[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70195-70198]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65692; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the Order Audit Trail System Rules

November 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 28, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend (i) Rules 5320 and 7440 to require that
members report to the Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'') information
barriers put into place by the member in reliance on Supplementary
Material .02 to Rule 5320; (ii) Rule 7440 to require that members
report customer instructions regarding the display of a customer's
limit order in any OATS-eligible security; and (iii) Rule 7450 to
codify the specific time OATS reports must be transmitted to FINRA.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA is proposing two changes to the order recording requirements
in Rule 7440 of the OATS rules to reflect two recent amendments to
other FINRA rules. First, the proposed rule change requires members
relying on the ``No-Knowledge Exception'' in Supplementary Material .02
to Rule 5320 (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders) to
report information to OATS regarding the information barriers adopted
by the member in reliance on the exception. The proposed rule change
also adds this requirement into Supplementary Material .02 of Rule
5320. Second, the proposed rule change extends the existing requirement
to reflect on OATS reports a customer's instruction regarding display
of the customer's limit orders. The requirement currently applies only
to limit orders involving NMS stocks; the proposed rule change extends
the requirement to all OATS-eligible securities.
    FINRA is also proposing amendments to Rule 7450 to codify the
specific time by which OATS reports must be transmitted to FINRA.
(1) Customer Order Protection
    First, FINRA is proposing to require members to identify on OATS
reports information barriers that the member has in place in reliance
on the No-Knowledge Exception in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule
5320.
    On February 11, 2011, the SEC approved FINRA's proposed rule change
to consolidate NASD Rule 2111 and IM-2110-2 into new FINRA Rule
5320.\3\ Under Rule 5320, a member that accepts and holds an order in
an equity security from its own customer, or a customer of another
broker-dealer, without immediately executing the order is prohibited
from trading that security on the same side of the market for its own
proprietary account at a price that would satisfy the customer order
unless the member immediately thereafter executes the customer order up
to the size and at the same, or better, price at which the member
traded for its proprietary account. The No-Knowledge Exception in
Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 5320 provides that if a firm
implements and uses an effective system of internal controls--such as
appropriate information barriers--that operate to prevent one trading
unit from obtaining knowledge of customer orders held by a separate
trading unit, those other trading units may trade in a proprietary
capacity at prices that would satisfy the customer orders held by the
separate, walled-off trading unit.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63895 (February 11,
2011), 76 FR 9386 (February 17, 2011).
    \4\ The Commission notes that the No-Knowledge Exception in
Supplementary Material .02 to FINRA Rule 5320 contains different
procedures for OTC equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When FINRA originally proposed Rule 5320, members claiming the No-
Knowledge Exception would have been required to assign and use a unique
market participant identifier (``MPID'') for any walled-off market-
making desk.\5\ In response to commenters' concerns with the proposed
MPID requirement, FINRA amended the proposal to delete the unique MPID
requirement, but stated that it intended to examine alternative means
of achieving the same regulatory objective of being able to

determine on an automated basis those customer orders that are received
from walled-off desks.\6\ The proposed rule change accomplishes the
objective by adding provisions to the No-Knowledge Exception and to
Rule 7440 that require firms relying on the exception to identify the
information barriers to FINRA in their OATS reports.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61168 (December 15,
2009), 74 FR 68084 (December 22, 2009).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63895 (February 11,
2011), 76 FR 9386 (February 17, 2011).
    \7\ Members are permitted to report this information to OATS on
a voluntary basis. See OATS Reporting Technical Specifications, at
iii (ed. May 3, 2011); see also OATS for all NMS Stocks Frequently
Asked Questions, Question 12, available at www.finra.org/oats. FINRA
has encouraged members to do so to avoid ``false positive'' results
that can be caused by automated surveillance patterns aggregating
trading data without regard to information barriers that firms have
put in place pursuant to the No-Knowledge Exception. See Regulatory
Notice 11-24, n.12 (May 2011). The proposed rule change would make
reporting of the information mandatory for those members relying on
the No-Knowledge Exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the use of OATS, FINRA will be able to ascertain, on an
automated basis, those firms claiming the No-Knowledge Exception. This
will reduce the potential for ``false positive'' alerts by allowing
FINRA to account for the existence of information barriers when running
automated surveillance patterns designed to identify inappropriate
trading ahead of customer orders. FINRA believes that the new
requirements will substantially reduce the number of ``false
positives'' that are identified through automated surveillance patterns
by being able to account for information barriers when trading ahead
may otherwise be indicated.
(2) Limit Order Display
    Rule 7440(b)(14) requires OATS Reporting Members to identify ``any
request by a customer that an order not be displayed, or that a block
size order be displayed, pursuant to Rule 604(b) of SEC Regulation
NMS.'' \8\ These customer requests are identified in the OATS system
through a ``Customer Instruction Flag'' that indicates whether the
customer has requested that the firm handle its limit order in a
specified way. Because of the reference in Rule 7440(b)(14) to SEC
Regulation NMS, members are only required to populate the Customer
Instruction Flag when the order involves a security subject to SEC
Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 604 of SEC Regulation NMS generally requires OTC market
makers in NMS stocks to display customer limit orders that would
improve the market maker's published bid or offer (either by price
or size). See 17 CFR 242.604(a)(2). Rule 604(b)(2) of SEC Regulation
NMS excepts from the display requirement any customer limit order
that is placed by a customer who expressly requests that the order
not be displayed. See 17 CFR 242.604(b)(2). Rule 604(b)(4) of SEC
Regulation NMS excepts from the display requirement any customer
limit order of block size unless the customer requests that the
order be displayed. See 17 CFR 242.604(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2010, the Commission approved Rule 6460,\9\ which
became effective on May 9, 2011.\10\ Rule 6460 generally requires OTC
market makers to display a customer limit order in an OTC equity
security held by the OTC market maker that is at a price that would
improve the bid or offer of such OTC market maker in such security or
that would represent more than a de minimis change in relation to the
size associated with the OTC market maker's bid or offer. Rule 6460(b)
includes exceptions to the display requirement for OTC equity
securities that mirror the exceptions in Rule 604(b) of SEC Regulation
NMS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62359 (June 22,
2010), 75 FR 37488 (June 29, 2010).
    \10\ See Regulatory Notice 10-42 (September 2010).
    \11\ See FINRA Rule 6460(b)(2), (b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to require that OATS Reporting Members indicate
on all OATS reports for customer limit orders, including OTC equity
securities, whether the customer has instructed the member not to
display the limit order or to display a limit order of block size. As a
result, OATS Reporting Members would be required to populate the
Customer Instruction Flag for all limit orders, not just those
involving NMS stocks. Use of the Customer Instruction Flag for all
limit orders reported to OATS will notify FINRA that a customer has
requested display of a limit order that would not otherwise be required
to be displayed under applicable rules as well as avoid potential
``false positives'' generated by customer limit orders that are not
being displayed due to the customer's request.
(3) Order Data Transmission Requirements
    Rule 7450 requires members to report order information recorded
pursuant to Rule 7440. Paragraph (a) of the rule imposes the general
requirement that members report applicable order information to FINRA
that the member is required to record by Rule 7440. Paragraph (b) of
the rule addresses the form the order data must take and the timing of
order reports. Paragraph (c) concerns the use of reporting agent
agreements that a member may use to allow a third party to report
information to OATS on behalf of the member. The proposed rule change
amends paragraph (b) of Rule 7450 to codify the specific time OATS
reports must be transmitted to FINRA, which is the same time that
currently is required under the OATS Reporting Technical
Specifications, as described in more detail below.
    Rule 7450(b) provides that, generally, reports should be
transmitted on the day of the order event unless information is not
available.\12\ In addition, if the member aggregates information, the
information must be transmitted ``during such business hours as may be
prescribed by FINRA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA announced that OATS reports would be marked late if
submitted after 8 a.m. Eastern Time on the calendar day following
the OATS Business Day on which the order event occurred in the May
3, 2011 edition of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications. See
OATS Reporting Technical Specifications, at 8-1 (ed. May 3, 2011).
Previously, OATS reports were marked late if received after 5 a.m.
Eastern Time. See OATS Reporting Technical Specifications, at 8-1
(ed. November 8, 2010); Letter from Brant Brown, Associate General
Counsel, FINRA, to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, SEC (October 28,
2010) relating to SR-FINRA-2010-044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would update the language in the rule,
which has not been changed substantially since it was adopted in 1998,
and codify a specific deadline that members must meet. When the rule
language was adopted, and before OATS reporting was implemented in
1999, the rule language acknowledged that firms could choose to report
OATS data to FINRA on a rolling basis throughout the day, or reports
could be aggregated into one or more transmissions and submitted
``during such business hours as may be prescribed by [FINRA].'' This
rule language further reflected the fact that, at the time the rules
were proposed, issues involving the capacity of OATS and technological
changes could affect the manner and timing of transmitting order
information to OATS. In its initial filing with the Commission, FINRA
noted:

    Based on further development of the Order Audit System and
determinations relating to system capacity and other factors, NASDR
will prescribe the hours during which information may be
transmitted. The prescribed hours likely will extend past the end of
the trading day. The proposal contemplates that all Order
information, along with corresponding ACT data that has been
integrated with such information, will be available to NASDR staff
at the beginning of the trading day following the day on which the
information has been transmitted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38990 (August 28,
1997), 62 FR 47096, 47103 (September 5, 1997) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change SR-NASD-97-56).

    FINRA (then NASDR) began testing the capabilities of its systems in
August 1998 in anticipation of the implementation of Phase One of OATS
in early 1999.\14\ In the November 30,

1998 version of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications, FINRA
prescribed that, for purposes of OATS reporting, an OATS business day
would begin after the close of the Nasdaq Stock Market on one market
day (4:00:01 p.m. Eastern Time) and end with the close of the Nasdaq
Stock Market on the next market day (4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time). Orders
received during an OATS business day would be required to be submitted
to OATS by 4:00:00 a.m. Eastern Time the following calendar day.\15\
This was intended to provide firms with adequate time to aggregate data
files and transmit them to FINRA before the beginning of the next
trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SR-NASD-97-56, Amendment No. 4; NASD Special Notice to
Members 98-33 (March 1998).
    \15\ See NASD Notice to Members 99-04 (January 1999). FINRA
extended the time from 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time to 5:00 a.m. Eastern
Time in 2007 connection with the expansion of OATS to OTC equity
securities. See August 21, 2007 Addendum to OATS Reporting Technical
Specifications (ed. August 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to replace the current rule language regarding
the timing of OATS transmissions to FINRA with a specific requirement.
Under the proposed rule, all order events that occur on a particular
OATS Business Day must be transmitted to FINRA by 8:00 a.m. Eastern
Time on the calendar day following the end of the OATS Business Day.
For purposes of the rule, an ``OATS Business Day'' begins at 4:00:01
p.m. Eastern Time on one market day and ends at 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on the next market day.\16\ FINRA is retaining the exception for
information that is not available by the time the report must be
transmitted; in such cases, the report must be transmitted on the day
that the information becomes available.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Thus, for example, assuming no holidays, if an order is
received at 5:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, the order event
occurs on the OATS Business Day ending Thursday at 4:00:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. Receipt of the order (and any subsequent event(s)
regarding the order until Thursday at 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time)
must be reported by 8:00:00 a.m. on Friday. Order events occurring
on market days during regular market hours (i.e., before 4:00:01
p.m. Eastern Time) are reported by 8:00:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the
following calendar day.
    \17\ This provision was initially intended to address
circumstances where complete information is not available at the
time an order report must be submitted (for example, where an order
is executed over the course of multiple days, and the total
execution information is not available on the same day the order is
received). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38990 (August 28,
1997), 62 FR 47096 (September 5, 1997). The provision was amended in
2006 to also address circumstances where a firm has traded a
security that has not been assigned a symbol and can report the
information only after a symbol has been requested, which must be
done promptly, and assigned. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
54585 (October 10, 2006), 71 FR 61112 (October 17, 2006); Notice to
Members 06-70 (December 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be no later
than 120 days after Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\18\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
enhance FINRA's automated surveillance systems by providing customer
instruction information relating to limit orders and significantly
reducing the incidence of ``false positive'' results caused by
identifying permitted trading activity in automated surveillance
patterns. By reducing ``false positive'' results, FINRA can focus its
resources on trading activity that has properly been identified as
warranting further regulatory scrutiny, thus promoting just and
equitable principles of trade and protecting investors and the public
interest. FINRA also believes that codifying the time by which OATS
reports must be submitted will promote just and equitable principles of
trade by ensuring that all members are aware of their reporting
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-063 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-063. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2011-063 and should be
submitted on or before December 1, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29112 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 46341]
[DOCID:fr08au08-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on August 5, 2008 at
5 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for August 5,
2008 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
other matters related to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18394 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17312-17313]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07502]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0723; Special Conditions No. 23-264-SC]

Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company (Honda) Model HA-420,
HondaJet; Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Honda Aircraft
Company HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with the use of an electronic engine control
system instead of a traditional mechanical control system. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 1, 2015,
and is applicable on March 25, 2015.
    We must receive your comments by May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0723]
using any of the following methods:
    [squ] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    [squ] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    [squ] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [squ] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John G. VanHoudt, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 816-329-
4142, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5
U.S. Code Sec. Sec.  553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the
substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public
comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments
received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making
these special conditions effective upon issuance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Special condition number              Company/airplane model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23-237-SC..............................  Spectrum Aeronautical Model S-
                                          40.
23-246-SC..............................  Cirrus Design Corporation Model
                                          SF50.
23-253-SC..............................  Diamond Aircraft Industries
                                          Model DA-40NG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type
certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda
Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application
date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification
basis to amendment 23-62.
    The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on
configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot
service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The
airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan
engines.
    The HA-420 airplane will use an electronic engine control system
(FADEC) instead of a traditional mechanical control system. Even though
the engine control system will be

certificated as part of the engine, the installation of an engine with
an electronic control system requires evaluation due to critical
environmental effects and possible effects on or by other airplane
systems. For example, indirect effects of lightning, radio interference
with other airplane electronic systems, shared engine and airplane data
and power sources.
    The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the
installation of complex systems, including electronic systems and
critical environmental effects, are contained in Sec.  23.1309.
However, when Sec.  23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic
control systems for engines was not envisioned. Therefore, Sec.
23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as
part of the engine (reference Sec.  23.1309(f)(1)). Parts of the system
that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the
criteria of Sec.  23.1309. However, the integral nature of these
systems makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the
system without including the engine portion of the system.
    In some cases, the airplane that the engine is used in will
determine a higher classification than the engine controls are
certificated for; requiring the FADEC systems be analyzed at a higher
classification. As of November 2005, FADEC special conditions mandated
the classification for Sec.  23.1309 analyses for loss of FADEC control
as catastrophic for any airplane using FADEC. This is not to imply an
engine failure is classified as catastrophic, but that the digital
engine control must provide an equivalent reliability to mechanical
engine controls.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must
show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as
amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62, thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the model HA-420 because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-
574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under the provisions of Sec.  21.101(a)(1).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: Electronic engine control system.

Discussion

    As defined in the summary section, this airplane makes use of an
electronic engine control system instead of a traditional mechanical
control system is a novel design for this type of airplane. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. Mandating a
structured assessment to determine potential installation issues
mitigates the concerns that the addition of a full authority engine
controller does not produce a failure condition not previously
considered.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
model HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the model HA-420 airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA
for approval of these features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above,
and has been derived without substantive change from those previously
issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a
significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary
and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code Sec. Sec.
553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective
upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested
persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to
the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420
airplanes.

1. Electronic Engine Control

    a. The installation of the electronic engine control system must
comply with the requirements of Sec.  23.1309(a) through (d) at
amendment 23-62. The intent of this requirement is not to reevaluate
the inherent hardware reliability of the control itself, but rather
determine the effects, including environmental effects addressed in
Sec.  23.1306 and 23.1308 on the airplane systems and engine control
system when installing the control on the airplane. When appropriate,
engine certification data may be used when showing compliance with this
requirement; however, the effects of the installation on this data must
be addressed.
    b. For these evaluations, the loss of FADEC control will be
analyzed utilizing the threat levels associated with a catastrophic
failure.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March 25, 2015.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07502 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Notices] [Page 44347] [FR Doc No: 2011-18628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1993-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major

disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1993-DR), dated June 10, 2011,

and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter

dated June 10, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration

under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford

Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State

of New York resulting from severe storms, flooding, tornadoes, and

straight-line winds during the period of April 26 to May 8, 2011, is

of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster

declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford

Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in

the State of New York.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby

authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such

amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and

administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the

designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.

Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is

supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75

percent of the total eligible costs.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration

for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the

Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice

that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under

Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Long, of FEMA, is appointed to

act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated

as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Allegany, Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Clinton, Delaware, Essex,

Franklin, Hamilton, Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, Niagara, Oneida,

Onondaga, Ontario, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, and Yates

Counties for Public Assistance.

    All counties within the State of New York are eligible to apply

for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers

(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis

Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster

Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance

Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and

Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing

Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other

Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially

Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2011-18628 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


% Predict blood CPY and urine TCPY levels
% Drinking water concentrations from Bulb Onion_GAOnion_WirringSTD_Reservoir_Parent_TSadj.xlsx
% From 12/31/1964 to 3/31/1965
% Adults
% Cecilia Tan
% January 21, 2016

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		 % Set body weight to a fixed value
BWST=72.9;	% Set body weight to 72.9 kg for female
PREG=0;		 % Not pregnant
DT(1) = 0.0;
DORAL(1) = 0.0;
TSTOP=2904;	%Simulation time

%TO READ IN DOSES FROM AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. must be saved as .xls
VOLUME=1.71062  % Water consumption volume in L/DAY
EVENTS=4        % Drinking frequency per day
DT = xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "adult", "A2:A486") ; % Dosing Times
AMTCDOSE=xlsRead("Drinkingwater.xls", "adult", "B2:B486")*VOLUME/EVENTS; % Dose in ug/l

% Output RBC AChE, venous blood conc for cpf, urine TCPY conc, venous blood conc for oxon
prepare time rbcce cv urinetcpy cvo
start@nocallback

mytable = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5];	% Output unit ug/L for concentrations
save mytable @file='onion_adult_01222016.txt' @format=ascii


[Federal Register: April 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15683-15684]
[DOCID:fr02ap07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2009-094.
    c. Date filed: March 8, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Roanoke Rapids and Gaston Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Roanoke River, in
Brunswick and Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia and Halifax, Warren, and
Northampton Counties, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jim Thornton, Dominion Generation, Innsbrook
Technical Center, 1 NE 5000 Dominion Boulevard, Geln Allen, VA 23060,
(804) 273-3257.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: April 27, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2009-094) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee requests permission to
allow Lakeside Commons, LLC (permittee) to construct a new marina at
Lakeside Park that was formerly used as a trailer park and private
multi-slip facility. The facility would serve a privately owned planned
residential townhouse community that will consist of 59 units. The
proposed marina would be constructed along a 1,606 linear foot section
of Lake Gaston's shoreline along Pea Hill Creek north of Gasburg Road.
The permittee would remove the existing piers, boathouse structures,
bulkheads, and boat ramps. These structures would be replaced by rip
rap, two pier structures within the cove and seven six-foot wide access
walkways perpendicular to the shoreline. The total number of proposed
boat slips is 57 inner boat slips: 55 slips will be for homeowner use
plus two additional boat slips for use by the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland

Fisheries or another state or federal agency. Each boat slip will be
covered and contain a lift.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be

notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5999 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33379-33380]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64594; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Relating
to the Appeal Fee

June 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 26, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to
eliminate the Appeal Fee for appeals to the Board of Directors. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate the Appeal
Fee for appeals to the Board of Directors (``Appeal Fee''), in Section
VI of the Exchange's Fee Schedule entitled ``Access Service,
Cancellation, Membership, Regulatory and Other Fees.'' The Exchange
believes that recent amendments to the By-Laws and Rules render this
Appeal Fee inapplicable.
    Currently, the Exchange assesses a $250 Appeal Fee for an appeal
from a decision of a Standing Committee, with the exception of appeals
from a decision of the Business Conduct Committee, Hearing Panels,
Nominating Committee or Member Nominating Committee, to the Board of
Directors.\3\ In January 2007, when the Appeal Fee became effective,
the Exchange noted that By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1 entitled
``Appeals,'' provided for appeals from decisions of Standing Committees
to the Board.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Appeal Fee is refunded to appellant in the event the
Board of Directors overturns the decision of the Standing Committee.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55071 (January 9,
2007), 72 FR 2078 (January 17, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-84).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, the Exchange has amended its By-Laws to: (i)
Eliminate the Admissions Committee and Options Allocation, Evaluation
and Securities Committee; (ii) consolidate the Options Committee and
the Foreign Currency Options Committee into the Quality of Markets
Committee; and (iii) eliminate By-Law Article XI, Section 11-1 relating
to appeals from Standing Committees.\5\ The Appeal Fee is not
applicable to the Business Conduct Committee, Nominating Committee and
Member Nominating Committee. In addition, the Appeal Fee was originally
filed to reduce frivolous appeals; such frivolous appeals are not an
issue at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59924 (May 14,
2009), 74 FR 23759 (May 20, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-23). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64338 (April 25, 2011), 76 FR
24069 (April 29, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that
it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because of
the recent amendments to the Exchange's By-Laws, reduction in Standing
Committees and reduction of frivolous claims. The Exchange also
believes that its proposal is equitable because no member would be
subject to an Appeal Fee.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments:

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-76 on the subject line.

Paper comments:

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-76. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-76 and should be
submitted on or before June 29, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14130 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17474-17475]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07248]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-11, SEC File No. 270-196, OMB Control No. 3235-0202

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-11, (17
CFR 240.15c2-11), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c2-11 under the Securities Exchange Act regulates the
initiation or resumption of quotations in a quotation

medium by a broker-dealer for over-the-counter (``OTC'') securities.
The Rule was designed primarily to prevent certain manipulative and
fraudulent trading schemes that had arisen in connection with the
distribution and trading of unregistered securities issued by shell
companies or other companies having outstanding but infrequently traded
securities. Subject to certain exceptions, the Rule prohibits broker-
dealers from publishing a quotation for a security, or submitting a
quotation for publication, in a quotation medium unless they have
reviewed specified information concerning the security and the issuer.
    Based on information provided by Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), in the 2016 calendar year, FINRA received
approximately 461 applications from broker-dealers to initiate or
resume publication of quotations of covered OTC securities on the OTC
Bulletin Board and/or OTC Link or other quotation mediums. We estimate
that (i) 195 of the covered OTC securities were issued by reporting
issuers, while the other 266 were issued by non-reporting issuers, and
(ii) it will take a broker-dealer about 4 hours to review, record and
retain the information pertaining to a reporting issuer, and about 8
hours to review, record and retain the information pertaining to a non-
reporting issuer.
    We therefore estimate that broker-dealers who initiate or resume
publication of quotations for covered OTC securities of reporting
issuers will require 780 hours (195 x 4) to review, record and retain
the information required by the Rule. We estimate that broker-dealers
who initiate or resume publication of quotations for covered OTC
securities of non-reporting issuers will require 2,128 hours (266 x 8)
to review, record and retain the information required by the Rule.
Thus, we estimate the total annual burden hours for broker-dealers to
initiate or resume publication of quotations of covered OTC securities
to be 2908 hours (780 + 2,128). The Commission believes that compliance
costs for these 2,908 hours would be borne by internal staff working at
a rate of $57 per hour.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ $57 per hour figure for a General Clerk is from SIFMA's
Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hourwork-year and
inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subject to certain exceptions, the Rule prohibits broker-dealers
from publishing a quotation for a security, or submitting a quotation
for publication, in a quotation medium unless they have reviewed
specified information concerning the security and the issuer. The
broker-dealer must also make the information reasonably available upon
request to any person expressing an interest in a proposed transaction
in the security with such broker or dealer. The collection of
information that is submitted to FINRA for review and approval is
currently not available to the public from FINRA.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 6, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07248 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6914-6915]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82684; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of ProShares
QuadPro Funds Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E

February 9, 2018.
    On July 31, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
list and trade shares of ProShares QuadPro U.S. Large Cap, ProShares
QuadPro Short U.S. Large Cap, ProShares QuadPro U.S. Small Cap, and
ProShares QuadPro Short U.S. Small Cap under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2017.\3\ On September 28, 2017, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On September 29, 2017, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
amended and superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed. On
November 14, 2017, the Exchange filed

Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which amended and
superseded the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1.\6\
On November 16, 2017, the Commission published notice of Amendment No.
2 and instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 2.\8\ The Commission has received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81388 (August 14,
2017), 82 FR 39477.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81746, 82 FR 46315
(October 4, 2017). The Commission designated November 16, 2017, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-69/nysearca201769-2688277-161489.pdf.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82105, 82 FR 55699
(November 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \9\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
August 18, 2017. February 14, 2018 is 180 days from that date, and
April 15, 2018 is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ designates
April 15, 2018 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-69),
as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03113 Filed 2-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40805-40806]
[DOCID:fr13au09-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591; FRL-8941-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the York-Adams
Counties 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose
of amending the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the York-Adams 8-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Area. This revision amends the maintenance plan's
2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) by unequally
dividing the overall MVEBs into two sub-regional MVEBs for each county
comprising the area. In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0591 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0591, Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy,
Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0591. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
Commonwealth submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Kotsch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register publication.

    Dated: July 28, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-18865 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:May 13, 2014

Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life.  I was a 2-3 pack per day smoker for 40 years and had unsuccessfully tried to quit numerous times.  A close friend suggested I try e-cigarettes as an alternative and though I had tried them before with no success, I tried again.  I tried the more expensive devices with various flavored e-juices instead of the cheap disposables and I found them to my liking.  In a matter of 2 days I was free of cigarettes.  For me I feel they saved my life since my father was a heavy smoker like me and he passed away due to emphysema.  My friends noticed the difference in me immediately.  My eyes were bright and clear again and my complexion changed.  I no longer coughed and I could feel my energy returning.   This is just my personal story and I would like to research more to provide science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Thank you for your consideration, Steven Mungeer


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40307-40310]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16668]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2012 / Proposed
Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0620; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-357-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F
series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require repetitive operational
tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other
related testing if necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of two
in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of
boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel
system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of
the engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require
repetitive operational tests and corrective actions if necessary. We
are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect and correct loss of the
engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the
event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional
burden over that proposed in the previous NPRM, we are reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by August 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0620;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-357-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -
400F series airplanes. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on
June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32248). That NPRM proposed to require performing
repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if necessary, according to a
method approved the FAA.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008) Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008), we
have received comments from operators indicating a high level of
difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during
maintenance operations.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2330, dated April
2, 2012. This service information describes procedures for repetitive
operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system,
and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include
isolating the cause of any leakage and repairing the leak.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Issue Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) Task
Instead of NPRM

    Japan Airlines (JAL) and Qantas Airways Ltd. (Qantas) requested
that we withdraw the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008). JAL
asked that instead of issuing an NPRM, we issue a CMR task. JAL stated
that the requirements in the previous NPRM should not be addressed as
an AD. JAL did not provide a reason for this request.
    We do not agree with the commenters' request. CMRs are developed by
the Certification Maintenance Coordination Committee (CMCC) during the
type certification process. The CMCC is made up of manufacturer
representatives (typically maintenance, design, and safety engineering
personnel); operator representatives designated by the Industry
Steering Committee chairperson; Aircraft Certification Office
specialists, and the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) chairperson. CMRs
developed during this process become a part of the certification basis
of the airplane upon issuance of the type certificate. We do not have a
process for convening the CMCC outside of the type certification
process; based on this, the CMR is not an option for replacing this AD.
Regardless, the airworthiness limitations (ALI) were not in the
maintenance program at the time the previous NPRM was issued;
therefore, an AD is required to accomplish the ALI task.
    Qantas stated that maintenance review board report (MRBR) Task 28-
022-04 was added to the Model 747-400 MRBR in May 2006, and contains
failure effect category (FEC) 8, meaning that it is a hidden safety
derived task. Qantas added that this task has been adequately addressed
in the MRBR and related maintenance planning document (MPD). Qantas
stated that there are over 200 FEC 5 and 8 safety-related tasks in the
Model 747-400 MRBR which could result in adverse safety outcomes if not
addressed, and most of these tasks are not the subject of ADs. Qantas
added that issuing the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008) will
generate an added administrative burden on operators, with no benefit
derived. Qantas concluded that the previous NPRM is not necessary, but
added that if the ACO does not agree, consideration should be given to
the CMR approach.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We have determined
that the latent failure of the fuel system suction feed system
identified in this AD is an unsafe condition that requires issuance of
an AD. In reference to FEC 5 and 8 safety-related tasks in Section 5.4
of FAA Advisory Circular 121-22B, ``Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR) Maintenance Type Board, and OEM/TCH Inspection Program
Procedures,'' dated October 29, 2010; FAA Advisory Circular 121-22B,
Section 5.4, specifies ``Operators of the aircraft type should
implement the Initial MRBR in accordance with established procedures.
The MRBR requirements are not an operator maintenance program. After
FAA approval, the requirements become a baseline or framework, around
which each operator can develop its own individual aircraft maintenance
program. The FAA recommends the operator's program incorporate MRBR
revisions associated with type design changes * * *'' This task was not
included in the initial MRBR for Model 747-400 airplanes as a safety-
related task; therefore, incorporating the FEC 8 task would be an
option for operators, but not a requirement until the AD is published.
We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

    Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa) and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM)
asked that we change the compliance time for the initial and repetitive
operational test interval required by paragraph (f) of the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008). KLM asked that we change the
compliance time of ``30,000 flight hours'' to ``45,000 flight hours or
1 D.'' KLM stated that if an aircraft does not pass the operational
test then a tank entry is required, which has an impact on the
currently scheduled downtime requirements for the C-checks. Lufthansa
asked that we change the compliance time to ``35,000 flight hours.''
Lufthansa stated that it is performing the operational test at a 1-D
interval that corresponds to up to 33,000 flight hours.
    We do not agree with the requests that the compliance time be
changed. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions
specified in paragraph (f) of this supplemental NPRM, we considered the
safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely
accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the
proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and
allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for
most affected operators. However, affected operators may request an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to request an extension of the
repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph
(h) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Reason for the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing and Northwest Airlines (NWA) asked that we clarify the
reason for the unsafe condition identified in the previous NPRM (73 FR
32248, June 6, 2008), by including all relevant information. Boeing
stated that the description of a report of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed capability results from reports of two
in-service engine flameout events while operating on suction feed with
undetected air leak failures on Model 737-400 airplanes. Boeing added
that there are no known reports of any engine flameout related events
in the Model 747 fleet. Boeing noted that undetected air leaks could
exist and the subject maintenance procedure is a proactive measure to
ensure engine flameout will not occur due to air leaks while on suction
feed operation.
    NWA asked for an explanation of what caused the failure that
resulted in issuance of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008),
and stated that failure analysis could indicate different action than
the one proposed. NWA added that the events occurred on twin engine
airplanes, and requested that we provide the basis for the conclusion
that Model 747-400 airplanes have the same or greater risk for this
unsafe condition to occur as twin engine airplanes.
    We agree that the reason for the unsafe condition should be
clarified for the reasons provided. We have changed the language in the
reason for the unsafe condition identified in the Summary section and
paragraph (e) of this supplemental NPRM to specify that the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008) ``* * * was prompted by reports of two
in-service occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of
boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel
system suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of
the engine.'' Also, we have determined that Model 747-400, -400D, and -
400F series airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe condition.
The cause of the failure is identified in the failure analysis done by
Boeing, and incorporates a four engine airplane in place of a twin
engine airplane. We have made no change to the supplemental NPRM in
this regard.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    NWA stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be changed.
NWA stated that the cost of fuel is not included in the cost estimate
and should be included due to the high cost of fuel.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request. Although fuel is used
during the operational test, we have not received data on the amount of
fuel used during the test. In addition, fuel costs vary among
operators. Therefore, we do not have definitive data that would enable
us to provide a cost estimate for the fuel costs. In any case, we have
determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the
safety benefits of the AD. We have made no change to the supplemental
NPRM in this regard.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June 6, 2008). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental
NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32248, June
6, 2008) by proposing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel
suction feed of the fuel system, and corrective actions if necessary.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 79 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Cost per
               Action                       Labor cost            product           Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test....................  3 work hours x $85 per          $1,020   $80,580, per test.
                                       hour = $255 per
                                       engine, per test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate 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.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0620; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-357-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 23, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and
-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2330, dated April 2, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on
Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the engine fuel
suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the event of
total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Operational Test and Corrective Actions

    Within 30,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747-28A2330, dated April 2, 2012. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the operational
test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours.
Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no
alternative procedures or repeat test intervals will be allowed.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 27, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-16668 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P