[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72688-72691]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0206; FRL-11037-02-R3]

Air Plan Disapproval; Delaware; Removal of Excess Emissions
Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving
certain portions of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware, through the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), on November 22,
2016. The revision was submitted by Delaware in response to a national
finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published on June 12,
2015, which included certain provisions in the Delaware SIP related to
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
events. EPA is disapproving certain portions of the SIP revision and
determining that such SIP revision does not correct the remaining
deficiencies in Delaware's SIP identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP
call in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This action addresses the remaining
deficiencies identified in EPA's June 2015 SIP call that have not yet
been addressed by prior EPA actions on Delaware's November 2016 SIP
submission.

DATES: This final action is effective on November 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0206. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mallory Moser, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215)

814-2030. Ms. Moser can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA
finalized ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' \1\ hereafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM
SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated
the EPA's interpretation that SSM exemptions (whether automatic or
discretionary) and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent
with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP
provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP
revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month
deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions.
States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in
response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Delaware SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that the following 7 provisions were substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements: Title 7 of Delaware's
Administrative Code (7 DE Admin. Code) 1104 Section (Sec.  ) 1.5, 7 DE
Admin. Code 1105 Sec.  1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 Sec.  1.2, 7 DE
Admin. Code 1109 Sec.  1.4, 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 Sec.  1.3, 7 DE
Admin. Code 1124 Sec.  1.4 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1142 Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>.
Delaware submitted a SIP revision on November 22, 2016, in response to
the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Delaware's submission
noted that the deficiency highlighted in 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 Sec.
1.2 was corrected by a previous SIP revision submitted to EPA on July
10, 2013. A final rule acting on this 2013 submission and remedying 7
DE Admin. Code 1108 Sec.  1.2 published in the Federal Register on July
11, 2022.\2\ Delaware's submission also requested that EPA revise the
Delaware SIP by removing 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 Sec.  1.4 and 7 DE
Admin. Code 1142 Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS> in their entirety, thereby removing
these provisions, and their deficiencies, from the Delaware SIP. A
final rulemaking remedying 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 Sec.  1.4 and 7 DE
Admin. Code 1142 Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS> published in the Federal Register on
February 14, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 87 FR 41074.
    \3\ See 88 FR 9399.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On June 21, 2023, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) related to the remaining four provisions identified in EPA's
June 2015 SIP call that had not yet been addressed by prior EPA
actions.\4\ In that document, EPA proposed disapproval of the remainder
of Delaware's 2016 submittal for multiple reasons. With regards to 7 DE
Admin. Code 1104 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1105, Delaware's 2016 submittal
requested EPA replace both two-hour averaging periods for particulate
emission limits with 30-day rolling averages with no change to the
level of the limit. The increases in averaging times were not supported
by a sufficient analysis explaining why these changes meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l). Additionally, Delaware did not
provide an explanation or analysis of how increasing the averaging time
of the affected limits without any adjustment to their levels would or
would not affect attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). With regards to 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 and 7
DE Admin. Code 1114, Delaware's 2016 submission requested the removal
of these regulations from the SIP and instead noted that other
requirements, including the CAA New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), are adequate to protect the NAAQS. This is problematic because
the specific NSPS which Delaware cited allow for periods of excess
emissions during SSM events. Also, these changes were not supported by
a sufficient analysis explaining how these changes meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l). A more complete explanation of the
reasons for the proposed disapproval can be found in the June 21, 2023,
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 88 FR 40136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received two comments which can be found in the docket. One
comment, from the State of Delaware, notes the State is reviewing the
record and preparing a path forward to respond to the concerns found
within the NPRM. EPA acknowledges Delaware's comment. The other
comment, from the Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project
(EIP), was partially adverse, and the adverse portions are discussed
below.
    Comment 1: The commenters, Sierra Club and EIP, expressed support
for EPA's proposed disapproval action on the remaining provisions in
Delaware's 2016 submittal, while disagreeing with EPA's position in the
NPRM that a properly set longer-term averaging period can be protective
of a shorter-term NAAQS. Commenters also urged EPA to propose a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the remaining disapproved
provisions of Delaware's 2016 submittal.
    Response 1: While EPA acknowledges commenters' support of this
action, EPA continues to believe that in appropriate cases properly set
longer-term emission limits can be protective of a shorter-term NAAQS.
EPA has explained in the 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour Sulfur dioxide
(SO2) Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions (2014
SO2 Guidance) \5\ how a short-term rate that is shown to be
NAAQS protective for a given source can be converted to a comparably
stringent longer-term limit that is also NAAQS protective. The 1-hour
SO2 Guidance recommends that emission limits be expressed as
short-term averages, but also describes the option to use emission
limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so long as the
state meets various suggested criteria to adjust the longer-term limit
downward to account for the variability of the source's emissions. EPA
has approved several SO2 SIPs relying on longer term average
limits derived according to the methods found in the 2014
SO2 guidance. See, for example, 83 FR 4591 (February 1,
2018) (approval of Illinois SO2 SIP); 83 FR 25922 (June 5,
2018) (approval of New Hampshire SO2 SIP); 84 FR 8813 (March
12, 2019) (approval of Arizona SO2 SIP); 84 FR 30920 (June
28, 2019) (approval of Kentucky SO2 SIP); 84 FR 51988
(October 1, 2019) (approval of Pennsylvania SO2 SIP for the
Beaver County area); 85 FR 22593 (April 23, 2020 (approval of
Pennsylvania SO2 SIP for the Allegheny County area), and 85
FR 49967 (August 17, 2020) (approval of Indiana SO2 SIP).
The principles found in the 2014 SO2 Guidance can be applied
to other NAAQS pollutants with short-term averaging times, such as
particulate matter, if adequately demonstrated in a specific case. With
an appropriate analysis, a properly set longer-term averaging period
can be protective of a shorter-term NAAQS;

however, in this matter Delaware merely lengthened the averaging time
for the limit without adjusting the limit's value in accordance with
the SIP Guidance. As such, a critical portion of the demonstration is
lacking so EPA is not yet prepared to apply this methodology in this
specific action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 2014 SO2 Guidance can be found at the
following web address: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the request that EPA promulgate a FIP, EPA
acknowledges this comment and recognizes the Agency's statutory
obligation to promulgate a FIP within 24 months of a final disapproval
of a SIP submission unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA
approves the plan or plan revision, before EPA promulgates the FIP.

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and
summarized herein, EPA is disapproving the portion of Delaware's
November 22, 2016, SIP submission addressing 7 DE Admin. Code 1104
Sec.  1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 Sec.  1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 Sec.
1.4, and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 Sec.  1.3.
    As a result of our disapproval, CAA section 110(c)(1) would require
EPA to promulgate a FIP within 24 months of the effective date of the
final disapproval action, unless EPA first approves a complete SIP
revision that corrects the deficiencies in 7 DE Admin. Code 1104
Section (Sec.  ) 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 Sec.  1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code
1109 Sec.  1.4 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 Sec.  1.3, within such time.
In addition, final disapproval could trigger mandatory sanctions under
CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the State submits, and EPA
approves, a complete SIP revision that corrects the identified
deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of the final
disapproval action.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would be
triggered 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval,
and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) would be
triggered 24 months after the effective date of a final disapproval.
Although the sanctions clock would begin to run from the effective
date of a final disapproval, mandatory sanctions under CAA section
179 generally apply only in designated nonattainment areas. This
includes areas designated as nonattainment after the effective date
of a final disapproval. As discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
will evaluate the geographic scope of potential sanctions at the
time it makes a determination that the air agency has failed to make
a complete SIP submission in response to the 2015 SIP call, or at
the time it disapproves such a SIP submission. The appropriate
geographic scope for sanctions may vary depending upon the SIP
provisions at issue. See the 2015 SSM SIP Action at 80 FR 33839,
33930 (June 12, 2015) EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0322
available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, if
they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action
disapproving portions of Delaware's SIP revision merely ascertains that
these State law provisions do not meet Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
by Executive Order 12866 and was therefore not submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely proposes to disapprove a portion of a SIP submission as
not meeting the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a
portion of a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement

of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action disapproves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
    The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ
in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this
action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.
This action pertaining to the disapproval of these portions of
Delaware's November 22, 2016, submittal, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-23242 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33514-33515]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0250]

Safety Zone; Lights on the Lake Fourth of July Fireworks; South
Lake Tahoe, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for South Lake
Tahoe's Light on the Lake Fourth of July

Fireworks in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of
responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is
necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. During the enforcement
period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone, unless
authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 18,
will be enforced from 7 a.m. on July 1, 2021 through 10:30 p.m. on July
4, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Anthony Solares, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 18, for the Lights
on the Lake Fourth of July Fireworks; South Lake Tahoe, CA from July 1,
2021 to July 4, 2021. The Coast Guard will enforce a 100-foot safety
zone around the three fireworks barges during the loading, standby,
transit, and arrival of the fireworks barges from the loading location
to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display.
On July 1, 2021 through July 4, 2021, the three fireworks barges will
be loaded with equipment only beginning at approximately 7 a.m. at
Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, CA. On July 1 2021, the three
fireworks barges will be loaded with pyrotechnics at approximately 7
a.m. at Edgewood, Stateline, Nevada, taking approximately 3 to 4 hours
to load. The fireworks barges will remain on standby at the loading
location until their transit to the display location. On July 4 2021,
from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. the loaded fireworks barges will transit from
Edgewood, Stateline, Nevada to the launching area off Stateline Beach,
Stateline, Nevada, approximately at position 38[deg]57'' 56.0'' N
119[deg]57'' 21.2'' W (NAD 83), where they will remain until the
conclusion of the fireworks display. As set forth in 33 CFR 165.1191,
Table 1, Item number 15, upon the commencement of the 25 to 30-minute
fireworks display, the safety zone will expand to encompass all
navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connecting all points 1,000 feet out from the fireworks barges near
Stateline Beach, Stateline, NV. The approximate position for firework
display is 38[deg]57'' 56.0'' N 119[deg]57'' 21.2'' W (NAD 83). The
safety zone will be enforced until 10:30 p.m. on July 4 2021, or as
announced via Local Notice to Mariners.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding
the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times. All
vessels in the safety zone during the effective dates and times are
subject to movement control by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol,
defined as a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene
to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the
enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the
safety zones you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander
or other Official Patrol.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Jordan M. Baldueza,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2021-13612 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0162 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR number 1093.07 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Clean Air Act, Plastic parts, Business machines 10. Abstract This information collection request is used to monitor the compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT. Affected facilities will report startup, initial performance test, and retest information. Facilities will also report on a regular basis emission exceedences, changes to equipment, and other requirements.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 10 b. Total annual responses 28 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10% c. Total hours requested 978 d. Current OMB inventory 3,639 e. Difference ( 2,661) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 2,661) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Leonard Lazarus Phone: 202 564 6369 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: September 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 52100-52101]
[DOCID:fr12se07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12818-000; Project No. 12845-000]

Free Flow Power Corporation; FFP Project 14 LLC; Notice of
Competing Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 5, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Applications: Preliminary Permit (Competing).
    b. Applicants, Project Numbers, and Dates Filed: Free Flow Power
Corporation, filed the application for Project No. 12818-000 on July
23, 2007.
    FFP Project 14, LLC filed the application for Project No.12845-000
on July 25, 2007.
    c. Name of the project is Thirty-five Mile Point Project. The
project would be located on the Mississippi River in St Charles Parish,
Louisiana. The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    d. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    e. Applicants Contacts: For the Free Flow Power Corporation: Mr.
Dan Irvin, Free Flow Power Corporation, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester,
MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. FFP Project 7, LLC: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP
Project 7, LLC, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978)
232-3536
    f. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    g. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. 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
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12818-000 or
P-12845-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    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 in 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.
    h. Description of Projects: The project proposed by Free Flow Power
Corporation would consist of: (1) 1,200 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow
generating units having a total installed capacity of 24 megawatts, (2)
a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The Free
Flow Power Corporation, project would have an average annual generation
of 105.12 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    The project proposed by FFP Project 20, LLC would consist of: (1)
1,200 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 24 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 14, LLC, project would
have an average annual generation of 201.48 gigawatt-hours and be sold
to a local utility.
    i. The filings are available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may 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. For assistance, call toll-free 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 e above.
    j. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    k. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    l. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.

    m. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    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,
385.211, 385.214. 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'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17931 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2298-2300]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0253]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from four individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0253 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the

docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The four individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical
Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has
published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Anthony Anello, III

    Mr. Anello, 32, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2007. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Anello receiving an exemption.

Anthony J. Kornuszko, Jr.

    Mr. Kornuszko, Jr. 47, has a history of a seizure disorder and has
been seizure free since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication, with
the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2011. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Kornuszko receiving an exemption.

Jeffrey W. Mills

    Mr. Mills, 56, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been
seizure

free since 2001. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2001. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Mills receiving an exemption.

Jaime D. Paggen.

    Ms. Paggen, 40, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2008. She takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2008. Her physician states that she
is supportive of Ms. Paggen receiving an exemption.

III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates
section of the notice.

IV. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0253 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2017-0253 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: January 5, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-00603 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38196-38198]
[DOCID:fr05jy06-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54053; File No. SR-NASD-2003-168]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 4 and 5 to the
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Release of Information Through
NASD BrokerCheck

June 27, 2006.
    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 June 6, 2006 and June 22, 2006, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') Amendment Nos. 4 and 5,
respectively, to the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. The proposed
rule change, incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 30, 2005.\3\ The Commission
received eight comment letters in response to the Notice.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 4 and 5, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\  See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51915 (June 23,
2005), 70 FR 37880 (``Notice'').
    \4\  See letters from Barry Augenbraun, Senior Vice President
and Corporate Secretary, Raymond James Financial, Inc., dated July
8, 2005; Joseph D. Fleming, Managing Director and Chief Compliance
Officer, Piper Jaffray & Co., dated July 13, 2005; Ronald C. Long,
Senior Vice President, Regulatory Policy and Administration,
Wachovia Securities, LLC, dated July 18, 2005; Mario Di Trapani,
President, Association of Registration Management, dated July 19,
2005 (``ARM Letter''); John S. Simmers, CEO, ING Advisors Network,
dated July 19, 2005 (``ING Letter''); Coleman Wortham III, President
and CEO, Davenport & Company LLC, dated July 20, 2005; Jill Gross,
Director of Advocacy and Rosario M. Patane, Student Intern, Pace
Investor Rights Project, dated July 21, 2005; and Ira Hammerman,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Securities Industry
Association, dated July 27, 2005 (``SIA Letter''). NASD submitted a
response to comments on June 6, 2006. See letter from Richard E.
Pullano, Associate Vice President & Chief Counsel, Registration and
Disclosure, NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant Director,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated June 6, 2006
(``NASD Response to Comments''). The NASD Response to Comments is
available on the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
).

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

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

    In response to comments on the Notice, NASD proposes additional
amendments to NASD Interpretive Material 8310-2 (``IM-8310-2'') \5\
regarding disclosures through NASD BrokerCheck.\6\ The discussion
section of this notice focuses on the changes made in Amendment Nos. 4
and 5.\7\ The text of the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment
Nos. 4 and 5, is available on NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com), at

NASD's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD also proposes to make non-substantive technical changes
to the proposed rule language, including the text of Interpretive
Material 8310-3, in Amendment Nos. 4 and 5. In Amendment No. 5, NASD
also clarifies that the implementation date for the proposed rule
change would be no later than 90 days following Commission approval.
    \6\ In December 2003, NASD announced that its Public Disclosure
Program would thereafter be known as ``NASD BrokerCheck.''
    \7\ For an explanation of the Notice, see Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 51915, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as
amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the
places specified in Item IV below. NASD 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
Rule Filing History
    On November 21, 2003, NASD filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change to amend IM-8310-2 and amended the proposed rule change in
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on September 28, 2004, March 8, 2005, and
April 12, 2005, respectively. The Commission published the Notice in
the Federal Register on June 30, 2005.\8\ The comment period closed on
July 21, 2005. Based on comments received in response to the Notice,
NASD is filing Amendment No. 4 to amend the rule language of IM-8310-
2.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\  Id.
    \9\  See also Amendment No. 5, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The sole substantive change to the proposed rule language of IM-
8310-2 in Amendment No. 4 concerns the conditions under which NASD
proposes to release Historic Complaints through BrokerCheck.\10\ As
provided in Amendment No. 2, NASD proposes to release Historic
Complaints only if the most recent Historic Complaint or currently
reported customer complaint, arbitration, or litigation is less than
ten (10) years old and the person has a total of three (3) or more
currently disclosable regulatory actions, currently reported customer
complaints, arbitrations, or litigations, or Historic Complaints, or
any combination thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes of IM-8310-2, Historic Complaints are defined
as customer complaints that are more than two years old and have not
been settled or adjudicated, or customer complaints, arbitrations,
or litigations that have been settled for an amount less than
$10,000, and which are no longer reported on a registration form.
    NASD currently calculates the two-year period for disclosure of
a customer complaint as of the date the customer complaint was first
reported on Form U4 or Form U5. Under the proposed rule change, and
consistent with the current interpretation of Form U4 and Form U5,
NASD will consider this two-year period to begin on the date on
which the member received the complaint, both for purposes of
reportability on Form U4 and Form U5 and for purposes of disclosure
pursuant to IM-8310-2. Accordingly, under the proposed rule change,
a customer complaint that has not been settled or adjudicated within
the two-year period beginning on the date on which the member
received the complaint would cease to be reported on Forms U4 and U5
and would also become a Historic Complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 4, based on concerns from certain commenters,\11\
NASD proposes to change the way in which it determines whether an
individual's Historic Complaints become eligible for disclosure through
BrokerCheck. In response to the Notice, commenters contended that firms
and registered persons made certain decisions with respect to customer
complaints, arbitrations, or litigations based on the rules under which
the Central Registration Depository and BrokerCheck currently operate
(for example, electing to enter into a settlement for what they
considered to be a nuisance value to maintain good client relationships
or avoid expensive litigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\  See, e.g., ARM Letter, ING Letter and SIA Letter, supra
note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASD proposes to amend the proposed rule language to
provide that Historic Complaints will be eligible for disclosure only
if the matter becomes a Historic Complaint on or after the
implementation date of this proposed rule change, i.e., was archived on
or after the implementation date of this proposed rule change. NASD
believes that it is in the public interest for those items that are
available for disclosure through BrokerCheck on or after the
implementation date of the proposed rule change to be eligible for
disclosure as Historic Complaints.
    The proposed modification to this rule would continue to provide
that NASD will disclose through BrokerCheck all of an individual's
Historic Complaints if: (1) The most recent Historic Complaint or
currently reported customer complaint, arbitration, or litigation is
less than ten (10) years old, and (2) the person has a total of three
(3) or more currently disclosable regulatory actions, currently
reported customer complaints, arbitrations, or litigations, or Historic
Complaints (subject to the limitation that they became a Historic
Complaint on or after the implementation date of the proposed rule
change), or any combination thereof.
    NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change
in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following
Commission approval. The effective date will be 30 days following
publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission
approval.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also note 5, supra, clarifying that the implementation
date for the proposed rule change would be no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\
which requires, among other things, that NASD 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, and section 15A(i),\14\ which
requires that NASD establish and maintain a toll-free telephone listing
to receive inquiries regarding disciplinary actions involving its
members and their associated persons and promptly respond to such
inquiries in writing. NASD states that the proposed rule change, as
amended, is designed to accomplish these ends by broadening the types
of information released to the investing public through NASD
BrokerCheck. At the same time, the proposed rule change, as amended,
establishes a principled basis for disclosure that meets NASD's
investor protection objectives, while fairly addressing the proprietary
interests of firms and the privacy interests of their associated
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
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

    NASD has submitted as a separate document its response to comments
received by the Commission in response to the publication of the Notice
on June 30, 2005.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice and NASD Response to Comments, supra notes 3 and
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which NASD consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the filing, as amended by Amendment Nos. 4 and 5,
including whether the filing 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-NASD-2003-168 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2003-168. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2003-168 and should be submitted on or before July 20, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10436 Filed 7-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61087-61089]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82353; File No. SR-BOX-2017-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 7260 by Extending the Penny Pilot Program Through June 30,
2018

December 19, 2017.
    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 December 13, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 Rule 7260 by extending the Penny
Pilot Program through June 30, 2018. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxoptions.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 Exchange proposes to extend the effective time period of the
Penny Pilot Program that is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2017, until June 30, 2018.\3\ The Penny Pilot Program permits
certain classes to be quoted in penny increments. The minimum price
variation for all classes included in the Penny Pilot Program, except
for PowerShares QQQ Trust (``QQQQ'')[supreg], SPDR S&P 500 Exchange
Traded Funds (``SPY''), and iShares Russell 2000 Index Funds (``IWM''),
will continue to be $0.01 for all quotations in options series that are
quoted at less than $3 per contract and $0.05 for all quotations in
options series that are quoted at $3 per contract or greater. QQQQ,
SPY, and IWM will continue to be quoted in $0.01 increments for all
options series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot Program has been in effect on the Exchange
since its inception in May 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 66871 (April 27, 2012), 77 FR 26323 (May 3, 2012) (File No. 10-
206, In the Matter of the Application of BOX Options Exchange LLC
for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Findings,
Opinion, and Order of the Commission), 67328 (June 29, 2012), 77 FR
40123 (July 6, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-007), 68425 (December 13, 2012),
77 FR 75234 (December 19, 2013) (SR-BOX-2012-021), 69789 (June 18,
2013), 78 FR 37854 (June 24, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-31), 71056 (December
12, 2013), 78 FR 76691 (December 18, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-56), 72348
(June 9, 2014), 79 FR 33976 (June 13, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-17), 73822
(December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75606 (December 18, 2014) (SR-BOX-2014-
29), 75295 (June 25, 2015), 80 FR 37690 (July 1, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-
23), 78172 (June 28, 2016), 81 FR 43325 (July 1, 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-
24), 79429 (November 30, 2016), 81 FR 87991 (December 6, 2016) (SR-
BOX-2016-55) and 80828 (May 31, 2017), 82 FR 26175 (June 6, 2017)
(SR-BOX-2017-18). The extension of the effective date and the
revision of the date to replace issues that have been delisted are
the only changes to the Penny Pilot Program being proposed at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may replace, on a semi-annual basis, any Pilot Program
classes that have been delisted on the second trading day following
January 1, 2018. The Exchange notes that the replacement classes will
be selected based on trading activity for the six month period
beginning June 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2017 for the January
2018 replacements. The Exchange will employ the same parameters to
prospective replacement classes as approved and applicable under the
Pilot Program, including excluding high-priced underlying securities.
The Exchange will distribute a Regulatory Circular notifying
Participants which replacement classes shall be included in the Penny
Pilot Program.
    BOX is specifically authorized to act jointly with the other
options exchanges participating in the Pilot Program in identifying any
replacement class.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the

requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny
Pilot until June 30, 2018 and changes the dates for replacing Penny
Pilot issues that were delisted to the second trading day following
January 1, 2018, will enable public customers and other market
participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options for
the benefit of all market participants. This is consistent with the
Act.

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. To the contrary, this proposal
is pro-competitive because it allows Penny Pilot issues to continue
trading on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a
determination of how the Pilot should be structured in the future; and
will serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby
reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. The Pilot is an industry wide initiative supported by all
other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot
will allow for continued competition between market participants on the
Exchange trading similar products as their counterparts on other
exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to
compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as
part of the Pilot.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing.\9\ However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the
Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because doing so will allow the Pilot Program to continue without
interruption in a manner that is consistent with the Commission's prior
approval of the extension and expansion of the Pilot Program and will
allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the
impact of the Pilot Program.\11\ Accordingly, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the
Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61061 (November 24,
2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-44).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2017-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-37
and should be submitted on or before January 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27693 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43768-43770]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0213; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-207-AD;
Amendment 39-17512; AD 2013-14-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Learjet Inc. Model 45 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that
the fire barrier seal on the external baggage door does not seal the
surrounding door structure due to incorrect positioning of the barrier.
This AD requires modifying the fire seal on the baggage door, including
doing inspections of the fire seal for correct contact and corrective
action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper sealing
of the baggage door, which could increase the risk of an uncontained
fire in the baggage compartment.

DATES: This AD is effective August 26, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 26,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet,

Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Neubauer, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas
67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR
18529). The NPRM proposed to require modifying the fire seal on the
baggage door, including doing inspections of the fire seal for correct
contact and corrective action if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 18529, March 27,
2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 342 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts      Cost per
              Action                      Labor cost         cost       product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification......................  11 work-hours x $85       $453          $1,388                      $474,696
                                     per hour = $935.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-14-07 Learjet Inc.: Amendment 39-17512; Docket No. FAA-2013-
0213; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-207-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 26, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Learjet Model 45 airplanes, certificated in
any category; serial numbers 45-002 through 45-380 inclusive, 45-382
through 45-396 inclusive, 45-398 through 45-405 inclusive, 45-2001
through 45-2114 inclusive, 45-2116, 45-2118, 45-2120, 45-2122, and
45-2124 through 45-2126 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the fire barrier seal on
the external baggage door does not seal the surrounding door
structure due to incorrect positioning of the barrier. We are
issuing this AD to prevent improper sealing of the baggage door,
which could increase the risk of an uncontained fire in the baggage
compartment.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Modify the fire seal on the baggage door, including doing general
visual inspections of the fire seal for correct contact and all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 40-25-25 or
Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 45-25-35, both Revision 3,
both dated February 6, 2012, as applicable. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this
AD (which are not incorporated by reference in this AD):
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 40-25-25, Revision 1, dated
August 23, 2010.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 40-25-25, Revision 2, dated
February 21, 2011.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 45-25-35, Revision 1, dated
August 23, 2010.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 45-25-35, Revision 2, dated
February 21, 2011.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
part identified in paragraph 2.B., ``Identification Table,'' of
Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 40-25-25 or Bombardier
Recommended Service Bulletin 45-25-35, both Revision 3, both dated
February 6, 2012, on any airplane, unless the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD are done concurrently with the
installation.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita 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.
    (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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Adam Neubauer,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 316-946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the
addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 40-25-25, Revision
3, dated February 6, 2012.
    (ii) Bombardier Recommended Service Bulletin 45-25-35, Revision
3, dated February 6, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone
316-946-2000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 5, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-16929 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P