the system. MSRB staff advised Commission staff that the personnel
costs associated with operating the portal for continuing disclosure
documents would be approximately $400,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Retention Period of Recordkeeping Requirements

    As an SRO subject to Rule 17a-1 under the Exchange Act,\111\ if the
proposed amendments to the Rule were adopted, the MSRB would be
required to retain records of the collection of information for a
period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily
accessible place. The proposed amendments to the Rule would contain no
recordkeeping requirements for any other persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 17 CFR 240.17a-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Collection of Information is Mandatory

    Any collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments
to the Rule would be a mandatory collection of information.

H. Responses to Collection of Information Will Not Be Kept Confidential

    The collection of information pursuant to the proposed amendments
to the Rule would not be confidential and would be publicly available.

I. Request for Comments

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits
comments regarding: (1) Whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the
revised collections of information; (3) whether there are ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    The Commission has submitted to OMB for approval the proposed

revisions to the current collection of information titled ``Municipal
Securities Disclosure.'' Persons submitting comments on the collection
of information requirements should direct them to the Office of
Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-0609, with reference to File No. S7-21-08, and be
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. As OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and
60 days after publication, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard
to this collection of information should be in writing, should refer to
File No. S7-21-08, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549.

V. Costs and Benefits of Proposed Amendments to Rule 15c2-12

    The Commission is considering the costs and benefits of the
proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-12 discussed above. As discussed
below, the Commission believes that there would be an overall reduction
in costs based on the proposed amendments. The Commission encourages
commenters to identify, discuss, analyze, and supply relevant data
regarding any such costs or benefits.

A. Benefits

    Under the proposed amendments to the Rule, a Participating
Underwriter would be prohibited from purchasing or selling municipal
securities covered by the Rule in a primary offering, unless it has
reasonably determined that the issuer of a municipal security has
undertaken in a continuing disclosure agreement to provide continuing
disclosure documents to the MSRB.\112\ The Commission believes that
providing for a single repository that receives submissions in an
electronic format, rather than multiple repositories, would encourage a
more efficient and effective process for the collection and
availability of continuing disclosure information. In the Commission's
view, a single electronic point of collection and accessibility of
continuing disclosure documents could assist issuers and obligated
persons in complying with their undertakings. Submission of continuing
disclosure documents only to one repository rather than multiple
repositories would reduce the resources issuers and obligated persons
need to devote to the process of gathering and submitting continuing
disclosure documents. Because the proposed amendments would provide for
the electronic submission and availability of continuing disclosure
documents, the costs to issuers and obligated persons of gathering and
submitting this information ultimately could be reduced because they no
longer would have to gather and submit documents in a paper format. As
described more fully in Section IV. above, Commission staff estimates
that the ongoing annual information collection burden under the
proposed amendments would be 64,500 hours.\113\ This is a reduction of
59,350 hours from the 2006 PRA Submission.\114\ This overall reduction
in the Rule's paperwork burden--and the costs associated with that
burden--principally would benefit issuers or obligated persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Under the proposed amendments to paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of
the Rule, a Participating Underwriter would be exempt from its
obligations under paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule as long as an issuer
or obligated person has agreed in its limited undertaking that the
publicly available financial information or operating data described
in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of the Rule would be submitted to the
MSRB annually, instead of upon request to any person or at least
annually to the appropriate SID, if any, and that the material event
notices described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of the Rule would be
submitted to the MSRB, instead of to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and to
the appropriate SID, if any, and as long as the other conditions of
the exemption are met.
    \113\ Commission staff estimates that the annual information
collection burden under the proposed amendments in the first year
would be 64,625 hours.
    \114\ In the first year, this is a reduction of 59,225 from the
2006 PRA Submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that having a single repository that
receives and makes available submissions in an electronic format would
provide ready and prompt access to this information by investors and
municipal securities market participants. Investors and market
participants would be able to go solely to one location to retrieve
continuing disclosure documents rather than having to approach multiple
locations, thereby allowing for a more convenient means to obtain such
information. In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that
having one repository electronically collect and make available all
continuing disclosure documents would increase the likelihood that
investors and other market participants would obtain complete
information.
    The Commission expects that a single repository that receives
submissions in an electronic format could simplify compliance with
regulatory requirements by broker-dealers and others, such as mutual
funds, by providing them with consistent availability of continuing
disclosure documents from a single source. Information vendors
(including NRMSIRs and SIDs) and others also would have ready access to
all continuing disclosure documents that they in turn could use in
their value-added products. The Commission also expects that having a
single repository that receives submissions in an electronic format
would make the information available to all users.
    Under the current Rule, Commission staff estimates that the current
annual paperwork cost for all four NRMSIRs to collect, index, store,
retrieve and disseminate continuing disclosure information requested by
the public to be approximately $7.3 million.\115\ Based on information
provided to Commission staff by MSRB staff in a series of telephone
conversations in February 2008, the MSRB staff estimated that the
MSRB's annual total costs to collect, index, store, retrieve and make
available continuing disclosure information, would be $1,350,000 for
the first year and $350,000 per year thereafter. Providing for a single
repository could reduce the paperwork costs that NRMSIRs currently
incur because they no longer would have to maintain personnel and other
resources solely in connection with their status as a NRMSIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 117,600 hours (total annual hourly burden for all four
NRMSIRs from 2006 PRA Submission) x $62 (hourly wage for a
compliance clerk) = $7.3 million. The $62 per hour estimate for a
compliance clerk is from SIFMA's Office Salaries in the Securities
Industry 2007, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed
amendments could encourage the dissemination of information in the
information services markets by providing easier access to continuing
disclosure documents. As a result, there potentially could be an
increase in the number of information vendors disseminating continuing
disclosure documents and value-added products because the cost of entry
into the municipal securities information services market could be
reduced.

    The Commission seeks comment on the anticipated benefits of the
proposed amendments.

B. Costs

    If the amendments to the Rule were adopted, the Commission would
not expect broker-dealers to incur any additional recurring costs
because the proposed amendments would not alter substantively the
existing Rule's requirements for these entities, except with respect to
the place to which issuers would agree to make filings. The proposed
amendments would change the location where the continuing disclosure
documents of issuers or obligated persons would be submitted pursuant
to continuing disclosure agreements. As noted above, Commission staff
estimates that the annual information collection burden for each
broker-dealer under the proposed amendments to the Rule would be one
hour. This annual burden is identical to the burden that a broker-
dealer has under the current Rule.\116\ Accordingly, Commission staff
estimates that it would cost each broker-dealer $270 annually to comply
with the Rule.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See 2006 PRA Submission.
    \117\ 1 hour (estimated annual information collection burden for
each broker-dealer) x $270 (hourly cost for a broker-dealer's
internal compliance attorney) = $270. The hourly rate for the
compliance attorney is from SIFMA's Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2007, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35
to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Commission staff estimates that a broker-dealer could
have a one-time internal cost associated with having an in-house
compliance attorney prepare and issue a memorandum advising the broker-
dealer's employees who work on primary offerings of municipal
securities about the proposed revisions to Rule 15c2-12, if they are
adopted by the Commission. Commission staff estimates it would take
internal counsel approximately 30 minutes to prepare this memorandum,
for a cost of approximately $135.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See Section IV.D.1., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the ongoing obligations of broker-
dealers under the Rule would be handled internally because compliance
with these obligations is consistent with the type of work that a
broker-dealer typically handles internally. The Commission does not
believe that a broker-dealer would have any recurring external costs
associated with the proposed amendments to the Rule. The Commission
requests comment on any costs broker-dealers could incur under the
proposed amendments.
    Although Rule 15c2-12 relates to the obligations of broker-dealers,
issuers or obligated persons indirectly could incur costs as a result
of the proposed amendments. Pursuant to continuing disclosure
agreements, issuers of municipal securities currently undertake to
provide continuing disclosure documents to the NRMSIRs either directly
or indirectly through an indenture trustee or a designated agent. In
either case, some issuers could be subject to the costs associated with
the proposed electronic filing of annual filings, material event
notices and failure to file notices, particularly if they (or their
agent) currently submit paper copies of these documents to the NRMSIRs.
For those issuers that currently deliver their continuing disclosure
documents electronically to the NRMSIRs, there should be minimal change
in costs as a result of the proposed requirement that documents be
submitted electronically.
    Issuers that presently do not provide their annual filings,
material event notices and/or failure to file notices in an electronic
format and that are currently sending paper copies of their documents
to the NRMSIRs pursuant to their continuing disclosure agreements could
incur some costs to obtain electronic copies of such documents from the
party who prepared them or, alternatively, to have a paper copy
converted into an electronic format. These costs would vary depending
on how the issuer elected to convert their continuing disclosure
documents into an electronic format. An issuer could elect to have a
third-party vendor transfer their paper continuing disclosure documents
into the appropriate electronic format. An issuer also could decide to
undertake the work internally, and its costs would vary depending on
the issuer's current technology resources. An issuer also would need to
have Internet access to submit documents electronically and would incur
the costs of maintaining such service, if the issuer currently does not
have Internet access, unless it relies on other sources of Internet
access.
    It is likely, however, that many issuers of municipal securities
currently possess the computer equipment and software necessary to
convert paper copies of continuing disclosure documents to electronic
copies and to electronically transmit the documents to the MSRB. For
issuers that currently have such capability, the start-up costs to
provide continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB would be minimal
because they already would have the necessary resources internally.
    As described more fully in section IV. above, Commission staff
estimates that the costs to some issuers to submit continuing
disclosure documents to a single repository in an electronic format may
include: (i) An approximate cost of $8 per notice to use a third party
vendor to scan a material event notice or failure to file notice, and
an approximate cost of $64 to use a third party vendor to scan an
average-sized annual financial statement; (ii) an approximate cost
ranging from $750 and $4,300 to acquire technology resources to convert
continuing disclosure documents into an electronic format; (iii) $50 to
$300 to upgrade or acquire the software to submit documents in an
electronic format; (iv) approximately $50 per month to acquire Internet
access; and (v) an approximate cost of $16 per continuing disclosure
document to have a designated agent submit electronically continuing
disclosure documents and identifying information to the MSRB. Also, as
more fully described in Section IV. above, the total estimated cost of
five designated agents developing computer-to-computer interfaces for
the submission of documents to the MSRB would be $693,600.
    Issuers or obligated persons also would have to provide certain
identifying information to the repository pursuant to their
undertakings in continuing disclosure agreements. As described more
fully in section IV. above, Commission staff estimates that each issuer
would submit one to five continuing disclosure documents annually to
the MSRB, for a maximum estimated annual labor cost of approximately
$232.50 per issuer.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 5 (maximum estimated number of continuing disclosure filed
per year per issuer) x $62 (hourly wage for a compliance clerk) x 45
minutes (.75 hours) (average estimated time for compliance clerk to
submit a continuing disclosure document electronically) = $232.50.
The $62 per hour estimate for a compliance clerk is from SIFMA's
Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2007, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead. In order to provide an estimate of total
costs for issuers that would not be under-inclusive, the Commission
elected to use the higher end of the estimate of annual submissions
of continuing disclosure documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission expects that the costs to issuers could vary
somewhat, depending on the issuer's size. The Commission believes that
any such difference would be attributable to the fact that larger
issuers may tend to have more issuances of municipal securities; thus,
larger issuers may tend to submit more documents than smaller issuers.
Thus, the costs of submitting documents

could be greater for larger issuers. The Commission requests comments
on costs that issuers and obligated persons could incur as a result of
the proposed amendments.
    Further, the Commission does not anticipate that issuers would
incur any costs associated with the need to revise the template for
continuing disclosure agreements, if the proposed amendments are
adopted. Commission staff contacted National Association of Bond
Lawyers (``NABL'') staff in April 2008 regarding the potential costs to
issuers for bond lawyers to revise the provisions of continuing
disclosure agreements that would be affected by the proposed
amendments. According to NABL staff, the NABL members advised that the
cost of revising the template for continuing disclosure agreements to
reflect the proposed amendments would be insignificant and stated their
belief that the costs would not be passed on to issuers.
    As discussed in section IV. above, the MSRB would incur costs to
develop the computer system to allow it to collect, store, process,
retrieve, and make available continuing disclosure documents furnished
to it by issuers of municipal securities. Based on information provided
to Commission staff by MSRB staff in a series of telephone
conversations in February 2008, MSRB's start-up costs associated with
developing the portal for continuing disclosure documents, including
hardware, an additional hosting site, and software licensing and
acquisition costs, would be approximately $1,000,000. Based on
information provided to Commission staff by MSRB staff in a series of
telephone conversations in February 2008, the MSRB staff estimated that
the MSRB's ongoing costs of operating the system, including allocated
costs associated with such items as office space and licensing fees,
would be approximately $1,350,000 for the first year and $350,000 per
year thereafter. In addition, MSRB staff advised Commission staff that
the personnel costs associated with operating the portal for continuing
disclosure documents would be approximately $400,000 per year.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Based on information provided to Commission staff by MSRB
staff in telephone conversations in May 2008, this amount represents
the estimated personnel costs associated with the MSRB's having
three and one-half persons devoted to operating the continuing
disclosure portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some NRMSIRs and other vendors of municipal disclosure information
could incur costs in transitioning their business models if the
Commission were to adopt the proposal to establish a single repository
for municipal disclosure documents. In fact, existing NRMSIRs could be
adversely affected by the proposed amendments because the proposal
contemplates a single repository. Any NRMSIR that currently provides
municipal disclosure documents as its primary business model could face
a significant decline in its business, and thus in income, as a result
of the proposed amendments.\121\ In addition, to transition from
multiple repositories to a single repository, the Commission is
considering whether to direct its staff to withdraw the ``no action''
letters issued to the NRMSIRs and to designate the MSRB as the NRMSIR.
As a result, the NRMSIRs could experience an immediate decline in
income with respect to those parts of their business that provide
municipal disclosure documents to persons who request them. Also,
NRMSIRs could have some costs if they continued to maintain historical
continuing disclosure information that they have already received under
existing continuing disclosure agreements. The Commission requests
comment and empirical data on any anticipated costs that NRMSIRs could
incur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See, e.g., Letter from Peter J. Schmitt, Chief Executive
Officer, DPC Data, dated January 23, 2008, regarding SR-MSRB-2007-
06, submitted to www.sec.gov/comments. (``DPC Data Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, under the proposed amendments, Rule 15c2-12 no longer
would refer to SIDs. The proposed amendments would not affect the legal
obligations of issuers or obligated persons to provide continuing
disclosure documents, along with any other submissions, to the
appropriate SID, if any, that may be required under the appropriate
state law. In addition, the proposed amendments would have no effect on
the obligations of issuers and obligated persons under outstanding
continuing disclosure agreements entered into prior to any effective
date of amendments to the Rule, if the Commission were to adopt such
amendments, to submit continuing disclosure documents to the
appropriate SID, if any, as stated in their existing continuing
disclosure agreements, nor on their obligation to make any other
submissions that may be required under the appropriate state law.
Unlike NRMSIRs, SIDs are membership organizations and use information
submitted to them in products for their members. While SIDs can charge
fees for requested documents, the Commission believes, based on
telephone conversations between Commission staff and representatives of
SIDs in April 2008, that this is not a primary source of revenue for
them. The Commission does not expect that SIDs would experience a
decline in operations or incur any costs as a result of the proposed
amendments, but seeks comment on any anticipated impact that the
proposed amendments could have on SIDs.

C. Request for Comment on Costs and Benefits

    To assist the Commission in evaluating the costs and benefits that
could result from the proposed amendments to the Rule, the Commission
requests comments on the potential costs and benefits identified in
this proposal, as well as any other costs or benefits that could result
from the proposed amendments to the Rule. Commenters should provide
analysis and data to support their views on the costs and benefits. In
particular, the Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits
of the proposed amendments on broker-dealers, issuers, the MSRB,
NRMSIRs and other vendors, as well as any costs on others, including
market participants and investors.

VI. Consideration of Burden and Promotion of Efficiency, Competition,
and Capital Formation

    Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act \122\ requires the Commission,
whenever it engages in rulemaking and is required to consider or
determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, to consider whether the action would promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. In addition, section 23(a)(2) of
the Exchange Act \123\ requires the Commission, when adopting rules
under the Exchange Act, to consider the impact such rules would have on
competition. Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act also prohibits the
Commission from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \123\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the Rule would revise subparagraph
(b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 to require Participating Underwriters to
reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has agreed at
the time of a primary offering: (1) To provide the continuing
disclosure documents to the MSRB instead of to each NRMSIR and
appropriate SID; and (2) to provide the continuing disclosure documents
in an electronic format and accompanied by identifying information as
prescribed by the MSRB.

    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
to the Rule should help make the municipal securities disclosure
process more efficient and help conserve resources for municipal
security issuers, as well as investors and market participants. Under
the current regulatory framework, issuers of municipal securities in
their continuing disclosure agreements undertake to submit continuing
disclosure documents to four separate NRMSIRs, and they submit such
documents in paper or electronic form. The Commission anticipates that
amending the Rule could promote the efficiency of the municipal
disclosure process by reducing the resources municipal security issuers
would need to devote to the process of submitting continuing disclosure
documents.
    As noted above, the Commission has long been interested in
improving the timing and availability of disclosure in the municipal
securities market. At the time the Commission adopted Rule 15c2-12 in
1989 and adopted the 1994 Amendments, disclosure documents were
submitted in paper form. The Commission believed that, in such an
environment where document retrieval would be handled manually, the
establishment of one or more repositories could be beneficial in
widening the retrieval and availability of information in the secondary
market, since the public could obtain the disclosure documents from
multiple locations. The Commission's objective of encouraging greater
availability of municipal securities information remains unchanged.
    However, there have been significant inefficiencies in the current
use of multiple repositories that likely have affected the public's
ability to retrieve continuing disclosure documents.\124\ In this
regard, the Commission noted in the 1989 Adopting Release that ``the
creation of multiple repositories should be accompanied by the
development of an information linkage among these repositories'' so as
to afford ``the widest retrieval and dissemination of information in
the secondary market.''\125\ Although the Commission in the 1989
Adopting Release supported the development of an information linkage
among the repositories, none was established to help broaden the
availability of the disclosure information. Also, since the adoption of
the 1994 Amendments, there have been significant advancements in
technology and information systems, including the use of the Internet,
to provide information quickly and inexpensively to market participants
and investors. In this regard, the Commission preliminarily believes
that the use of a single repository to receive, in an electronic
format, and make available continuing disclosure documents in an
electronic format would substantially and effectively increase the
availability of municipal securities information about municipal issues
and enhance the efficiency of the secondary trading market for these
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See note 19, supra.
    \125\ See 1989 Adopting Release, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes that having a
single repository for electronically submitted information would
provide investors, market participants, and others with a more
efficient and convenient means to obtain continuing disclosure
documents and would help increase the likelihood that investors, market
participants, and others would make more informed investment decisions
regarding whether to buy, sell or hold municipal securities.
    With respect to the Exchange Act goal of promoting competition, the
Commission notes that, when it adopted Rule 15c2-12 in 1989, it
strongly supported the development of one or more central repositories
for municipal disclosure documents.\126\ The Commission ``recognize[d]
the benefits that may accrue from the creation of competing private
repositories,'' and indicated that ``the creation of central sources
for municipal offering documents is an important first step that may
eventually encourage widespread use of repositories to disseminate
annual reports and other current information about issuers to the
secondary markets.'' \127\ Further, when it adopted the 1994
Amendments, the Commission stated that the ``requirement to deliver
disclosure to the NRMSIRs and the appropriate SID also allay[ed] the
anti-competitive concerns raised by the creation of a single
repository.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See 1989 Adopting Release at 54 FR 28807, supra note 3.
See also 1994 Proposing Release, supra note 43.
    \127\ See 1989 Adopting Release, supra note 3. See also 1994
Proposing Release, supra note 43.
    \128\ See 1994 Amendments, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been significant advances in technology and information
collection and delivery since that time, as discussed throughout this
release, that indicate that having multiple repositories may not be
necessary because the widespread availability and dissemination of
information can be achieved through different, more efficient, means.
Because the current environment differs markedly from the time when
Rule 15c2-12 was adopted in 1989 and subsequently amended in 1994, the
Commission believes that it is appropriate to propose an approach that
utilizes the significant technological advances, such as the
development and use of various electronic formats, that have occurred
in the intervening years.
    The Commission's proposal to provide for the establishment of a
single repository for continuing disclosure documents would help
further the Exchange Act objective of promoting competition because
information about municipal securities, provided in an electronic
format, would be more widely available to market professionals,
investors, information vendors, and others as a result of the proposed
amendments. For example, the Commission believes competition among
vendors could increase because vendors could utilize this information
to provide value-added services to municipal market participants. The
Commission's proposal also could promote competition in the purchase
and sale of municipal securities because the greater availability of
information as a result of the proposed amendments could instill
greater investor confidence in the municipal securities market.
Moreover, the greater availability of information also could encourage
improvement in the completeness and timeliness of issuer disclosures
and could foster interest in municipal securities by retail and
institutional customers. As a result, more investors could be attracted
to this market sector and broker-dealers could compete for their
business.
    The Commission acknowledges that, if the proposed amendments were
adopted to provide for a single repository, they potentially could have
an adverse impact on one or more existing NRMSIRs, especially if their
business models depended on their status as a NRMSIR.\129\ Moreover,
NRMSIRs have received compensation for providing copies of continuing
disclosure documents to persons who request them. Thus, one or more
NRMSIRs possibly could be adversely affected by the proposal, if they
no longer have available to them a steady flow of funds from providing
for a fee

copies of continuing disclosure documents to persons who request them.
As a result of the proposed amendments, a NRMSIR could find that it
would have to revise its current manner of doing business or face a
significant downturn in its business operations. Vendors of information
about municipal securities, other than NRMSIRs, also could be affected
by the proposed amendments if the sole repository provides information
electronically for no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ In responding to the MSRB's proposed rule change to revise
its MSIL system, one NRMSIR expressed concern about the MSRB's
proposed competition with vendors to offer what it viewed as value-
added features and services relating to disclosure documents. This
NRMSIR stated that, if the MSRB were permitted to offer value-added
content and features in connection with its proposed Internet-based
portal for disclosure documents, it would inflict economic harm on
existing data vendors. See DPC Data Letter, supra note 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, there would be just one repository, and not four
NRMSIRs as is currently the case, if the Commission were to adopt the
proposed Rule 15c2-12 amendments. Thus, the proposal could reduce
competition with respect to services provided by NRMSIRs as information
vendors. In addition to supplying municipal disclosure documents upon
request, NRMSIRs also provide value-added market data services to
municipal investors that incorporate continuing disclosure information.
If NRMSIRs were adversely affected by the proposal to establish a
single repository, it is possible that there could be a reduction in
these value-added market data services relating to municipal securities
or a loss of innovation in offering competing information services
regarding municipal securities.
    The Commission preliminarily does not believe that having a single
repository would have a significant adverse effect on the ability or
willingness of private information vendors to compete to create and
market value-added data products. Commercial vendors could readily
access the information made available by the repository to re-
disseminate it or use it in whatever value-added products they may wish
to provide. In fact, a single repository in which documents are
submitted in an electronic format could encourage the private
information vendors to disseminate municipal securities information by
reducing the cost of entry into the information services market.
Existing vendors could need to make some adjustments to their
infrastructure or facilities. However, some vendors could determine
that they no longer need to invest in the infrastructure and facilities
necessary to collect and store continuing disclosure documents, and new
entrants into the market would not need to obtain the information from
multiple locations, but rather could readily access such information
from one centralized source. Thus, all vendors should be able to obtain
easily continuing disclosure documents and should be able to compete in
providing value-added services.
    The Commission, therefore, preliminarily believes that any
potential effect on competition that could result from the proposed
amendments would be justified by the more efficient and effective
process for the collection and availability of continuing disclosure
documents. A single repository for the electronic collection and
availability of these documents would foster the Exchange Act objective
of promoting competition by simplifying the method of submission of
continuing disclosure documents to one location and making the
documents more readily accessible to investors and others by virtue of
the documents being in an electronic format.
    The Commission previously stated that it would specifically
consider the competitive implications of the MSRB becoming a
repository.\130\ In addition, the Commission stated that if the
Commission were to conclude that the MSRB's status as a repository
might have adverse competitive implications, it would consider whether
it should take any action to address these effects.\131\ As noted
earlier, the Commission recognizes that competition with respect to
certain information services regarding municipal securities that are
provided by the existing NRMSIRs could decline should the MSRB become
the central repository. The Commission believes that one of the
benefits in having the MSRB be the sole repository would be its ability
to provide a ready source of continuing disclosure documents to other
information vendors who wish to use that information for their
products. Private vendors could utilize the MSRB in its capacity as a
repository as a means to collect information from the continuing
disclosure documents to create value-added products for their
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28081, supra note
55.
    \131\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that the reasons it provided
above regarding the competitive implications with respect to having a
single repository similarly would apply if the MSRB were the sole
repository. The Commission does not believe that there are competitive
implications that would uniquely apply to the MSRB in its capacity as
the sole repository as opposed to any another entity that could be the
sole repository. In fact, the Commission believes that, if the MSRB
were the sole repository, its status as an SRO would provide an
additional level of Commission oversight, as changes to its rules
relating to continuing disclosure documents would have to be filed for
Commission consideration as a proposed rule change under section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act. Accordingly, the Commission believes that any
competitive impact that could result from the MSRB's status as the sole
repository would be justified by the benefits that such status could
provide.
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
could have a positive effect on capital formation by municipal
securities issuers. The Rule is addressed to the obligations of broker-
dealers participating in a primary offering of municipal securities
(i.e., Participating Underwriters). Because continuing disclosure
documents would be submitted electronically to a single repository,
investors and other market participants potentially could obtain
information about these issuers more readily than they can today. They
no longer would have to contact several NRMSIRs to make sure that they
have obtained complete information about the municipal issuer. Easier
access to continuing disclosure documents regarding municipal
securities could provide investors and other market participants with
more complete information about municipal issuers. Moreover, this ready
availability of continuing disclosure documents could encourage
investors to consider purchasing new issuances of municipal securities
because they could readily access information from a single repository
and review that information in making an investment decision. As a
result, the proposed amendments could help foster the Exchange Act goal
of capital formation.
    The Commission proposes to delete references to the SIDs in Rule
15c2-12. Since the Commission is now proposing to amend the Rule to
provide for a single repository for the electronic collection and
availability of continuing disclosure documents that the Commission
believes would efficiently and effectively improve disclosure in the
municipal securities market, the Commission believes that it is no
longer necessary to require in the Rule that Participating Underwriters
reasonably determine that issuers and obligated persons have
contractually agreed to provide continuing disclosure documents to the
SIDs.
    The proposed amendments would not affect the legal obligations of
issuers and obligated persons to provide continuing disclosure
documents, along with any other submissions, to the appropriate SID, if
any, that are required under the

appropriate state law. In addition, the proposed amendments would have
no effect on the obligations of issuers and obligated persons under
outstanding continuing disclosure agreements entered into prior to any
effective date of the proposed amendments to the Rule to submit
continuing disclosure documents to the appropriate SID, if any, as
stated in their existing continuing disclosure agreements, nor on their
obligation to make any other submissions that are required under the
appropriate state law. The Commission preliminarily does not believe
that its proposal to delete references to SIDs in Rule 15c2-12 would
have any potential effect on efficiency, competition or capital
formation.
    Based on the analysis above, the Commission preliminarily believes
that the proposed amendments to the Rule would not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Exchange Act. The Commission requests comment on all aspects of
this analysis and, in particular, on whether the proposed amendments to
the Rule would place a burden on competition, as well as the effect of
the proposed amendments on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether the
proposed amendments would place a burden on competition or have an
effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation with respect
to issuers, NRMSIRs or other vendors, the MSRB, broker-dealers, other
market participants, investors, or others.

VII. Consideration of Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, or ``SBREFA,'' \132\ the Commission must advise the OMB as
to whether the proposed regulation constitutes a ``major'' rule. Under
SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or
is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease); (2)
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or (3) significant adverse effect on competition,
investment or innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996)
(codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note
to 5 U.S.C. 601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission requests comment on the potential impact of the
proposed rule amendments on the economy on an annual basis. Commenters
are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for
their view to the extent possible.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \133\ (``RFA'')
requires the Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis of the proposed amendments to the Rule on small entities,
unless the Commission certifies that the proposed amendments, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \134\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA, a
broker-dealer is a small business if its total capital (net worth plus
subordinated liabilities) on the last day of its most recent fiscal
year was $500,000 or less, and is not affiliated with any entity that
is not a ``small business.'' \135\ Some broker-dealers that would be
subject to the proposed amendments meet these definitions of a ``small
business.'' In addition, for purposes of Commission rulemaking in
connection with the RFA, a ``small business'' may also include a
municipal securities dealer that is a bank (including a separately
identifiable department or division of a bank) which has total assets
of less than $10 million at all times during the preceding fiscal year;
had an average monthly volume of municipal securities transactions in
the preceding fiscal year of less than $100,000; and is not affiliated
with any entity that is not a ``small business.'' \136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \136\ 17 CFR 240.0-10(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the Rule would not substantively change
any of the current obligations of broker-dealers or municipal
securities dealers, except to the extent that they would have to
reasonably determine that the issuer or obligated person has agreed in
writing to provide continuing disclosure documents to a single
repository instead of to multiple NRMSIRs. The paperwork burden for
broker-dealers or municipal securities dealers would not be altered by
the proposed amendments, except to the extent that the firm's
compliance attorney would need to prepare and issue a notice to members
or a memorandum explaining the impact of the proposed amendments to
pertinent personnel, if the proposal is adopted by the Commission.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See Section IV.D.1., supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of Commission rulemaking in connection with the RFA,
an issuer or person, other than an investment company, is a ``small
business'' or ``small organization'' if its ``total assets on the last
day of its most recent fiscal year were $5 million or less.'' \138\ The
Commission believes that at least three of the four NRMSIRs are part of
large business entities that have assets in excess of $5 million.\139\
One of the current four NRMSIRs and possibly one or more vendors of
continuing disclosure documents may be a ``small business'' for
purposes of the RFA. As noted above, the proposed amendments could have
a significant economic impact on the business model of one NRMSIR and
possibly on the business models of one or more other vendors of
municipal securities information. While the Commission acknowledges
that the proposed amendments to the Rule could have a significant
economic impact on certain vendors of municipal securities information,
the Commission does not believe that the number of such vendors that
could be affected by the proposed amendments represents a substantial
number of small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 17 CFR 230.157. See also 17 CFR 240.0-10(a).
    \139\ Commission staff based this determination on its review of
various public sources of financial information about these three
NRMSIRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that two of the three SIDS may
be a ``small business'' or ``small organization'' for purposes of the
RFA. The proposed amendments, however, would not affect any legal
obligations issuers or obligated persons may have to provide continuing
disclosure documents, along with any other submissions, to the
appropriate SID, if any, that may be required under the appropriate
state law.
    A ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined by the RFA to
include ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.'' \140\ Since the Rule applies to primary offerings of
municipal securities with an aggregate principal amount of at least
$1,000,000 or more, some issuances by small governmental jurisdictions
would not be covered by the Rule. For those small issuers whose primary
offerings of municipal securities are impacted by the Rule, the
Commission notes that issuers of municipal securities currently are
familiar with, and provide, pursuant to their continuing disclosure
agreements, continuing disclosure documents. Under the proposal,
issuers would submit, pursuant to their undertakings in continuing
disclosure agreements, continuing disclosure documents to the MSRB in
an electronic

format and accompanied by identifying information, instead of to each
of the four existing NRMSIRs. Accordingly, to the extent a small
governmental jurisdiction has conducted a primary offering of municipal
securities for which a Participating Underwriter has reasonably
determined that the issuer has entered into a contractual undertaking
covered by the Rule, its continuing disclosure documents would be
submitted to one repository, instead of multiple ones as is the case
today, and thus the small governmental jurisdiction would incur no
significant additional economic impact as a result of the proposed
amendments to the Rule. The Commission believes that many municipal
issuers currently have the capability to convert paper documents to
electronic documents. Those small governmental jurisdictions that: (i)
Do not have continuing disclosure information in an electronic format;
or (ii) do not have the internal means to convert continuing disclosure
information into an electronic format, would have to incur a cost to
convert their paper documents into an electronic file.\141\ Although
some small governmental jurisdictions could incur costs to submit
documents electronically to a single repository, the Commission does
not believe that these costs would result in a significant economic
impact for a substantial number of small governmental
jurisdictions.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
    \141\ See Section V.B., supra.
    \142\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Commission's view, the proposed amendments would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
including broker-dealers, municipal securities dealers, small
governmental jurisdictions, NRMSIRs and other vendors of municipal
disclosure documents, SIDs, or other small businesses or small
organizations. For the above reasons, the Commission certifies that the
proposed amendment to the Rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission
requests comments regarding this certification. The Commission requests
that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities,
including broker-dealers and municipal securities dealers, small
governmental jurisdictions, NRMSIRs and other vendors of municipal
disclosure documents, SIDS, or other small businesses or small
organizations, and provide empirical data to support the extent of the
impact.

IX. Statutory Authority

    Pursuant to the Exchange Act, and particularly sections 3(b),
15(c), 15B and 23(a)(1) thereof, 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78o(c), 78o-4, and
78w(a)(1), the Commission is proposing amendments to Sec.  240.15c2-12
of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations in the manner set forth
below.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Proposed Rule Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

    1. The general authority citation for part 240 continues to read in
part as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i,
78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5,
78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4,
80b-11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise
noted.

* * * * *
    2. Section 240.15c2-12 is amended by the following:
    A. Revise paragraph (b)(4)(ii), the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(5)(i), and paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A) and (B);
    B. In the introductory text of paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C) and in
paragraph (b)(5)(i)(D) remove the phrase ``to each nationally
recognized municipal securities information repository or to the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and to the appropriate state
information depository, if any,'';
    C. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C) remove the phrase ``, and to whom it
will be provided'';
    D. Add new paragraph (b)(5)(iv);
    E. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(ii); and
    F. Revise paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(9).
    The additions and revisions read as follows.

Sec.  240.15c2-12  Municipal securities disclosure.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) The time when the official statement is available to any
person from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, but in no case
less than twenty-five days following the end of the underwriting
period, the Participating Underwriter in an Offering shall send no
later than the next business day, by first-class mail or other equally
prompt means, to any potential customer, on request, a single copy of
the final official statement.
    (5)(i) A Participating Underwriter shall not purchase or sell
municipal securities in connection with an Offering unless the
Participating Underwriter has reasonably determined that an issuer of
municipal securities, or an obligated person for whom financial or
operating data is presented in the final official statement has
undertaken, either individually or in combination with other issuers of
such municipal securities or obligated persons, in a written agreement
or contract for the benefit of holders of such securities, to provide
the following to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board in an
electronic format as prescribed by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board, either directly or indirectly through an indenture trustee or a
designated agent:
    (A) Annual financial information for each obligated person for whom
financial information or operating data is presented in the final
official statement, or, for each obligated person meeting the objective
criteria specified in the undertaking and used to select the obligated
persons for whom financial information or operating data is presented
in the final official statement, except that, in the case of pooled
obligations, the undertaking shall specify such objective criteria;
    (B) If not submitted as part of the annual financial information,
then when and if available, audited financial statements for each
obligated person covered by paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) of this section;
* * * * *
    (iv) Such written agreement or contract for the benefit of holders
of such securities also shall provide that all documents provided to
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall be accompanied by
identifying information as prescribed by the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) An issuer of municipal securities or obligated person has
undertaken, either individually or in combination with other issuers of
municipal securities or obligated persons, in a written agreement or
contract for the benefit of holders of such municipal securities, to
provide the following to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board in
an electronic format as

prescribed by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board:
    (A) At least annually, financial information or operating data
regarding each obligated person for which financial information or
operating data is presented in the final official statement, as
specified in the undertaking, which financial information and operating
data shall include, at a minimum, that financial information and
operating data which is customarily prepared by such obligated person
and is publicly available; and
    (B) In a timely manner, notice of events specified in paragraph
(b)(5)(i)(C) of this section with respect to the securities that are
the subject of the Offering, if material; and
    (C) Such written agreement or contract for the benefit of holders
of such securities also shall provide that all documents provided to
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall be accompanied by
identifying information as prescribed by the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board; and
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) The term final official statement means a document or set of
documents prepared by an issuer of municipal securities or its
representatives that is complete as of the date delivered to the
Participating Underwriter(s) and that sets forth information concerning
the terms of the proposed issue of securities; information, including
financial information or operating data, concerning such issuers of
municipal securities and those other entities, enterprises, funds,
accounts, and other persons material to an evaluation of the Offering;
and a description of the undertakings to be provided pursuant to
paragraph (b)(5)(i), paragraph (d)(2)(ii), and paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of
this section, if applicable, and of any instances in the previous five
years in which each person specified pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(ii)
of this section failed to comply, in all material respects, with any
previous undertakings in a written contract or agreement specified in
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. Financial information or operating
data may be set forth in the document or set of documents, or may be
included by specific reference to documents available to the public on
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Internet Web site or filed
with the Commission.
* * * * *
    (9) The term annual financial information means financial
information or operating data, provided at least annually, of the type
included in the final official statement with respect to an obligated
person, or in the case where no financial information or operating data
was provided in the final official statement with respect to such
obligated person, of the type included in the final official statement
with respect to those obligated persons that meet the objective
criteria applied to select the persons for which financial information
or operating data will be provided on an annual basis. Financial
information or operating data may be set forth in the document or set
of documents, or may be included by specific reference to documents
available to the public on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's
Internet Web site or filed with the Commission.
* * * * *

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 30, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17856 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52337-52338]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0450; FRL-9927-02-R2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Oil
and Natural Gas Control Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of New York.
The revision provides the State's control measures for facilities
within its borders subject to EPA's 2016 Control Techniques Guideline
(CTG) for the oil and natural gas industry. The intended effect of this
action is to approve this item into the New York SIP and satisfy the
requirement for the CTG. This action is being taken in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0450. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Omar Hammad, Environmental Protection
Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 21, 2022, New York submitted for approval a SIP revision
to incorporate the adoption of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules,
and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 200, ``General Provisions,'' and Part 203,
``Oil and Natural Gas Sector,'' as adopted on January 18, 2022. Part
200, section 200.9, amends Table 1 to add regulation 203-7.1(a) with a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation of ``40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7 (July 1, 2017).'' Part 203 sets monitoring, operational,
and reporting requirements for the oil and natural gas sector
statewide. The adoption of Part 203 is meant to satisfy the
requirements to implement EPA's 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG within the
2008 and 2015 ozone nonattainment areas and statewide OTR requirements.
    On June 15, 2022 (87 FR 36096, June 15, 2022), the EPA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the EPA proposed to approve New
York's Part 200, ``General Provisions,'' section 200.9 amendment to
Table 1 to add regulation 203-7.1(a) with a CFR citation of ``40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7 (July 1, 2017).'' EPA also proposed to approve
Part 203, ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector'' control measure because it
satisfies the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Industry CTG.

II. Evaluation of Comments

    In response to the EPA's June 15, 2022, proposed rulemaking on New
York's SIP revision submittal, the EPA received one comment during the
30-day public comment period. After reviewing the comment, EPA has
determined that the comment is outside the scope of our proposed action
or fails to identify any material issue necessitating a response. The
comment does not raise issues germane to the EPA's proposed action. For
this reason, the EPA will not provide a specific response to the
comment. The specific comment may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2022-0450 on the https://www.regulations.gov website.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving New York's Part 200, ``General Provisions,''
section 200.9 amendment to Table 1 to add regulation 203-7.1(a) with a
CFR citation of ``40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 (July 1, 2017).'' EPA is
also approving Part 203, ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector'' control
measure, with a State effective date of March 18, 2022, because it
satisfies the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Industry CTG.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, as discussed in section I of this preamble, the EPA is
finalizing the incorporation by reference of Title 6 of the NYCRR Part
203, ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector'' of the New York Administrative Code
that implements New York's RACT regulations for the oil and gas CTG,
including attendant revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 200, ``General
Provisions,'' section 200.9, Table 1, ``Referenced material.''
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond

those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 382, January 21,
2011);
     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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide 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).
    In addition, this final rulemaking action, pertaining to New York's
oil and gas sector control measures submission, is not 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 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended 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.

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry ``Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.9'' and adding an entry for
``Title 6, Part 203'' after the entry for ``Title 6, Part 202, Subpart
202-2'', to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA approved regulations.

                                EPA-Approved New York State Regulations and Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         State citation              Title/subject        effective      EPA approval           Comments
                                                            date             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Title 6, Part 200, Subpart 200.9  General Provisions,         3/18/22          8/25/22   EPA is
                                   Referenced                                            approving referenced
                                   material.                                             materials that
                                                                                previously were not
                                                                                Federally enforceable.
                                                                                EPA approval
                                                                                finalized at [INSERT FR
                                                                                CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Title 6, Part 203...............  Oil and Natural Gas       3/18/2022          8/25/22   EPA approval
                                   Sector.                                               finalized at [INSERT FR
                                                                                CITATION].

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

[FR Doc. 2022-18323 Filed 8-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48717]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0759]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek, and the Captree State
Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway) Bridge, mile 30.7, across the State
Boat Channel, at Long Island, New York. This deviation is necessary to
facilitate the 2011 March of Dimes Motorcycle Run. The deviation allows
the two bridges listed above to remain in the closed position during
this public event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10:51 a.m. through 1:49 p.m. on
September 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0759 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0759 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 25
feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations
are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(f).
    The Captree State Parkway (Robert Moses Causeway) Bridge, mile
30.7, across the State Boat Channel has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 29 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low
water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33
CFR 117.799(i).
    Long Creek and the State Boat Channel both are both transited by
commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic.
    The owner of the two bridges, the State New York Department of
Transportation, requested bridge closures to facilitate a public event,
the March of Dimes Charity Motorcycle Run.
    Under this temporary deviation the Loop Parkway Bridge may remain
in the closed position from 10:51 a.m. through 11:49 a.m. and from
12:21 p.m. through 1:49 p.m. on September 25, 2011, and the Captree
State Parkway Bridge (Robert Moses Causeway) may remain in the closed
position from 11 a.m. through 1 p.m. on September 25, 2011, to
facilitate a public event, the 2011 March of Dimes Motorcycle Run.
    Vessels that can pass under the closed draws during each respective
closure may do so at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 29, 2011.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-20092 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57343-57346]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0340; Product Identifier 2017-NM-002-AD; Amendment
39-19114; AD 2017-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at a certain fuselage
frame inner chord. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any
cracking of a certain fuselage frame inner chord; identification of the
material of a certain fuselage frame inner chord for certain airplanes;
and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 9, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 9,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
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, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0340.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0340; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 757-200, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22915). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of cracking found at a certain fuselage frame inner
chord. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for any
cracking of a certain fuselage frame inner chord, identification of the
material of a certain fuselage frame inner chord for certain airplanes,
and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct such cracks, which could result in the cargo door opening
during flight, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane and
the inability to sustain loads required for continued safe flight and
landing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. FedEx and United Airlines
supported the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD (82 FR 22915, May 19, 2017) as paragraph (c)(1) of this
AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of
STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request for Credit for Previous Actions Accomplished

    Boeing requested credit for previous accomplishment of the
inspections in the NPRM. Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016 (referenced in the NPRM as
the appropriate source of service information), was published on
November 8, 2016. Boeing commented that the effective date of the AD
could be more than 7 months later than publication date of the service
information. Boeing stated that it is likely that some Model 757
operators have already accomplished the inspections in accordance with
the service information by the time the AD takes effect; therefore, the
AD should provide credit for those inspections.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request and agree to clarify.
Paragraph (f) of this AD states to accomplish the actions within the
compliance times specified, unless those actions are already done.
Therefore, if operators have accomplished the inspections in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, before the effective date of this
AD, no further action is necessary. We have not revised this AD in this
regard.

Request To Include Repair Information and Inspection Instructions

    Delta Airlines (DAL) stated that it has concerns that the
Accomplishment Instructions provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, do not include the corrective
action. DAL commented that it will likely accomplish the inspections
during 10-day maintenance visit checks, which would not be sufficient
time for repair development if a crack is found. DAL also commented
that operators would benefit from having corrective actions provided in
the service information.
    DAL stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016, requires operators to repetitively inspect the inner
chord, and the service information does not provide an option for an
inspection should there be a previously installed FAA-approved repair.
DAL commented that a previous repair of the frame has the potential to
inhibit the ability to accomplish the inspection. DAL also commented
that this leaves operators unable to accomplish the inspection as
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November
8, 2016, and will require additional instruction as an AMOC.
    We infer that DAL is requesting to delay issuance of the final rule
until a revision of the service information includes repair data and
alternative inspection instructions for previously accomplished
repairs.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. Including the repair data
would delay issuance of this AD. Unique repair configurations may be
necessary depending on the cracking that is detected. It is not
possible to address each individual repair configuration in one AD. The
various repair configurations and locations are unknown and therefore
cannot be addressed at this time. Therefore, if cracking is found, it
must be repaired before further flight using the corrective actions
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November
8, 2016, or in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. For
previously approved repairs that prevent accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD, operators may request approval of an
AMOC using the procedures in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not
revised this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for
any cracking of the fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord; an
identification of the material (an inspection or measurement) of the
fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord; and applicable corrective actions.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 588 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface HFEC inspection........  5 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $425 per            $249,900 per
                                  hour = $425 per                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
Identify the material..........  Up to 2 work-hours x                  0  Up to $170........  Up to $99,960.
                                  $85 per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-24-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19114; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0340; Product Identifier 2017-NM-002-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 9, 2018.

 (b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at the
fuselage station (STA) 1380 frame inner chord. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct such cracks, which could result in the
cargo door opening during flight, and result in rapid decompression
of the airplane and the inability to sustain loads required for
continued safe flight and landing.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Inspection for Group 1 Airplanes

    For Group 1 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do a surface high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking of the fuselage STA 1380
frame inner chord, and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016; except as
specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the surface HFEC
inspection, thereafter, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016.

 (h) Inspection for Group 2 Airplanes

    For Group 2 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016: At the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016, except as specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, identify the material of the fuselage
STA 1380 frame inner chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016.
    (1) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 2024-T42
aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: No further action is required by this AD
for that airplane.
    (2) If the fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord material 7075-T73
aluminum alloy is found during any identification required by the
introductory text of paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further
flight, do a surface HFEC inspection for any cracking of the
fuselage STA 1380 frame inner chord, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016; except as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this
AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the surface HFEC inspection thereafter at the times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0101, dated November 8, 2016.

 (i) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016, specifies a compliance time ``after the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated
November 8, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action
and identifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance):
Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

 (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

 (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0101, dated November 8,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing 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.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 22, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-26040 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P