[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80423-80424]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17g-4; SEC File No. 270-566, OMB Control No. 3235-0627.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-4 (17 CFR 240.17g-4)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
(``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 added a new section
15E, ``Registration of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating
Organizations,'' \1\ to the Exchange Act. Pursuant to the authority
granted under section 15E of the Exchange Act, the Commission adopted
Rule 17g-4, which requires that a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization (``NRSRO'') establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures to prevent the misuse of material
nonpublic information, including policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent: (a) The inappropriate dissemination of material
nonpublic information obtained in connection with the performance of
credit rating services; (b) a person within the NRSRO from trading on
material nonpublic information; and (c)

the inappropriate dissemination of a pending credit rating action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-7.
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-4; Release No. 34-55231 (Feb. 2, 2007),
72 FR 6378 (Feb. 9, 2007); Release No. 34-55857 (June 5, 2007), 72
FR 33564 (June 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission
as NRSROs under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already
established the policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-4. Based
on staff experience, an NRSRO is estimated to spend an average of
approximately 10 hours per year reviewing its policies and procedures
regarding material nonpublic information and updating them (if
necessary), resulting in an average industry-wide annual hour burden of
approximately 100 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 10 currently registered NRSROs x 10 hours = 100 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32392 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26888-26891]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09395]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0341; Product Identifier 2020-NM-017-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs)
related to fuel tank ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation
system. This proposed AD would require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
latest revision of the AWLs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 22,
2020.

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 https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0341; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0341;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-017-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a
final rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83''), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March
5, 2018).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the final rule published on
May 7, 2001, the FAA intended to adopt airworthiness directives to
mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions
identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA has established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in

combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The FAA has determined that the actions identified in this proposed
AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    The FAA issued AD 2008-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16164 (75 FR 1529,
January 12, 2010) (``AD 2008-10-10 R1'') and AD 2018-20-24, Amendment
39-19458 (83 FR 51815, October 15, 2018) (``AD 2018-20-24''), which
apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
and -900 series airplanes. AD 2008-10-10 R1 and AD 2018-20-24 require
incorporation of fuel system AWLs and also require an initial
inspection to phase in certain repetitive inspections, and repair if
necessary. The fuel system AWLs were developed to satisfy SFAR 88
requirements and included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) of the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Since AD 2008-10-10 R1 and AD 2018-20-24 were issued, the ALS has been
significantly revised by the manufacturer to correct technical and
editorial errors and also to add new requirements. Those changes affect
the fuel system and nitrogen generation system AWLs.
    The FAA proposes to adopt this new AD to require revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
latest revision of the AWLs. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent
the potential for ignition sources inside the fuel tanks and also to
prevent increasing the flammability exposure of the center fuel tank
caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance
actions, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent
loss of an airplane.
    The FAA has determined that accomplishing the revision required by
paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would terminate the following
requirements for that airplane:
     All requirements of AD 2008-10-10 R1.
     The revision required by paragraphs (h) and (h)(1) of AD
2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008).
     The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-17-15,
Amendment 39-15653 (73 FR 50714, August 28, 2008).
     The revision required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-18-03,
Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26, 2011).
     All requirements of AD 2013-15-17, Amendment 39-17533 (78
FR 52838, August 27, 2013).
     All requirements of AD 2018-20-24.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special
Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, dated April
2019. This service information describes AWLs that include
airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs) and critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) tasks related to fuel tank
ignition prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
CDCCLs. Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions.
In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The ``description'' column of AWL No. 28-AWL-20 identifies certain
operational tests. However, airplanes on which the actions specified in
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of AD 2011-20-07, Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710,
September 30, 2011), have been done are not required to do the
operational test for left center tank fuel boost pump relay R54 and
right center tank fuel boost pump relay R55.
    Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require operators to revise
their existing maintenance or inspection program by incorporating, in
part, AWL No. 28-AWL-05, ``Wire Separation Requirements for New Wiring
Installed in Proximity to Wiring That Goes Into the Fuel Tanks'' in
Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Special Compliance Items/
Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-9-04, dated April 2019. Paragraph
(h) of this proposed AD would allow certain changes to be made to the
requirements specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-05 as an option.

Clarification of the Service Information

    The ``applicability'' column of AWL No. 28-AWL-19 identifies
affected airplanes. For airplanes on which the actions specified in
paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03 have been done, incorporation of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-28A1206 is not required. Therefore, those
airplanes are not affected by AWL No. 28-AWL-19 and are not required to
do the functional test.
    The ``applicability'' column of AWL No. 28-AWL-23 identifies
affected airplanes. For airplanes on which the actions specified in
paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03 have been done, incorporation of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-28A1248 is not required. Therefore, those
airplanes are not affected by AWL No. 28-AWL-23 and are not required to
do the functional test.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 2,057 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the FAA estimated that this action takes 1
work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or
inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost
per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2020-0341; Product Identifier
2020-NM-017-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by June 22, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(6) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12,
2008) (``AD 2008-06-03'').
    (2) AD 2008-10-10 R1, Amendment 39-16164 (75 FR 1529, January
12, 2010) (``AD 2008-10-10 R1'').
    (3) AD 2008-17-15, Amendment 39-15653 (73 FR 50714, August 28,
2008) (``AD 2008-17-15'').
    (4) AD 2011-18-03, Amendment 39-16785 (76 FR 53317, August 26,
2011) (``AD 2011-18-03'').
    (5) AD 2013-15-17, Amendment 39-17533 (78 FR 52838, August 27,
2013) (``AD 2013-15-17'').
    (6) AD 2018-20-24, Amendment 39-19458 (83 FR 51815, October 15,
2018) (``AD 2018-20-24'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 18,
2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by significant changes made to the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition
prevention and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the development of an ignition source inside the
fuel tanks and also to prevent increasing the flammability exposure
of the center fuel tank, which could lead to fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in Section A, including
Subsections A.1., A.2., and A.3, of Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/
900ER Special Compliance Items/Airworthiness Limitations, D626A001-
9-04, dated April 2019; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this
AD. The initial compliance times for the airworthiness limitation
instruction (ALI) tasks are within the applicable compliance times
specified in in paragraphs (g)(1) through (14) of this AD.
    (1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, ``External Wires Over Center Fuel
Tank:'' Within 120 months after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 120 months after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-01, whichever is later.
    (2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-03, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System
(FQIS)-Out Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination:''
Within 120 months after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 120 months after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-03, whichever is later.
    (3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-19, ``Center Tank Fuel Boost Pump
Automatic Shutoff System:'' Within 12 months after the date of
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the original
export certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after
accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-28A1206, or within 12 months after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-19, whichever is
latest. This AWL does not apply to airplanes that have complied with
paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03.
    (4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-20, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation-Boost Pump Ground Fault
Interrupter (GFI):'' Within 12 months after the date of issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or the original export
certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after accomplishment
of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1201, or
within 12 months after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-20, whichever is latest. For airplanes
that have complied with paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of AD 2011-20-07,
Amendment 39-16818 (76 FR 60710, September 30, 2011), the
operational test for left center tank fuel boost pump relay R54 and
right center tank fuel boost pump relay R55 does not apply.
    (5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-23, ``Center Tank Fuel Boost Pump Power
Failed On Protection System:'' Within 12 months after the date of
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the original
export certificate of airworthiness, within 12 months after
accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-28A1248, or within 12 months after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-23, whichever is
latest. This AWL does not apply to airplanes that have complied with
paragraph (s) of AD 2011-18-03.
    (6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-24, ``Spar Valve Motor Operated Valve
(MOV) Actuator-Lightning and Fault Current Protection Electrical
Bond:'' Within 72 months after accomplishment of the actions
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, or

within 72 months after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24, whichever is later.
    (7) For AWL No. 28-AWL-29, ``Full Cushion Clamps and Teflon
Sleeving (If Installed) Installed on Out-of-Tank Wire Bundles
Installed on Brackets that are Mounted Directly on the Fuel Tanks:''
For airplanes having line numbers (L/N) 1 through 1754 inclusive,
within 120 months after accomplishment of the actions specified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1279. For airplanes having L/N 1755
and subsequent, within 120 months after the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or the original export
certificate of airworthiness, or within 48 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
    (8) For AWL No. 28-AWL-35, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System
(FQIS)--Center Fuel Tank In-Tank Component and Wire Harness
Protection Features--Separation from Center Tank Internal
Structure:'' For airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-28-1356, within 120 months after accomplishment of the
actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1356, or within
120 months after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-35, whichever is later.
    (9) For AWL No. 28-AWL-37, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System
(FQIS)--Built in Test Equipment (BITE) Test:'' For airplane L/Ns
6987 and 7000 and subsequent, within 750 flight hours since the date
the most recent BITE test was accomplished as specified in AWL No.
28-AWL-37, or within 750 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD, whichever is later.
    (10) For AWL No. 47-AWL-04, ``Nitrogen Generation System-Thermal
Switch:'' Within 22,500 flight hours after the date of issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or the original export
certificate of airworthiness, within 22,500 flight hours after
accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-47-1003, or within 22,500 flight hours after the most recent
inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-04,
whichever is latest.
    (11) For AWL No. 47-AWL-06, ''Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)-
Cross Vent Check Valve:'' Within 13,000 flight hours after the date
of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the
original export certificate of airworthiness, within 13,000 flight
hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-47-1003, or within 13,000 flight hours after
the most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 47-
AWL-06, whichever is latest.
    (12) For AWL No. 47-AWL-07, ``Nitrogen Generation System (NGS)-
Nitrogen Enriched Air (NEA) Distribution Ducting Integrity:'' Within
6,500 flight hours after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of
airworthiness, within 6,500 flight hours after accomplishment of the
actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-47-1003, or within
6,500 flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-07, whichever is latest.
    (13) For AWL No. 47-AWL-09, ``Nitrogen Generation System--Oxygen
Sensor:'' Within 18,000 flight hours after the date of issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or the original export
certificate of airworthiness, or within 18,000 flight hours after
the most recent replacement was performed as specified in AWL No.
47-AWL-09, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is latest.
    (14) For AWL No. 28-AWL-101, ``Engine Fuel Suction Feed
Operational Test:'' Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months,
whichever occurs first, after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of
airworthiness; or within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever
occurs first, after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101; whichever is later.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

    As an option, when accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, the changes specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (2) of this AD are acceptable.
    (1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-05 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS
13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are acceptable: MIL-
W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/
32 (M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (M22759/34), MIL-W-
22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86
(M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (M22759/87), MIL-W-
22759/92, and SAE AS22759/92 (M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 and NEMA
WC 27500 cables constructed from these military or SAE specification
wire types, as applicable.
    (2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-05 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for
wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are acceptable:
Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, after the
existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions,
intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Terminating Action for Certain AD Requirements

    Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (6) of this AD for that airplane.
    (1) The revision required by paragraphs (h) and (h)(1) of AD
2008-06-03.
    (2) All requirements of AD 2008-10-10 R1.
    (3) The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-17-15.
    (4) The revision required by paragraph (k) of AD 2011-18-03.
    (5) All requirements of AD 2013-15-17.
    (6) All requirements of AD 2018-20-24.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3556; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on April 23, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09395 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63786]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2013-N-0375, FDA-2013-N-1147, FDA-2010-N-0083, FDA-
2013-N-0115, FDA-2013-N-1588, and FDA-2016-N-1593]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements
for the information collections are available on the internet at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved By OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                  No.           expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement for Shipments of Devices for         0910-0131       9/30/2025
 Sterilization..........................
Environmental Impact Considerations.....       0910-0322       9/30/2025
Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal       0910-0339       9/30/2025
 Food or Feed; Animal Proteins
 Prohibited in Ruminant Feed............
Manufactured Food Regulatory Program           0910-0601       9/30/2025
 Standards..............................
Tobacco Products, Exemptions From              0910-0684       9/30/2025
 Substantial Equivalence Requirements...
Medical Device Accessories..............       0910-0823       9/30/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 14, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-22762 Filed 10-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

December 1, 2006

Via Fax and Email

Mr. Ian S. Chart

Vice President, Director of Regulatory Affairs

4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Dear Mr. Chart:

	In your letter of November 6, 2006, you noted that the Agency had not
made available the Agency’s responses to the Phase 5 comments for
PCNB.  In scrutinizing the public docket for the PCNB reregistration
decision, we found that the two documents responding to the Phase 5
comments had been omitted inadvertently from the public docket.  We have
since emailed Amvac copies of the two documents (one developed by our
Environmental Fate and Effects Division and one by our Health Effects
Division) and submitted both documents to the docket for posting.  We
apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced as a result of
our oversight, and have extended the public comment period on the PCNB
RED for approximately 30 days to allow review of these documents by your
company and other members of the interested public.  The notice
announcing the extension, this letter, and your letter of November 6
have been or will be added to the docket.

	We will take this opportunity to reiterate our views with regard to
other information you assert is necessary for formulating your comments
on the PCNB RED.  You have requested additional guidance and information
on the food web modeling and the use of an ecological risk endpoint from
the Chemtura two-generation reproduction study in the rat.  Reference
was made in the PCNB RED and/or documentation supporting the RED to both
the model and this reproduction study.

Role of food web modeling and an alternate endpoint in ecological risk
conclusions

	As we noted in our letter to you dated October 20, 2006, the food web
model and the endpoint from a different reproduction study play a
limited role in the Agency’s characterization of the ecological risks
associated with the use of PCNB.

	To emphasize our earlier statements, the food web modeling is just one
of many considerations that support the Agency’s conclusion that the
environmental fate characteristics of PCNB add qualitatively to the
risks estimated via risk quotients.  The Agency has not used the results
of the modeling to quantify risks.

	The Chemtura reproduction study (hereafter referred to as the alternate
study or the alternate reproduction study) was used to illustrate other
possible outcomes for calculating risk quotients based on an endpoint
more applicable to wildlife effects of interest.  The Agency has not
used calculations based on the alternate study endpoint to quantify
risks, but qualitatively, to suggest how the risk quotients would differ
if based on other adverse effects.

	Even when used in a qualitative sense, the food web model and alternate
endpoint are just a subset of information the Agency reviewed when
formulating its conclusion that the risk quotients reported in the PCNB
RED underestimate actual risks to wildlife.  Most importantly, as we
have written in past correspondence, our conclusions about the
ecological risks associated with PCNB and its metabolites would not
differ had the model and the alternate endpoint not been considered.

References to food web modeling and the rodent reproduction studies in
the RED and supporting documentation

	A reference to the food web model and the outputs of this modeling for
PCNB is made in the Environmental Risk section of the RED:  “…
application of the Gobas food web bioaccumulation model developed by
EPA’s Office of Water … suggests that the aquatic food chain can
serve as a mechanism for significant bioaccumulation …”

	Additional references to the model appear in the April 26, 2006 memo
entitled “Synopsis of Pentachloronitrobenzene Environmental Loading
and Ecological Risk” developed by our Environmental Fate and Effects
Division (EFED) and posted to the PCNB docket in support of the RED.
The memo refers to the model and concludes that examination of available
information (of which the outputs for the model are but one piece) has
led the Agency to the conclusion that “PCNB is…expected to
bioaccumulate in aquatic food chains,” and cites potential
bioaccumulation factors that have been derived from the model for
species at different levels in the food web.

An alternate study endpoint that is more sensitive than the endpoint
used to calculate chronic mammalian risk quotients for PCNB is also
discussed in the RED.  The RED notes that the endpoint used to calculate
chronic mammalian risk quotients is the same endpoint used in the
estimation of chronic human health risks.  The adverse effects
associated with that endpoint are cellular level effects to the thyroid
and liver.  The RED states that the relevance of these effects and their
relationship to more typical ecological assessment endpoints (e.g.,
impaired reproduction, growth, and survival) are not clear.  Other
effects, such as the reduced pup weights observed in the alternate
study, may be more relevant.  The RED goes on to say that the alternate
endpoint is not part of the risk assessments, but that risk quotients
based on the alternate endpoint would be much greater than the risk
quotients cited in the RED.  The RED does not provide risk quotients
based on the alternate endpoint, and reference is not made in any of the
supporting documents for the RED to risk quotients derived from an
alternate chronic endpoint for mammalian wildlife.

Amvac’s request for additional information on the food web model

	In the November 6 letter, Amvac has asked for a description of the
modifications made to the Arnot and Gobas food web model.  In previous
letters requesting extensions to the comment period for the PCNB RED,
Amvac has requested additional information on the food web model, and
the Agency has in each reply attempted to provide relevant information
Amvac can use to advance its understanding of the role the model plays
in the reregistration decision.

	Throughout our post-RED correspondence with Amvac, the Agency has
repeatedly written that the food web model plays only a minor role in
conclusions about the ecological risks associated with the use of PCNB.
We now reiterate that position.

Amvac’s request for additional information on the alternate
reproduction study

	Also in the November 6 letter, Amvac has requested documents from the
Health Effects Division (HED) or Environmental Fate and Effects Division
concerning the endpoint from the alternate study.  Amvac had previously
asked for the data evaluation report (DER) for this study, and all
relevant HED reviews (e.g., a HIARC review).  These same requests were
made in previous correspondence.

	The Agency reiterates that the HIARC review and the HED toxicology
chapter, both of which discuss the reproduction studies, have been
available on the PCNB docket for some time.  As we have advised you
before, these documents do not discuss the relevance of study endpoints
to effects in wildlife, but rather to the assessment of human risks.

	As noted several times previously, the Agency did not in fact rely on
the alternate study for quantifying risks to wildlife.  The RED mentions
it incidentally as a way to show that selection of an endpoint that
might be considered as more relevant would result in higher risk
quotients.

Potential impact of these two elements on the Agency’s conclusions
about risk

	The Agency has stated in responses to earlier Amvac correspondence that
its conclusions about the ecological risks associated with PCNB and its
metabolites would not differ had the food web model and the alternate
mammalian endpoint not been considered.  Instead, the Agency concluded
that a combination of factors, including most particularly the
environmental persistence of PCNB and its metabolites, serve to indicate
that the calculated risk quotients for PCNB tend to understate the risks
to wildlife.

	Because the limited discussion of the alternate mammalian endpoint in
the RED adds so little to the characterization of wildlife risks
associated with the use of PCNB, the Agency will amend the RED to note
that the Agency has removed the alternate endpoint from consideration in
its risk assessment.

	The Agency’s conclusions about the risks associated with PCNB use
would be the same without the results of the food web model discussed in
the PCNB RED and related documentation.  The model is just one of many
kinds of information that support our conclusion that the environmental
fate characteristics of PCNB add to the risks estimated via the Risk
Quotient approach to ecological risk assessment.  Discussion of the
model in the RED was intended to provide, qualitatively, additional
support for one of those characteristics, i.e., PCNB’s potential to
bioaccumulate.

	The food web model has not been validated for use on compounds such as
PCNB, nor are empirical data available to corroborate the model outputs
cited in the RED documents.  For this reason, the Agency has determined
that we cannot at this time rely on the model, either qualitatively or
quantitatively, to provide confirmatory data for the characterization of
the bioaccumulative potential of PCNB. The Agency’s overall
conclusions about bioaccumulation and its impact on the ecological risks
posed by PCNB use remain unchanged.  If Amvac believes that the Agency
has not drawn appropriate conclusions about how this bioaccumulation
contributes to ecological risk, the company is free to develop empirical
data to address its concerns.  The Agency has developed guidelines for
bioaccumulation studies which can serve as the basis for such testing.

	Based on our removal of the alternate mammalian endpoint and the food
web model from consideration in the risk assessment, the Agency believes
that detailed comments from Amvac on either element will have no impact
on the Agency’s conclusions about the risks associated with PCNB use.
Comments submitted by Amvac on these two subjects will be addressed in
the same way they have been addressed since the release of the RED, and
reiterated in this correspondence—by noting that the conclusions of
the RED would be the same even if we had not considered them.

Depuration and the presence of PCNB and metabolites in the aquatic
environment

	Your letter of November 6 requests that the Agency provide support for
the statement in our October 20 letter that “depuration plays little
or no role in bioaccumulation of PCNB and its metabolites at all trophic
levels in the aquatic environment.”  You further ask that we provide
support for the assumption of continuous steady-state concentrations of
PCNB in the water column and sediment.

	The Agency and Amvac have discussed the potential for depuration of
PCNB residues by aquatic animals before.  The Agency’s notes from a
January 26, 2006 meeting with representatives of Chemtura and Amvac
(including yourself) attribute to Agency personnel the statement that
“[t]he opportunity for depuration is limited because exposures to PCNB
and its PCA degradate would likely be continuous.”  The RED states,
“…[T]he impact of depuration is limited by the persistence of PCNB
and its metabolites in the aquatic environment, which create a regular
source of exposure.”  Since PCNB and its metabolites are very
persistent in the aquatic environment, residues will remain in the water
column, and potentially in food sources for aquatic animals, long after
fresh inputs are made to the environment.  It should be expected that
persistent environmental residues of PCNB will continue to be taken up
by aquatic animals, even as they are eliminating PCNB residues from
their bodies.

	The Agency did not claim that PCNB residues maintain a steady state in
the environment, but that their persistence provides a regular source of
exposure.  Repeated applications during the growing season and
subsequent seasons are likely to result in the continued presence of
residues in the aquatic environment.

Third extension of the comment period

	Although the Agency will remove both the food web model and the
alternate reproduction study from consideration at this time, the public
did not have access to the Phase 5 comments developed by the Agency and
inadvertently omitted from the docket until recently.  To allow
interested parties to review those documents, the Agency has extended
the comment period on the PCNB for a third time, to January 8, 2007.  A
notice was published in the Federal Register on November 29 announcing
the extension.

					Sincerely,

/s/

					Debra Edwards, Ph.D.,

					Director, Special Review and

					  Reregistration Division (7508P)

 The notes Amvac provided for the same meeting differ somewhat, amending
the language here to add:  “EPA provided no data to support this
hypothesis…”

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50867-50868]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22010]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0022; FRL-9985-25-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Removal of Obsolete Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing removal
of the outdated rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the
State of Oregon because they are duplicative or obsolete. Removal of
such material from the air program subparts is designed to improve cost
effectiveness and usability of the CFR. The EPA is also proposing to
make non-substantive revisions to reflect updated citations and correct
a typographical error. This proposed action makes no substantive
changes to the Oregon State Implementation Plan and imposes no new
requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0022 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, at
(360) 753-9081, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Introduction

    This action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. It is intended to reduce
the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by
identifying those rules in 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, for the State of
Oregon that are duplicative or obsolete. One aspect of the EPA's
proposed action removes historical information found in the ``Approval
of plans'' section in 40 CFR 52.1973, ``Original Identification of
plan'' section in 40 CFR 52.1974, ``Content of approved State submitted
implementation plan'' section in 40 CFR 52.1977, and ``Control
Strategy: Ozone'' section in 40 CFR 52.1982. These rules no longer have
any use or legal effect because they have been superseded by
subsequently approved state implementation plan (SIP) revisions or they
are no longer necessary because the EPA previously promulgated
administrative rule actions to replace these sections with summary
tables in 40 CFR 52.1970 (78 FR 74012, December 10, 2013). These
summary tables describe the regulations, source-specific actions, and
non-regulatory requirements that comprise the SIP.

II. Removal of Duplicative or Obsolete Rules and Non-Substantive
Changes to Certain Rules

    The EPA reviewed the following regulations and found that they
should be removed or revised for the reasons set forth as follows:

A. Section 52.1973 Approval of Plans

    As discussed above, this section is no longer necessary because the
EPA replaced the historical information contained in this section with
summary tables in Sec.  52.1970 (78 FR 74012, December 10, 2013). The
EPA reviewed Sec.  52.1973 to verify that all relevant historical
information in this section is contained in Sec.  52.1970. The EPA is
therefore proposing to remove Sec.  52.1973.

B. Section 52.1974 Original Identification of Plan Section

    Sections 52.1974(b) and (c) of this section, originally designated
as 40 CFR 52.1970(b) and (c), contain historical information about the
EPA's approval actions for the Oregon SIP which occurred from January
25, 1972, until September 1, 2013. On December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74012),
the EPA reorganized the Identification of plan section (Sec.  52.1970)
for subpart MM by listing and summarizing Oregon's currently approved
SIP requirements in Sec.  52.1970(a) through (e). EPA is proposing to
remove Sec.  52.1974(b) and (c) because the EPA has determined it is no
longer necessary to codify the information found in these paragraphs.
Section 52.1974(a) is being amended to state that this historical
information will continue to be made available in the CFR annual
editions, Title 40 part 52 (years 1996 through 2013). These annual
editions are available on line at the following url address: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.

C. Section 52.1977 Content of Approved State Submitted Implementation
Plan

    As previously discussed, the EPA reorganized the Identification of
Plan section (Sec.  52.1970) for subpart MM by listing and summarizing
Oregon's currently approved SIP requirements in Sec.  52.1970(a)
through (e) (78 FR 74012, December 10, 2013). Section 52.1977, last
revised January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2904), is out of date and no longer
correct. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this section.

D. Section 52.1982 Control Strategy: Ozone

    This section, last updated on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2909), is out
of date. Current attainment and maintenance plan status for the Salem/
Portland and Medford/Ashland areas can be found in the summary tables
in Sec.  52.1970. The EPA reviewed Sec.  52.1982 to verify that all
relevant historical information in this section is contained in Sec.
52.1970. The outdated text of Sec.  52.1982(a) contains two
clarifications regarding implementation of the attainment plans. The
EPA and Oregon subsequently resolved both issues. The EPA recently
approved a revised version of Oregon Administrative Rule 340-232-
0160(6) (82 FR 47122, October 11, 2017), which incorporates the
requirement of Sec.  52.1982(a)(i). In the same October 11, 2017
action, the EPA also approved a revised version of Oregon
Administrative Rule<PHONE_NUMBER>(1), which no longer contains the
language, ``in most cases.'' The EPA is therefore proposing to remove
Sec.  52.1982.

E. Section 52.1988 Air Contaminant Discharge Permits

    This paragraph contains an incorrect rule citation cross reference.
The EPA is proposing to correct a typographical error and correct the
two citations from OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> to the correct citation, OAR 340-
226-0400.

III. Proposed Action

    This proposed action is a ``housekeeping'' exercise that merely
recommends removal of duplicative or obsolete CFR provisions and
corrects a non-substantive typographical error. This proposed action
makes no substantive changes to the SIP. The EPA is proposing that the
above referenced rules should be removed and the typographical error
corrected, and that these changes be accurately reflected in 40 CFR
part 52, subpart MM for the State of Oregon. The EPA proposes removing
the duplicative or obsolete rules because they have been revised or
superseded by subsequently approved SIP revisions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely removes duplicative or
obsolete rules and corrects non-substantive typographical errors and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 27, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-22010 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 17705-17706]
[DOCID:fr16ap09-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59745; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 (Designation of Accounts) as a FINRA Rule in
the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

April 10, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 26, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) 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 substantially prepared by
FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 (Designation
of Accounts) as a FINRA rule in the consolidated FINRA rulebook with
minor changes. The proposed rule change would renumber Incorporated
NYSE Rule 406 as FINRA Rule 3250 in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt
Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook with
minor changes, discussed below. The proposed rule change would renumber
Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 as FINRA Rule 3250. Incorporated NYSE Rule
406 provides that no member organization shall carry an account on its
books in the name of a person other than that of the customer, except
that an account may be designated by a number or symbol, provided the
member has on file a written statement signed by the customer attesting
the ownership of such account. In effect, this rule establishes a
general requirement that a member must hold each customer account in
the customer's name, except that a member may identify a customer's
account with a number or symbol, as long as the member maintains
documentation identifying the customer.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
    \4\ Members are subject to additional requirements regarding
customer accounts. See, e.g., Rule 17a-3(a)(9) under the Act
(requiring records indicating the name and address of the beneficial
owner of each cash and margin customer account). 17 CFR 240.17a-
3(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 applies only to Dual Members
(i.e.,

members of both FINRA and NYSE), and NYSE has enforced the rule to
address, among other things, sales practice abuses such as co-mingling
of funds, failure to disclose ownership interests in accounts and
unauthorized trading.\5\ FINRA proposes to adopt Incorporated NYSE Rule
406 as FINRA Rule 3250 as it believes that this rule will continue to
be an important enforcement tool and should be expanded to apply to the
entire FINRA membership. FINRA further notes that the Rule may provide
members' customers with a level of anonymity within the member and with
certain external relationships that they find useful, while still
allowing customers' identities to be clearly known to members and
available to regulators. Consequently, FINRA proposes to adopt
Incorporated NYSE Rule 406 as FINRA Rule 3250 with minor changes to
replace references to ``member organization'' or ``organization'' with
the term ``member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Robert S. Bartek, Exchange Hearing Panel Decision
73-60 (August 28, 1973); Jeffrey Alan Schultz, Exchange Hearing
Panel Decision 82-23 (March 18, 1982); Kery Shane Hutner, Exchange
Hearing Panel Decision 02-27 (January 31, 2002). See also NYSE
Information Memo 78-80, Members' Accounts and Initiating Orders on
the NYSE Floor (November 10, 1978) (addressing, among other things,
NYSE Rule 406(1), now Rule 406).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, FINRA will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
FINRA with an important tool to further ensure that FINRA members
appropriately designate each customer account, while also providing a
reasonable means of permitting customers to maintain a certain level of
anonymity, subject to appropriate documentation identifying the owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-017 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-FINRA-2009-017. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-017 and should be
submitted on or before May 7, 2009.

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8655 Filed 4-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P