration, Seattle ACO Branch, Attention:
Karen Murphy, AIR-781, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.
You may also contact Karen Murphy by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to provide comments, written data,
views, or arguments relating to this notice. All comments received on
or before the closing date will be considered. All comments received
will be available in the docket for examination by interested persons.
Comments may be inspected at the office of the FAA, Seattle ACO, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Background

    This notice is to inform the public that the FAA intends to
designate S.T.C. Bee, Inc., STC Nos. SA374NW, SA391NW, SA393NW,
SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW, as abandoned and
subsequently release the related engineering data.
    The FAA has received a third party request for the release of data
for the S.T.C. Bee, Inc., STCs under the provisions the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The third party requester is the
owner of an aircraft modified by these STCs and would like the
engineering data to maintain the aircraft. The FAA cannot release
commercial or financial information, such as the requested data, under
FOIA without the permission of the data owner. However, in accordance
with title 49 of the United States Code Sec.  44704(a)(5), the FAA can
make available upon request engineering data in possession of the FAA
relating to an STC if the FAA can determine that the STC has been
inactive for 3 or more years, and using due diligence the FAA is unable
to locate the owner of record or the owner of record's heir. There has
been no activity on these STCs for more than 3 years.
    On January 17, 2017, the FAA sent registered letters to S.T.C. Bee,
Inc.'s last known addresses, 10900 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, WA
98178, and P.O. Box 264, McKenna, WA 98558. The FAA informed the
company that the FAA intends to classify STC Nos. SA374NW, SA391NW,
SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW as abandoned
unless, within 60 days of receipt of the letter, the FAA receives a
written statement from them stating they are the holder of SA374NW,
SA391NW, SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW. The
FAA has also attempted to make contact with S.T.C. Bee, Inc., by
sending a registered letter to the last known owner, Mr. Jack
Daubenspeck, and Mr. Daubenspeck's son, Mike Alan Daubenspeck, at 5605
32nd Court SE, Lacey, WA 98503, informing them of the same as sent in
the company registered letter. The FAA was unsuccessful in its attempts
to contact the STCs' owner or heir. Additionally, the FAA attempted to
make contact with S.T.C. Bee, Inc., by other means, including telephone
communication and internet searches, but without success.

Information Requested

    If you are the owner, or heir, or a transferee of STC Nos. SA374NW,
SA391NW, SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW, or
have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC Nos. SA374NW,
SA391NW, SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW,
please contact Karen Murphy using a method described in this notice
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you are the heir of the owner
or the owner by transfer of STC Nos. SA374NW, SA391NW, SA393NW,
SA395NW, SA575NW, SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW, you must provide a
notarized copy of your Government issued identification with a letter
and background establishing your ownership of the STCs and, if
applicable, your relationship as the heir to the deceased holder of the
STCs.

Conclusion

    If the FAA does not receive any response by December 9, 2019, the
FAA will consider STC Nos. SA374NW, SA391NW, SA393NW, SA395NW, SA575NW,
SA576NW, SA613NW, and SA823NW abandoned, and the FAA will proceed with
the release of the requested data. This action is for the purpose of
maintaining the airworthiness of an aircraft and enhancing aviation
safety.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 4, 2019.
Paul R. Bernado,
Aviation Safety, Acting Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-12095 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 15513]
[DOCID:fr24mr08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OA07-36-001]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Filing

March 14, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2008, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company filed a compliance filing in response to the Commission's
January 31, 2008 Order, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 122 FERC
] 61,070 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 20, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5829 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66377]
[DOCID:fr02no05-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-6-000]

Western Farmers Electric Cooperative on Behalf of Itself and Its
Members: Alfalfa Electric Cooperative, Caddo Electric Cooperative,
Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative, Choctaw Electric Cooperative,
Cimarron Electric Cooperative, Cotton Electric Cooperative, East
Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Harmon Electric Association, Kay
Electric Cooperative, Kiamichi Electric Cooperative, Kiwash Electric
Cooperative, Northfork Electric Cooperative, Northwestern Electric
Cooperative, Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Red River Valley Rural
Electric Association, Rural Electric Cooperative, Southeastern Electric
Cooperative, and Southwest Rural Electric Association; Notice of Filing

October 21, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 19, 2005, Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative, on behalf of itself and certain of its electric
distribution cooperative member-owners, filed a request for partial
waiver of certain regulations of the Commission concerning sales to and
purchases from qualifying facilities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is
not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 9, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6035 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P