[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1414]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Chalk Point CT LLC................................        EG16-1-000
CID Solar, LLC........................................        EG16-2-000
Cottonwood Solar, LLC.................................        EG16-3-000
Greenidge Generation LLC..............................        EG16-4-000
Seville Solar Two, LLC................................        EG16-5-000
Fair Wind Power Partners, LLC.........................        EG16-6-000
Los Vientos Windpower IV, LLC.........................        EG16-7-000
Los Vientos Windpower V, LLC..........................        EG16-8-000
Yuma Cogeneration Associates..........................        EG16-9-000
Sandstone Solar LLC...................................       EG16-10-000
Carousel Wind Farm, LLC...............................       EG16-12-000
Marshall Wind Energy LLC..............................       EG16-13-000
Utah Red Hills Renewable Park, LLC....................       EG16-14-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December 2015, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR Sec.
366.7(a).

    Dated: January 6, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00399 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1968-1970]
[DOCID:fr11ja08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0374; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-02-AD;
Amendment 39-15313; AD 2007-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Intertechnique Zodiac Aircraft Systems,
Oxygen Reserve Cylinders

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
oxygen reserve cylinders. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country with which we have a bilateral agreement to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
information concerning the risk of high-pressure oxygen cylinder
tearing with sudden emptying. These cylinders are used for missions
at high altitudes or to ensure respiratory air for passengers
feeling sick.
    It has been demonstrated that the material characteristics of
the Aluminum Alloy 5283 (AA5283) from which the cylinders are
manufactured deteriorate in the course of time and may possibly lead
these oxygen cylinders to tear and abruptly vent aboard an aircraft.

This unsafe condition requires immediate action due to the risk of
oxygen cylinders exploding on board an aircraft and creating a fire
hazard. This AD requires actions that are intended to address this
unsafe condition.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 28, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://regulations.gov
 or in person at the Docket Management Facility between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Streamlined Issuance of AD

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our
technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we
considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe
condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this
reason might not follow our plain language principles.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the technical
agent for the member states of the European community, has issued EASA
AD No. 2006-0286R1, dated March 22, 2007, to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products.
    The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
information concerning the risk of high-pressure oxygen cylinder
tearing with sudden emptying. These cylinders are used for missions
at high altitudes or to ensure respiratory air for passengers
feeling sick.
    It has been demonstrated that the material characteristics of
the Aluminum Alloy 5283 (AA5283) from which the cylinders are
manufactured deteriorate in the course of time and may possibly lead
these oxygen cylinders to tear and abruptly vent aboard an aircraft.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and the
service information in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Intertechnique has issued Service Bulletin No. GLD/GLF-35-150,
dated September 20, 2006 and Eurocopter has issued Alert Service
Bulletin Nos. 05.00.54 for the Model AS350B3 helicopters and 05.42 for
the Model SA 315B helicopters, both dated August 16, 2006. The actions
described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition
identified in the service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    The Model Airbus 300 series; Pilatus P-6; Dassault Aviation
Mystere-Falcon 20; Falcon 50, Falcon 200, and Falcon 900 airplanes;
Eurocopter AS350 and Eurocopter SA315 helicopters; and other aircraft
may be equipped with these oxygen reserve cylinders, which are not
approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Without the DOT
approval, these oxygen reserve cylinders are not eligible for use in
aircraft operating in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral
agreement with France, the State of Design, we have been notified of
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on aircraft of various type designs.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. However, we have made the
following changes:
     The MCAI requires removal of the affected oxygen cylinders
at specific time intervals; however, this AD requires removal before
further flight.
     The MCAI requires certain procedures to be used for
emptying the cylinders as well as certain action for cylinders held as
spares.
    These actions are beyond the scope of the action needed to correct
this unsafe condition and are not included in this AD. These
differences are highlighted in the ``Differences Between the FAA AD and
the MCAI'' section of this AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the risk of oxygen cylinders exploding on board an aircraft and
creating a fire hazard. Therefore, we determined that notice and
opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable
and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer
than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0374; Directorate
Identifier 2007-SW-02-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov
 including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 468 aircraft of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about \1/2\ of a work-hour
per aircraft to remove the cylinders. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S.

operators to be $4000, assuming that oxygen cylinders are installed on
100 aircraft.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2007-26-11 Intertechnique Zodiac Aircraft Systems: Amendment 39-
15313. Docket No. FAA-2007-0374; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-02-
AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January
28, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Intertechnique (F5341), aluminum alloy
AA5283, oxygen cylinders manufactured by Societe Metallurgique de
Gerzat SAS with GLD series, GLF series, PC2300 or SLF300 part
numbers, installed in any aircraft certificated in any category.
These oxygen reserve cylinders are installed on but not limited to
Model Airbus 300 series; Pilatus P-6; Dassault Aviation Mystere-
Falcon 20, Falcon 50, Falcon 200, and Falcon 900 airplanes; and
Eurocopter AS350 and Eurocopter SA315 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
information concerning the risk of high-pressure oxygen cylinder
tearing with sudden emptying. These cylinders are used for missions
at high altitudes or to ensure respiratory air for passengers
feeling sick.
    It has been demonstrated that the material characteristics of
the Aluminum Alloy 5283 (AA5283) from which the cylinders are
manufactured deteriorate in the course of time and may possibly lead
these oxygen cylinders to tear and abruptly vent aboard an aircraft.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, remove any affected oxygen reserve
cylinder before further flight.

Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI as follows:
    (1) The MCAI requires removal of the affected oxygen cylinders
at specific time intervals; however, this AD requires removal before
further flight.
    (2) The MCAI requires certain procedures to be used for emptying
the cylinders as well as certain action for cylinders held as
spares. These actions are beyond the scope of the action needed to
correct this unsafe condition and are not included in this AD.

Subject

    (g) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 3530:
Portable Oxygen System.

Other Information

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions.
Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved
by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the
State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the
United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA
Airworthiness Directive No. 2006-0286R1, dated March 22, 2007;
Intertechnique Service Bulletin No. GLD/GLF-35-150, dated September
20, 2006; and Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 05.00.54 for
the Model AS350B3 and 05.42 for the Model SA315B, both dated August
16, 2006, contain related information.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 3, 2007.
David A. Downey,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25391 Filed 1-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25502-25504]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10302]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69457; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Increase the Position and Exercise Limits for Options on
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund

April 25, 2013.
    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 April 16, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its rules to increase
the position and exercise limits for options on iShares MSCI Emerging
Markets Index Fund (``EEM'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 307,
Interpretations and Policies .01 and Rule 309, Interpretations and
Policies .01 to increase position and exercise limits, respectively,
for EEM options.
    Position limits for exchange-traded fund (``ETFs'') options, such
as EEM options, are determined pursuant to Rule 307 and vary according
to the number of outstanding shares and trading volume during the most
recent six-month trading period of the underlying stock or ETF. The
largest in capitalization and most frequently traded stocks and ETFs
have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments
for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market;
smaller capitalization stocks and ETFs have position limits of 200,000,
75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-
capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. The current
position limit for EEM options is 250,000 contracts. The purpose of the
proposed rule change is to amend Rules 307 and 309 to increase the
position and exercise limits for EEM options to 500,000 contracts. As
discussed below, EEM is an actively-traded ETF and there is precedent
for establishing position limits for options on actively-traded ETFs.
Position limit levels for actively-traded ETFs are set forth in Rule
307, Interpretations and Policies .01.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 307, Interpretations and Policies .01, provides for
exceptions to standard position limits as follows: put or call
option contracts overlying the PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ''), for
which the position limit is currently 900,000 contracts on the same
side of the market; options overlying the Standard and Poor's
Depository Receipts[supreg] Trust (``SPY''), which currently does
not have any position limits; options overlying the iShares[supreg]
Russell 2000[supreg] Index Fund (``IWM''), for which the position
limit is currently 500,000 contracts on the same side of the market;
and options overlying the Diamonds Trust (``DIA''), for which the
position limit is currently 300,000 contracts on the same side of
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed increase in position and exercise limits for EEM
options has been adopted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''),
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC
(``PHLX''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex Options''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68086 (October 23,
2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-066); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68478 (December 19, 2012), 77 FR 76132
(December 26, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-023); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68398 (December 11, 2012), 77 FR 74700 (December 17,
2012) (SR-ISE-2012-093); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68293
(November 27, 2012), 77 FR 71644 (December 3, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-
132); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68358 (December 5, 2012),
77 FR 73708 (December 11, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-071); and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68359 (December 5, 2012), 77 FR
73716 (December 11, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-132).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this proposed rule change, the following trading
statistics compare EEM to IWM and SPY, which are both actively-traded
ETF options with exceptions to the standard position and exercise
limits. As shown on the table below, the average daily volume in 2012
for EEM was 49.4 million shares compared to 45.7 million shares for IWM
and 143 million shares for SPY. The total shares outstanding for EEM
was 1,182 million compared to 220 million shares for IWM and 820.5
million shares for SPY. Further, the fund market cap for EEM was $52.19
billion compared to $18.35 billion for IWM and $125.63 billion for SPY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Shares        Fund Market
                                                 2012 ADV (mil.     2012 ADV     Outstanding--as     Cap as of
                      ETF                            Shares)         (option      of January 31.    January 31,
                                                                   contracts)      2013 (Mil.)      2013 ($bil)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEM............................................            49.4         255,096            1,182          $52.19
IWM............................................            45.7         494,150              220           18.35
SPY............................................             143       2,325,188            820.5          125.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which has approximately 800
component securities, is a free float-adjusted market capitalization
index that is designed to measure equity market performance of emerging
markets. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index consists of the following 21
emerging market country indices: Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech
Republic, Egypt, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico,
Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan,
Thailand, and Turkey.\5\ MIAX does not currently trade options on EEM,
however, MIAX anticipates listing such options in the near future.
Since MIAX's listing standards for options on ETFs holding non-U.S.
component securities \6\ are identical to the listing standards at the
other options exchanges that currently trade EEM options, MIAX
anticipates its analysis of EEM and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index,
which will be undertaken prior to its listing of options on EEM, will
confirm that more than 50% of the weight of the securities held by EEM
are subject to a comprehensive surveillance agreement (``CSA'').\7\
Additionally, MIAX will confirm that the component securities of the
MSCI Emerging Markets Index, on which EEM is based, and for which the
primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a CSA, do
not represent 20% or more of the weight of the MSCI Emerging Markets
Index.\8\ Finally, MIAX will confirm that the component securities of
the MSCI Emerging Markets Index for which the primary market is in any
two countries that are not subject to CSAs do not represent 33% or more
of the weight of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.msci.com/products/indices/tools/index.html#EM.
    \6\ See MIAX Rule 402(i).
    \7\ See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(A).
    \8\ See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B).
    \9\ See MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the liquidity in the underlying ETF and
the liquidity in EEM options support its request to increase the
position and exercise limits for EEM options. As to the underlying ETF,
through January 31, 2013, the year-to-date average daily trading volume
for EEM across all exchanges was 50.9 million shares. As to EEM options
through January 31, 2013, the year-to-date average daily trading volume
for EEM options across all exchanges was 317,399 contracts. The
Exchange believes that increasing position limits for EEM options will
lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for EEM
options that will benefit customers interested in this product.
    Under the Exchange's proposal, the options reporting requirement
for EEM options will remain unchanged. Thus, the Exchange will still
require each Member that maintains a position in EEM options on the
same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a
customer, to report certain information to the Exchange. Specifically,
Rule 310 governs position limit reporting requirements and provides, in
paragraph (a), that Members must report information with respect to any
customer or Member account holding in the aggregate long or short
positions of 200 or more option contracts of a single class. Paragraph
(b) of Rule 310 further requires Electronic Exchange Members \10\ to
provide additional information for end of day option positions in
excess of 10,000 option contracts on the same side of the market. This
additional information includes, but is not limited to, the option
position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of
the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the position. Each of these
reporting requirements will remain at the current levels for EEM
options. The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance
procedures and reporting requirements are capable of properly
identifying unusual and/or illegal options trading activity. These
procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated
surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options
and underlying stocks. Furthermore, large stock holdings must be
disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\11\ Options
positions are part of any reportable positions and, thus, cannot be
legally hidden. Moreover, the Exchange's requirement that Members file
reports with the Exchange for any customer who held aggregate large
long or short positions of any single class for the previous day will
continue to serve as an important part of the Exchange's surveillance
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Electronic Exchange Member is defined in Rule 100 as
``the holder of a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker''. Thus,
Rule 310(b) does not apply to Market Makers. Market Maker position
limit information is accessed and monitored through the Exchange's
market surveillance systems.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address
concerns that a Member or its customer may try to maintain an
inordinately large un-hedged position in an option, particularly on
EEM. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit
the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the
margin and/or capital that a Member must maintain for a large position
held by it or by its customer.\12\ In addition, the Commission's net
capital rule, Rule 15c3-1 \13\ under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''), imposes a capital charge on members to the extent
of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See MIAX Rule 1502.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and it is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change will benefit large market
makers (which generally have the greatest potential and

actual ability to provide liquidity and depth in the product), as well
as retail traders, investors, and public customers, by providing them
with a more effective trading and hedging vehicle. In addition, the
Exchange believes that the structure of EEM options and the
considerable liquidity of the market for EEM options diminish the
opportunity to manipulate this product and disrupt the underlying
market that a lower position limit may protect against. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change will benefit a greater
number of market participants who are MIAX Members and members of other
exchanges. This is because EEM is a multiply-listed options class and
currently there is not a uniform and consistent position and exercise
limits regime across all of the exchanges that list EEM options. The
proposed filing will benefit market participants because it will ensure
consistency and uniformity among the competing options exchanges as to
the position and exercise limits for a multiply listed options class.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to changes put in place at other options
exchanges. MIAX believes this proposed rule change is necessary to
permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish
uniform position limits for a multiply listed option class.

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

    Written comments 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 \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. 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 so that it can increase the position and
exercise limits for EEM options immediately, which will result in
consistency and uniformity among the competing options exchanges as to
the position and exercise limits for EEM options. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\18\ The Commission
notes the proposal is substantively identical to a proposal that was
recently approved by the Commission, and does not raise any new
regulatory issues.\19\ For these reasons, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68086 (October 23,
2012), 77 FR 65600 (October 29, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-17 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-MIAX-2013-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-MIAX-2013-17 and should be
submitted on or before May 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10302 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 50101]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20309]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14415-000]

Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 22, 2012, Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Alexandria Bay Hydroelectric
Project, which would be located on the St. Lawrence River in Jefferson
County, New York. The proposed project would not use a dam or
impoundment. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Installation of 50 NC
Sea Dragon tidal turbines at a rated capacity of 100 kilowatts, (2) an
estimated 2.5 kilometers in length of additional transmission
infrastructure, and (3) appurtenant facilities. Initial estimated
production would be a minimum of 17,520 megawatt hours per year with
the installation of 50 units.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Roger Bason, Natural Currents Energy
Services, LLC, 24 Roxanne Boulevard, Highland, New York 12561, (845)
691-4009.
    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14415) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 13, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20309 Filed 8-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48105-48107]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0569; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are intended
to secure the translating door crank assembly to the outside handle
shaft. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for loose
bolts on the aft translating door crank assembly, and removal and
reinstallation of the bolts. We are proposing this AD to prevent loose
bolts from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after
the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or
outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

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-2014-
0569; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0569;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-047-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-08, dated February 10, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There was one in-service report where the bolts securing the
translating door crank assembly to the outside handle shaft were
found loose. It was also found on another translating door that
sealant was missing on these bolts. If both bolts become loose or
fall out after the door is closed and locked, the door cannot be
opened from inside or outside.
    The aft entry translating door and aft service translating door
are classified as emergency exits. The inability to open an
emergency exit could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection of the translating
door crank assemblies for loose bolts, as well as appropriate
rectification [removal and reinstallation of the bolts].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0569.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated
July 11, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide
operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically
developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $48,790, or $595 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0569; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-047-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 29, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4411 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of loose bolts that are
intended to secure the translating door crank assembly to the
outside handle shaft. We are issuing this AD to prevent loose bolts
from falling out. If both bolts become loose or fall out after the
door is closed and locked, the door cannot be opened from inside or
outside, which could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 600 flight hours or 100 days, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the
aft translating door crank assembly for loose bolts, in accordance
with Part A--INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A, dated July 11,
2013. Doing the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) If any loose bolt is found: Before further flight, remove
and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolt, in
accordance with Part B--RECTIFICATION of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A,
dated July 11, 2013.
    (2) If no loose bolt is found: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
remove and reinstall the translating door crank assembly bolts, in
accordance with Part B--RECTIFICATION of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-75, Revision A,
dated July 11, 2013.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-52-75, dated July 27, 2012, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Transport
Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-08, dated February
10, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0569.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 6, 2014.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19361 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P