[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49779-49782]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86997; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Equity 7, Section 118(a)

September 17, 2019.
    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 September 3, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, 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 proposes to amend Equity 7, Sections 118(a)(1), (2)
and (3) to add a new credit under each of these rules for non-displayed
orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item 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 Equity 7,
Sections 118(a)(1), (2) and (3) to add a new credit under each of these
rules for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that
provide liquidity. Equity 7, Section 118(a) provides the fees assessed
and credits provided for the use of the order execution and routing
services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members for all securities
priced at $1 or more that it trades. The Exchange is proposing to adopt
a credit of $0.0010 per share executed applicable to Nasdaq-listed
securities (``Tape C'') under paragraph (a)(1) of the rule, and credits
of $0.0015 per share executed applicable to securities listed on NYSE
(``Tape A'') and securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq and
NYSE (``Tape B'') under paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of the rule,
respectively. To qualify for each of these credits a member must
provide 0.10% or more of Consolidated Volume \3\ through non-displayed
orders (other than midpoint orders), and provide 0.15% or more of
Consolidated Volume through midpoint orders during the month. The
proposed credits are provided to qualifying members for non-displayed
orders not otherwise covered by the lists of credits provided for non-
displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide
liquidity under each of the respective paragraphs of Equity 7, Section
118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Consolidated Volume'' means the total
consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction
reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities
during a month in equity securities, excluding executed orders with
a size of less than one round lot. For purposes of calculating
Consolidated Volume and the extent of a member's trading activity
the date of the annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments
Indexes shall be excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and
the member's trading activity. See Equity 7, Section 118(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposed change to its schedule of credits and
charges is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the
Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for
equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume
thresholds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CBOE BZX provides a rebate of $0.0015 per share executed for
non-displayed orders that add liquidity in the securities of any
tape. See Cboe BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.\9\ Within
the foregoing context, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by
the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange perceives no regulatory, structural, or cost
impediments to market participants shifting order flow away from it.
In particular, the Exchange notes that such shifts in liquidity and
market share occur within the context of market participants'
existing duties of Best Execution and obligations under the Order
Protection Rule under Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Exchange's proposed schedule of credits and charges
Equity 7, Section 118(a) provide increased overall incentives to
members to increase their liquidity provision activity on the Exchange,
and to do so broadly in orders in securities in all Tapes. An increase
in overall liquidity provision activity on the Exchange will, in turn,
improve the quality of the Exchange's equity market and increase its
attractiveness to existing and prospective participants. The proposed
new credits are consistent with the current design of Equity 7, Section
118(a) because it provides incrementally increased incentives in return
for increased liquidity provision in non-displayed orders. Moreover,
the proposed credits will be comparable to, if not favorable to, those
that its competitors provide.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See n. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its proposed
credits fairly among its market participants. The proposal will provide
a member with an opportunity to earn a higher credit for its non-
displayed orders above the current credits provided to members that
provide 0.03% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month through
midpoint orders or other non-displayed orders, which are $0.0005 per
share executed for Tape C securities and $0.0010 per share executed for
Tape A and B securities. Like these current credits, the proposed
credits for Tape A and B securities are higher than the proposed
credits for Tape C securities. This is reflective of the Exchange's

desire to increase market share in Tape A and B securities, which is
lower in comparison to market share in Tape C securities.
    Moreover, it is equitable for the Exchange to increase its overall
credits to participants whose orders provide liquidity to the Exchange
as a means of incentivizing increased liquidity provision activity and
to do so broadly in orders in securities in all Tapes. An increase in
overall liquidity provision activity on the Exchange will improve the
quality of the Exchange's equity market and increase its attractiveness
to existing and prospective participants.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that
nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently
unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-
established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various
industries--from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular
telephone data plans--that use it to reward the loyalty of their best
customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent
other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It
is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long
employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it
incentivizes customer activity that increases liquidity, enhances price
discovery, and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
    The Exchange intends for the proposal to improve market quality for
all members on the Exchange and by extension attract more liquidity to
the market, improving market wide quality and price discovery. Although
net providers of liquidity will benefit most from the proposed credits,
this result is fair insofar as increased liquidity provision activity
will help to improve market quality and the attractiveness of the
Exchange's equity market to all existing and prospective participants.

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.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all members of the Exchange will benefit from an increase
in the provision of liquidity by those that choose to meet the tier
qualification criteria. Members may grow their businesses so that they
have the capacity to receive the higher credits. Moreover, members are
free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the fees
assessed and credits provided are not attractive. As one can observe by
looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges
is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between
exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. The Exchange notes
that the tier structure is consistent with broker-dealer fee practices
as well as the other industries, as described above.
Intermarket Competition
    Addressing whether the proposed fee could impose a burden on
competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate, the
Exchange believes that its proposed modifications to its schedule of
credits and charges will not impose a burden on competition because the
Exchange's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from the other 12 live exchanges and from
off-exchange venues, which include 32 alternative trading systems. The
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
    The proposed new credits are reflective of this competition
because, even as one of the largest U.S. equities exchanges by volume,
the Exchange only has approximately 18% market share, which in most
markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to
burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in
addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues
which comprised more than 37% of industry volume for the month of July
2019.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed credits to increase
member incentives to provide liquidity in non-displayed Orders to the
Exchange, which is reflective of fierce competition for order flow
noted above; however, if the proposed credits are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will either fail to
increase its market share or even lose market share as a result.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed new
credits will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-NASDAQ-2019-071 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-071. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-071 and should be submitted
on or before October 15, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20474 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 98)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29085-29086]
[DOCID:fr20my08-13]

========================================================================
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-2008-0562; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It has been found cases where the pressure equalization valve
was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the
forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the
effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 19, 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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 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://
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
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2848; 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-2008-0562;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-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

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directives 2007-11-01 and 2007-11-02, both dated December
12, 2007 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found cases where the pressure equalization valve
was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the
forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the
effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression.

Corrective actions include inspecting for the presence of and, if
necessary, installing pressure equalization valves. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletins 170-21-0032 and 190-21-0019,
both dated August 10, 2007. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 101 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 1 work-hour per product to

comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,080, or $80 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); 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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 AD:

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0562; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-010-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Embraer Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -
100 SE, and -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes,
having serial numbers (S/N) 17000002, 17000004 through 17000013, and
17000015 through 17000154; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100
IGW, -100 ECJ, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes, having S/N
19000002, 19000004, and 19000006 through 19000060; certificated in
any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21: Air
Conditioning.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found in cases where the pressure equalization valve
was not installed in the left-hand bulkhead blowout panel, on the
forward and/or aft cargo compartments, thus affecting the
effectiveness of fire detection, containment and suppression.
    Corrective actions include inspecting for the presence of and,
if necessary, installing pressure equalization valves.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform a general visual inspection on the left-hand bulkhead
blowout panel of both the forward and aft cargo compartments to
determine whether the pressure equalization valves, part number (P/
N) 120-48865-003, are installed. If both pressure equalization
valves are installed in their respective blowout panels, no
additional action is required by this AD.
    (2) If any valve is not installed, within 700 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD, install valve P/N 120-48865-003, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service
Bulletin 170-21-0032 or 190-21-0019, both dated August 10, 2007; as
applicable.

    Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a general visual inspection
(GVI) is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure or
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching
distance, unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to
enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection
area. This level of inspection is made under normally available
lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or
drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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:
Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). 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

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-11-01
and 2007-11-02, both dated December 12, 2007; and Embraer Service
Bulletins 170-21-0032 and 190-21-0019, both dated August 10, 2007;
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-11289 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16791]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EL14-22-000, EL14-23-000, EL14-24-000, et al.]

Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceedings and Refund
Effective Date

California Independent System  Docket No. EL14-22-000
 Operator Corporation.
ISO New England, Inc.........  Docket No. EL14-23-000
PJM Interconnection, LLC.....  Docket No. EL14-24-000
Midcontinent Independent       Docket No. EL14-25-000
 System Operator, Inc.
New York Independent System    Docket No. EL14-26-000
 Operator, Inc.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc....  Docket No. EL14-27-000

    On March 20, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos.
EL14-22-000, et al., pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the
justness and reasonableness of independent system operators' (ISOs) and
regional transmission organizations' (RTOs) day-ahead scheduling
practices. California Independent System Operator Corporation, et al.,
146 FERC ] 61,202 (2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket Nos. EL14-22-000, et al.,
established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of
issuance of the order establishing those proceedings.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06690 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35048-35049]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0380]

Safety Zone; Delta Independence Day Celebration Fireworks, San
Joaquin River, Venice Island, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Delta
Independence Day Celebration Fireworks in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 14 will
be enforced from 10 a.m. on July 2, 2014 to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and
arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the
start of the fireworks display. From 10 a.m. on July 2, 2014 until 8
a.m. on July 4, 2014, the fireworks barge will be loading off of Dutra
Corporation Yard in Rio Vista, CA. From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4,
2014 the loaded barge will transit from Dutra Corporation Yard to the
launch site near Venice Island, CA in approximate position
38[deg]03'19'' N, 121[deg]31'54'' W (NAD83). Upon the commencement of
the 20 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at approximately
9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety zone will increase in size and
encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 38[deg]03'19'' N,
121[deg]31'54'' W (NAD83) for the Delta Independence

Day Celebration Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 14.
This safety zone will be in effect from 10 a.m. on July 2, 2014 to 10
p.m. on July 4, 2014.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that
the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in
this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant
general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 23, 2014.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2014-14401 Filed 6-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30420-30423]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10671]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0215; FRL-8999-03-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval for Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an omission of timely comment and
response in the September 28, 2021, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) partial approval/partial disapproval of elements of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Michigan to address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Accordingly, this action amends the effective date of the final
approval to reflect EPA's current response to the previously omitted
comment.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 19, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Davidson, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 2021 (86 FR 35247), EPA proposed
to approve most elements and disapprove an element of a SIP submission
from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
(EGLE) to address the required infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2), as applicable, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA
provided an explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of
the submission, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval, in the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and will not be restated here. The public
comment period for this proposed rule ended on August 2, 2021. In the
final rule published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2021 (86
FR 53550), EPA mistakenly omitted comments submitted by Sierra Club in
our response to comments. EPA received the comment letter on August 2,
2021 shortly before the end of the comment period. This comment letter
submitted by Sierra Club is summarized below along with EPA's
responses.
    Comment: Sierra Club commented that EPA should examine whether
Michigan has met the requirement of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(E)(i), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A) and 7410(a)(2)(E)(i), in light
of a 2017 Michigan Court of Claims opinion, United States Steel Corp.
v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, No. 16-000202-MZ, 2017 WL 5974195
(Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 4, 2017), that invalidated Michigan Administrative
Code (MAC) 336.1430 (``Rule 430''). The commenter noted that Michigan
promulgated Rule 430 in an effort to bring the Detroit area into
attainment with the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS, by placing SO2 emission limits on a single facility.
The commenter further noted that the Court invalidated Rule 430 because
the limits applied to a single facility, thus failing the ``general
applicability'' requirement of Michigan's Administrative Procedures
Act, MCL 24.201 et seq. The implication of this comment is that
Michigan lacks legal authority to regulate sources as necessary to
implement the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, as required by CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's concern that the
Michigan Court of Claims decision in United States Steel Corp. v. Dept.
of Environmental Quality, indicates that Michigan lacks legal authority
to regulate sources as required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(E)(i). As an initial matter, EPA notes that the state court
decision at issue pertained to implementation of the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS, not the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. For most
purposes, EPA normally evaluates infrastructure SIP submissions for
purposes of the specific NAAQS that is at issue. In this instance,
however, the implications of the state court decision could potentially
affect the state's ability to implement control measures with respect
to other NAAQS as well.
    In this light, EPA has evaluated whether the Michigan Court of
Claims decision in question precludes the state from regulating
specific sources as needed for purposes of meeting nonattainment plan
requirements to result in attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Based on this review, EPA concludes that the court only decided that
the state had improperly sought to impose emissions controls on the
sources at issue through a rule that did not meet state law
requirements for a ``rule of general applicability'' in violation of
relevant state administrative procedures act requirements. By naming
the specific affected source by name, rather than drafting the
requirements in a form that would apply to all similar sources in the
state, the court reasoned that the state law could not pass muster as a
rule of general applicability.
    Instead, the court reasoned that the objective the state sought to
achieve ``sounds more in the nature of that which is ordinarily only
allowed after a contested case hearing or in the permit process.''
Moreover, the court noted that it was ``not unmindful of the facts that
led to the promulgation of Rule 430 or situation that DEQ sought to
address.'' Although the court expressly declined to advise how the
state could properly impose emission limits on the source at issue via
other means, elsewhere in the decision the court noted that the state
and other sources ``agreed to revise pertinent DEQ permits.''
    EPA interprets these statements by the court to indicate that the
state does have authority under Michigan law to impose necessary
emission limitations on sources, as required to meet CAA requirements,
via other legal mechanisms such as permits. EPA notes that in order to
meet CAA SIP requirements, such as nonattainment plan requirements, the
state would need to submit the emission limitations and other related
permit terms (e.g., monitoring, reporting, and record keeping
requirements) to EPA for approval into the federally enforceable SIP
for Michigan.
    In addition, to the extent that the state prefers to proceed via
generally applicable state regulations rather than permits, EPA expects
that Michigan will draft future rules to avoid the concerns raised by
the court which resulted in invalid SO2 limits and make
necessary efforts to implement the 2015 Ozone NAAQS via other means
consistent with state law and meeting CAA requirements for SIP
provisions. Although the commenters expressed concern that the decision
of the court in United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental
Quality indicated that the state lacks requisite authority to implement
its SIP consistent with CAA requirements, EPA does not interpret the
decision so broadly.
    Additionally, EPA also disagrees with the commenter that Michigan's
SIP does not include ``enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures . . . as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements'' CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS more broadly. As stated in the July 2, 2021 proposed
rule (86 FR 35247), under Part 55 of the Natural Resources Protection
Act, (PA 451) promulgated in 1994, Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL)
Sections 324.5503 and 324.5512 authorize the EGLE director to regulate
the discharge of air pollutants, to create rules and to establish
standards regarding air quality and emissions. Specifically, MCL
Section 324.5503 states ``The department may . . . Promulgate rules to
establish standards for ambient air quality and for emissions . . .
Issue permits . . . subject to enforceable emission limitations and
standards and other conditions reasonably necessary to assure
compliance with all applicable requirements of this part, rules
promulgated under this part, and the clean air act.'' and MCL Section
324.5512 states ``(1) . . . department shall promulgate rules for
purposes of doing all of the following: (a) Controlling or prohibiting
air pollution. (b) Complying with the clean air act . . .''
    Michigan also imposes emission limits for ozone precursors in MAC
Rules 336.1101 through 336.2908. Specifically, MAC Rules 336.1601
through 336.1661 apply to existing sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), Rules 336.1701 through 336.1710 apply to new sources
of VOCs, and Rules 336.1801 through 1834 apply to oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from stationary sources. Methods of control

and compliance are contained within these rules and incorporate EPA's
New Source Performance Review standards and NOX budget
trading program. Further, sources in Michigan that install equipment
that will emit ozone precursors are subject to permit-to-install
regulations under MAC Rules 336.1201 through 336.1209 and include
consideration of VOCs and NOX. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program regulations (MAC Rules 336.2801 through
Rule 336.2823) require any new major or modified source to undergo PSD
review.\1\ EPA believes the emission limits for ozone and its
precursors contained in these rules, in conjunction with the
authorization to promulgate rules to assure compliance with the CAA in
MCL Sections 324.5503 and 324.5512, satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements
for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective February 16, 2017 (82 FR 5182), EPA updated the
modeling appendix at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. EPA proposed
approval of Michigan Part 9 rules on March 24, 2021 (86 FR 15837),
incorporating the CFR update. The finalization of the rule update
will dictate finalization of this element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, EPA reiterates that Michigan has provided necessary
assurances that it has ``adequate . . . authority under State . . . law
to carry out the implementation plan . . . and is not prohibited by any
Provision of Federal or State law, from carrying out such
implementation plan.'' As EPA noted in the July 2, 2021, proposed rule
(86 FR 35247), EGLE stated in the SIP submission that it has the legal
authority to carry out the Michigan SIP under Act 451 and the Executive
Reorganization Order 2011-1. In addition, EGLE indicated that MCL
324.5503 provides it with authority to enforce the Michigan SIP.
Specifically, MCL 324.5503(f) gives EGLE the power to enforce permits,
air quality fee requirements, and the requirements to obtain a permit,
while 324.5503(g) gives EGLE the authority to institute proceedings to
compel compliance. EGLE also provided a delegation letter in the
submission from the Governor to the EGLE director that delegates
authority to EGLE to ``. . . make any submittal, request, or
application under the federal CAA, including the ability to carry out
SIP requirements.'' This letter is included in the docket of this
ruling. Therefore, EPA believes that Michigan has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(E)(i) with respect to the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
    This action amends the regulatory text to correct the effective
date of our final approval to reflect our response to these additional
comments, in addition to correcting the CFR citation to reflect that
EGLE's submission meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i),
which was detailed in the July 2, 2021, proposed approval (86 FR
35247), but mistakenly omitted in the CFR table.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that
there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal
and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting incorrect
element approval citations and incorrect effective date citations in
the related previous actions to address mistakenly omitted comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action is not a significant regulatory action subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). This action does not impose an information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Because the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action
is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the
regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This action will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments,
as specified by E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). In addition,
the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by E.O.
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant. This action is also not subject to E.O.
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus
the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The
action also does not involve special consideration of environmental
justice related issues as required by E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and
EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the
issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided
by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and
public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief
statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had made such a
good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an
effective date of May 19, 2022. This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for
Michigan is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 12, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the
2015 ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic or  submittal   EPA approval date         Comments
           provision                 nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Infrastructure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide................   3/8/2019  5/19/2022, [INSERT  Approved CAA
 infrastructure requirements                                            Federal Register    elements:
 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.                                              CITATION].          110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                Prong 3, D(ii),
                                                                                (E)(i), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                and (M). Disapproved
                                                                                CAA element
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
                                                                                Prong 4. No action
                                                                                on CAA element
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                and
                                                                                110(1)(2)(E)(ii).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-10671 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48300-48301]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2435-000]

ORNI 41 LLC, Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
ORNI 41 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 9, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20732 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 71815-71816]
[DOCID:fr30no05-35]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-102-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

November 23, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 18, 2005, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff

sheets, to become effective December 19, 2005:

1st Rev Eighth Revised Sheet No. 336.
Original Sheet No. 336A.
Second Revised Sheet No. 343.
1st Rev Second Revised Sheet No. 344.
1st Rev Third Revised Sheet No. 345.

    EPNG states that the tariff sheets are being submitted to revise
certain bid evaluation options available for capacity release
transactions to provide for multi-month releases with varying monthly
contract quantities.
    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 in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6693 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22543-22545]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0457; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-019-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries a.s. Model L 23
Super Blanik Gliders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Cracks on the stabilizer elevator inner hinges of seven L 23
SUPERBLAN[Iacute]K sailplanes have been detected during an
inspection.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in no longer
retaining the elevator in place and in jamming of the Pilot[acute]s
elevator control system, and subsequent loss of elevator control.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 14, 2010.

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://
www.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 proposed AD, the regulatory 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: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; 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-2010-0457;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-019-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 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 29, 2010, we issued AD 2010-08-01, Amendment 39-16256 (75
FR 17295; April 6, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    AD 2010-08-01, was issued as an interim action in order to address
the need for the immediate inspection of the elevator inner hinges on
the stabilizer.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Emergency AD No.: 2010-0037-E, dated March 8, 2010 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products.
    The EASA AD allows for repetitively inspecting the elevator inner
hinges on the stabilizer for cracks or damage at intervals not to
exceed every 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS), and, if you find any
elevator inner hinge on the elevator is cracked or damaged, before
further flight, replacing it.
    The Administrative Procedure Act does not permit the FAA to
``bootstrap'' a long-term requirement into an urgent safety of flight
action where the rule becomes effective at the same time the public has
the opportunity to comment. The short-term action and the long-term
action were analyzed separately for justification to bypass prior
public notice.
    We are issuing this proposed AD to address the requirement that you
repetitively inspect the elevator inner hinges on the stabilizer at
intervals not to exceed every 1,000 hours TIS.

Relevant Service Information

    Aircraft Industries a.s. has issued Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L23/
052a, dated March 2, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 103 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $17,510, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of
$840 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.

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); 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 a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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 removing Amendment 39-16256 (75 FR
17295; April 6, 2010), and adding the following new AD:

Aircraft Industries a.s.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0457; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-019-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 14, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2010-08-01, Amendment 39-16256.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model L 23 Super Blanik Gliders, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55:
Stabilizers.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Cracks on the stabilizer elevator inner hinges of seven L 23
SUPERBLAN[Iacute]K sailplanes have been detected during an
inspection.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in no longer
retaining the elevator in place and in jamming of the Pilot's
elevator control system, and subsequent loss of elevator control.
    For the reasons stated above, this Emergency AD requires the
inspection of the elevator inner hinges, and the accomplishment of
the relevant corrective actions as necessary.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before further flight as of April 6, 2010 (the effective
date of AD 2010-08-01), inspect the elevator inner hinges on the
stabilizer in accordance with paragraphs A.1., A.2. and A.4. of
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L23/052a, dated
March 2, 2010.
    (2) Repetitively inspect thereafter the elevator inner hinges on
the stabilizer in accordance with paragraphs A.1., A.2. and A.4. of
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L23/052a, dated
March 2, 2010, at intervals not to exceed every 1,000 hours time-in-
service.
    (3) If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, you find any elevator inner hinge on
the elevator is cracked or damaged, before further flight, replace
it in accordance with paragraphs A.3. and A.4. of Aircraft
Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L23/052a, dated March 2,
2010.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). 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 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Emergency AD No.: 2010-0037-E, dated
March 8, 2010; and Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB
No.: L23/052a, dated March 2, 2010, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 22, 2010.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9951 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P