[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2827-2828]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00725]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0667; FRL--9905-41-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Annual Public Water System Compliance Report
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Annual Public Water System
Compliance Report (Renewal) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2014. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR
57378) on September 18, 2013 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 18,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0667, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Chandler, Monitoring, Assistance
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, MC-2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR#: 1812.05.
    OMB Control #: 2020-0020.
    Abstract: Section 1414 (c)(3)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requires that each state (a term that includes states,
commonwealths and territories) that has primary enforcement authority
under the Safe Drinking Water Act shall prepare, make readily available
to the public, and submit to the Administrator of EPA, an annual report
of violations of national primary drinking water regulations in the
state. These Annual State Public Water System Compliance Reports are to
include violations of maximum contaminant levels, treatment
requirements, variances and exemptions, and monitoring requirements
determined to be significant by the Administrator after consultation
with the states. To minimize a state's burden in preparing its annual
statutorily-required report, EPA issued guidance that explains what
Section 1414(c)(3)(A) requires and provides model language and
reporting templates.
    Fifty-five states (including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and Navajo Nation) currently have primary enforcement authority under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Navajo Nation was approved for primacy
on December 6, 2000. Currently the State of Wyoming and the District of
Columbia neither have primary enforcement authority nor are they
seeking primary authority, so the number of 55 states is unlikely to
change over the next three years of this ICR.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, local and/or tribal
governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under Section 1414
(c)(3)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Estimated number of respondents: 55 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 4,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $317,684.95 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-00725 Filed 1-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act Section 610 Analysis the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction Rule United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 20, 2004 2 Introduction Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act ( SBREFA) requires federal agencies to periodically review regulations to determine whether or not they have had a significant adverse impact to a substantial number of small entities. Currently, The Agency is evaluating whether or not the Phase II and Phase III Land Disposal Restriction ( LDR) final rulemakings have significantly adversely impacted a substantial number of small entities. This memorandum presents findings of the SBREFA analysis on Phase III of the LDR rulemaking.

The Phase III final rule was promulgated April 8, 1996 and established treatment standards for newly identified listed wastes from the carbamate industry ( K156  K161) and spent potliners from the aluminum industry ( K088). These treatment standards are expressed as a numerical standard and have the effect of requiring that these wastes be treated prior to being land disposed.

To fulfill its obligations under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Office of Solid Waste is conducting an economic impact screen of potentially affected small entities under the Phase II rule. This memorandum presents estimates of the economic impacts of the Phase III LDR final rule on affected small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small government units, or small nongovernmental organizations such as trade associations and universities), expressed as an estimate of compliance cost to sales on a corporate basis.

Methodology & Results EPA completed data collection from available databases including the 1999 Biennial Reporting System data ( BRS) and Dun and Bradstreet Spectrum, as well as literature review, phone consultation with knowledgeable authorities and other data collection and analysis as appropriate.

EPA conducted the following steps to complete the analysis:

1. Identify waste handlers who manage potentially affected volumes of hazardous waste.

The 1999 BRS data were used to identify waste handlers who manage potentially affected volumes of newly listed carbamate industry wastes ( waste codes K156  K161) and spent potliners from the aluminum industry ( K088).

2. Identify waste handlers from Step 1 who are small entities.

The Agency relied primarily on Dun and Bradstreet Spectrum data ( D& B) to identify any waste handlers identified in Step 1 who are small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration Table of Size Standards ( see http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ indextableofsize. html). To avoid disclosure of proprietary data from Dun and Bradstreet facilities are represented as numbers in the memorandum instead of actual facility names or other identifiers. The model facilities include representations of affected firms and summary information about the number of 3 employees, and sales for the industries that the model facilities represent. The memorandum does not include any data regarding the names, location, number of employees or sales/ revenue of actual small entities identified through data collection from the Dun and Bradstreet.

In completing this step diligent efforts were made to identify whether each facility included in the BRS database was large or small. However because of variations in names between D& B and BRS as well as name changes, facilities and companies going out of business, a determination could not be made on all facilities. In total there were 70 facilities disposing the waste in question according to the 1999 BRS data. No size determination could be made on approximately 10 percent of the facilities reported in BRS. A total of only 3 companies were identified as being small.

3. Calculate cost of treatment for affected small entities.

Treatment costs for the listed wastes from the carbamate industry ( K156  K161) and spent potliners from the aluminum industry ( K088) were estimated. Treatment costs only include the treatment for the specific waste code and do not include treatment for underlying hazardous constituents. The waste management assumptions for each of the three small companies are presented in Table 1. Waste volumes are omitted to avoid disclosure of D& B data required to complete the impact analysis.

4. Conduct an economic impact analysis of the incremental cost of treatment to the sales of affected small entities to determine if there are significant impacts EPA compared the incremental compliance costs of treatment for the affected waste volumes with the annual revenues for the small companies. Cost impacts are presented in Table 2. Costs are well below 1 percent of sales, the highest being 0.56 percent. Because of the relatively low impacts, the Agency has determined that the Phase III LDR restrictions have not had a significant adverse impact to a substantial number of small entities.

Phase III LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 2 1999 Management 1 1 Assume Subtitle C Landfill at Chemical Waste Management of the NW Assume off site management at Chemical Waste Management of NW 3 2 Assume Subtitle C Landfill at Chemical Waste Management of the NW Assume off site management at Chemical Waste Management of NW 3 Phase III LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 2 1999 Management 1 4 3 Assume off site incineration of waste sludges with multiple waste codes ( K161 and Dcodes 1 Assume Subtitle C Landfill of waste solids with single ( K161) waste code. 1 Assume off site incineration.

1 1999 generation and management information obtained from the 1999 Biennial Report Database has been withheld to avoid disclosure. 2 Baseline management method information for generators of spent aluminum potliner was obtained from the 1995 Biennial Report Database. 3 The Phase III LDR K088 treatment standards became effective in October of 1997. This created a shift in management practices at the end of 1997 to the Reynolds' thermal treatment plant in Gum Springs, Arkansas, and Chem Waste Management's on site storage facility in Oregon ( near the City of Arlington). A $ 245/ ton 1998 price quote ( treatment = $ 80, disposal = $ 80, and storage = $ 85) for the Chem Waste Management storage facility was obtained from Federal Register, Volume 63, Number 185, September 24, 1998, pp. 51260. 4 The Phase III LDR K161 treatment standards became effective in July of 1996. The listing of this waste as hazardous became effective prior to the date the LDR treatment standards became effective and would have required Subtitle C landfill.

Table 2. Facility Specific Summary of LDR Phase III Impacts on Small Businesses Facility Sales 1/ LDR Costs as % of Sales 1 $ 157,000,000 0.56%

2 $ 124,000,000 0.48%

3 $ 187,000,000 0.01% 1/ Sales values rounded to nearest $ 1 million.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43503-43505]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17891]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75473; File No. SR-C2-2015-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to AIM

July 16, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 14, 2015, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change proposes to amend the Exchange's rules
related to its Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM''). The text of
the proposed rule change is provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated

Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.51. Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'')

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 6.50, a Participant that
represents agency orders may electronically execute an order it
represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against principal interest or
against a solicited order provided it submits the Agency Order for
execution into the AIM auction (``Auction'') pursuant to this Rule.
    (a)-(b) No change.

. . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.02 No change.
    .03 Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July 18,
201[5]6, there will be no minimum size requirement for orders to be
eligible for the Auction. During this Pilot Period, the Exchange will
submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to
provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is
meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active
and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Auction
mechanism. Any raw data which is submitted to the Commission will be
provided on a confidential basis.
    .04-.09 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In December 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') approved adoption of C2's rules, including the AIM
auction process.\3\ AIM exposes certain orders electronically to an
auction process to provide these orders with the opportunity to receive
an execution at an improved price. The AIM auction is available only
for orders that a Trading Permit Holder represents as agent (``Agency
Order'') and for which a second order of the same size as the Agency
Order (and on the opposite side of the market) is also submitted
(effectively stopping the Agency Order at a given price).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61152 (December 10,
2009), 74 FR 66699 (December 16, 2009) (SR-C2-2011-015) [sic].
    \4\ The Exchange first activated AIM on October 17, 2011 for
P.M.-settled options on the S&P 500 Index (SPXpm), which are no
longer listed on the Exchange. Currently, AIM is not activated for
any classes on C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved on a pilot basis the component of AIM that
there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the
auction. In connection with the pilot programs, the Exchange has
submitted to the Commission reports providing detailed AIM auction and
order execution data. The Exchange will provide the Commission six
months of additional AIM auction and order execution data for the
period of January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 no later than January 18,
2016. The raw data provided will be submitted on a confidential basis.
In addition, the Exchange will submit tables summarizing AIM price
improvement statistics for each month of the January 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015 period. The summary tables will be made available to the
public. Five one-year extensions to the pilot program have previously
become effective.\5\ The proposed rule change merely extends the
duration of the pilot program until July 18, 2016. Extending the pilot
for an additional year will allow the Commission more time to consider
the impact of the pilot program on AIM order executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63238 (November 3,
2010), 75 FR 68844 (November 9, 2010) (SR-C2-2010-008); 64929 (July
20, 2011), 76 FR 44635 (July 26, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-015); 67303 (June
28, 2012), 77 FR 39777 (July 5, 2012) (SR-C2-2012-021); 69868 (June
27, 2013), 78 FR 40235 (July 3, 2013) (SR-C2-2013-023); and 72569
(July 9, 2014), 79 FR 41337 [sic] (July 15, 2014) (SR-C2-2014-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically,

the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change protects investors and the
public interest by allowing for an extension of the AIM pilot program,
and thus allowing additional time for the Commission to evaluate the
AIM pilot program. The AIM pilot program will continue to allow smaller
orders to receive the opportunity for price improvement pursuant to the
AIM auction. The additional data provided will help the Commission
determine if there is evidence of meaningful competition for all size
orders, significant price improvement for orders going through the AIM
and an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of
the AIM Auction.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intramarket competition
because it applies to all Trading Permit Holders. All Trading Permit
Holders that submit orders into an AIM auction are still subject to the
same requirements. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition,
as it merely extends the duration of an existing pilot program, which
is available to all market participants through Trading Permit Holders.
AIM will continue to function in the same manner as it currently
functions for an extended period of time.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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 requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow the Exchange
to extend the pilot program prior to its expiration on July 18, 2015.
In addition, the Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow for the least amount of market disruption, as the
pilot program will continue as it currently does maintaining the status
quo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot program. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18,
2015.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, 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 the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2015-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2015-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 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; 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-C2-2015-020, and should be
submitted on or before August 12, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17891 Filed 7-21-15; 08:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31169-31172]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0251; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-002-AD;
Amendment 39-17058; AD 2012-10-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (type certificate previously held by
The New Piper Aircraft Inc.) Models PA-31T and PA-31T1 airplanes. That
AD currently requires correcting a model identification error on the
aircraft data plate. Since we issued that AD, we have become aware that
some owner/operators of the affected airplanes modified the aircraft
data plate in error because of confusion in the serial number
applicability. Because of the confusion, the manufacturer has issued
new service information to clarify affected airplane serial numbers.
This new AD requires determining the airplane model based on the serial
number and modifying the aircraft data plate to properly identify the
airplane model. This new AD also requires doing a detailed search for
all applicable airworthiness related documents that apply to any
airplane that has an incorrectly marked data plate and take necessary
corrective actions based on the search findings. We are issuing this AD
to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 29, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 29,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone:
(772) 567-4361; Internet: www.piper.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 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: Gregory ``Keith'' Noles, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404)
474-5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 80-11-06, amendment 39-3776 (45 FR 35309, May
27, 1980). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2012 (77 FR 14316). The
NPRM proposed to retain all requirements of AD 80-11-06, amendment 39-
3776 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980) and clarify the serial number
applicability of the affected model airplanes. The NPRM also proposed
to require a detailed search for all applicable airworthiness related
documents that apply to any airplane that has an incorrectly marked
aircraft data plate and take necessary corrective actions.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9,
2012) 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 the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 14316, March 9, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 158 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the aircraft data plate...  1 work-hour x $85 per  Not applicable.......             $85         $13,430
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modification
and/or records search that will be required based on the results of the
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need modification:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                           Labor cost                  Parts cost              product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modify the aircraft data plate.........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour   Not applicable............             $85
                                          = $85.
Detailed search for all applicable       4 work-hours x $85 per hour  Not applicable............            $340
 airworthiness related documents that     = $340.
 apply to any airplane that has an
 incorrectly marked aircraft data plate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
80-11-06, amendment 39-3776 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980), and adding the
following new AD:

2012-10-09 Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by
The New Piper Aircraft Inc.): Amendment 39-17058; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0251; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-002-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 29, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 80-11-06, Amendment 39-3776 (45 FR 35309,
May 27, 1980).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model PA-31T airplanes, serial numbers 31T-7820001, 31T-
7820002, 31T-7820003, 31T-7820004, 31T-7820005, 31T-7820006, 31T-
7820007, 31T-7820008, 31T-7820009, 31T-7820010, 31T-7820011, 31T-
7820012, 31T-7820013, 31T-7820014, 31T-7820015, 31T-7820016, 31T-
7820017, 31T-7820018, 31T-7820019, 31T-7820020, 31T-7820021, 31T-
7820022, 31T-7820023, 31T-7820024, 31T-7820025, 31T-7820026, 31T-
7820027, 31T-7820028, 31T-7820029, 31T-7820030, 31T-7820031, 31T-
7820032, 31T-7820033, 31T-7820034, 31T-7820035, 31T-7820036, 31T-
7820037, 31T-7820038, 31T-7820039, 31T-7820040, 31T-7820041, 31T-
7820042, 31T-7820043, 31T-7820044, 31T-7820045, 31T-7820046, 31T-
7820047, 31T-7820048, 31T-7820049, 31T-7820050, 31T-7820051, 31T-
7820052, 31T-7820053, 31T-7820054, 31T-7820055, 31T-7820056, 31T-
7820057, 31T-7820058, 31T-7820059, 31T-7820060, 31T-7820061, 31T-
7820062, 31T-7820063, 31T-7820064, 31T-7820065, 31T-7820066, 31T-
7820067, 31T-7820068, 31T-7820069, 31T-7820070, 31T-7820071, 31T-
7820072, 31T-7820073, 31T-7820074, 31T-7820075, 31T-7820076, 31T-
7820077, 31T-7820078, 31T-7820079, 31T-7820080, 31T-7820081, 31T-
7820082, 31T-7820083, 31T-7820084, 31T-7820085, 31T-7820086, 31T-
7820087, 31T-7820088, 31T-7820089, 31T-7820090, 31T-7820091, 31T-
7820092; and
    (2) Model PA-31T1 airplanes, serial numbers 31T-7804001, 31T-
7804002, 31T-7804003, 31T-7804004, 31T-7804005, 31T-7804006, 31T-
7804007, 31T-7804008, 31T-7804009, 31T-7804010, 31T-7804011, 31T-
7904001, 31T-7904002, 31T-7904003, 31T-7904004, 31T-7904005, 31T-
7904006, 31T-7904007, 31T-7904008, 31T-7904009, 31T-7904010, 31T-
7904011, 31T-7904012, 31T-7904013, 31T-7904014, 31T-7904015, 31T-
7904016, 31T-7904017, 31T-7904018, 31T-7904019, 31T-7904020, 31T-
7904021, 31T-7904022, 31T-7904023, 31T-7904024, 31T-7904025, 31T-
7904026, 31T-7904027, 31T-7904028, 31T-7904029, 31T-7904030, 31T-
7904031, 31T-7904032, 31T-7904033, 31T-7904034, 31T-7904035, 31T-
7904036, 31T-7904037, 31T-7904038, 31T-7904039, 31T-7904040, 31T-
7904041, 31T-7904042, 31T-7904043, 31T-7904044, 31T-7904045, 31T-
7904046, 31T-7904047, 31T-7904048, 31T-7904049, 31T-7904050, 31T-
7904051, 31T-7904052, 31T-7904053, 31T-7904056, 31T-7904057.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 1100, Placards and Markings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that some owner/operators of the
affected airplanes modified the aircraft data plate in error because
of confusion in the serial number applicability. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspect the Aircraft Data Plate

    Within the next 100 hours after June 29, 2012 (the effective
date of this AD), inspect the markings on the aircraft data plate.
Do the inspection following Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. 1235, dated November 3, 2011.
    (1) If the aircraft data plate is correctly marked, make a
logbook entry showing compliance with this AD, and no further action
is required.
    (2) If the aircraft data plate is incorrectly marked, continue
with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

(h) Modify the Aircraft Data Plate

    Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph
(g) of this AD, modify the aircraft data plate following Part II of
Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1235, dated
November 3, 2011.

(i) Detailed Aircraft Records Search

    Before further flight after the modification required in
paragraph (h) of this AD:
    (1) Do a detailed search of the aircraft maintenance records and
documents to include, but not limited to, ADs, special airworthiness
information bulletins (SAIBs), service bulletins (SBs), and other
service documents; installed supplemental type certificates (STCs)
and parts manufacturing approval (PMAs); and instructions for
continued airworthiness (ICAs). Each document found must be assessed
to ensure proper actions have been made to maintain airworthiness as
affected by the model number of the aircraft. Part 135 operators and
other operators utilizing FAA-approved maintenance programs will
need to address changes to their inspection programs and related
documents.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Although some of the
above documents may not be mandatory for compliance, it is still
necessary to evaluate them to ensure that any voluntary compliance
does not negatively affect the airworthiness of the airplane.

    (2) Identify all discrepant conditions for misidentified
aircraft and coordinate with the geographic Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO) and the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO) to determine necessary corrective actions. Also, coordinate
with the geographic FSDO to arrange for revisions to the
airworthiness certificate, registration, and other potential
document/certificate revisions. The following is a list of example
discrepant conditions that may be found during the records search:
    (i) An AD was complied with that was applicable to the incorrect
model, but not applicable to the corrected model.
    (ii) A required AD for the corrected model was not complied
with.
    (iii) A maintenance action was performed that was recommended,
but not mandatory, for the incorrect model, but not applicable to
the corrected model.
    (iv) A PMA part was installed that was applicable for the
incorrect model, but not for the corrected model.
    (v) An STC was installed that was applicable for the incorrect
model, but not for the corrected model.
    (vi) An STC was installed that was applicable for both the
incorrect and corrected model, but all related, applicable ADs for
the corrected model were not complied with.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 80-11-06 (45 FR 35309, May 27, 1980),
are approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Gregory ``Keith''
Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 1235, dated November 3, 2011, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: www.piper.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on May 14, 2012.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12092 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44984]
[DOCID:fr01au08-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1250-000]

Haverhill North Coke Company; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

July 25, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Haverhill North Coke Company's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 14, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17631 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19977-19978]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09288]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-561, OMB Control No. 3235-0634, Request for a New OMB
Control No.]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 607

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation E (17 CFR 230.601 to 230.610a) exempts from registration
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities
Act'') securities issued by a small business investment company
(``SBIC'') which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') or a closed-end
investment company that has elected to be regulated as a business
development company (``BDC'') under the Investment Company Act, so long
as the aggregate offering price of all

securities of the issuer that may be sold within a 12-month period does
not exceed $5,000,000 and certain other conditions are met. Rule 607
under Regulation E (17 CFR 230.607) entitled, ``Sales material to be
filed,'' requires sales material used in connection with securities
offerings under Regulation E to be filed with the Commission at least
five days (excluding weekends and holidays) prior to its use.\1\
Commission staff reviews sales material filed under rule 607 for
materially misleading statements and omissions. The requirements of
rule 607 are designed to protect investors from the use of false or
misleading sales material in connection with Regulation E offerings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sales material includes advertisements, articles or other
communications to be published in newspapers, magazines, or other
periodicals; radio and television scripts; and letters, circulars or
other written communications proposed to be sent given or otherwise
communicated to more than ten persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents to this collection of information include SBICs and
BDCs making an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation E. Two
filings were submitted to the Commission under rule 607 in 2016, 2017,
and 2018. Accordingly, we estimate one annual response. Each
respondent's reporting burden under rule 607 relates to the burden
associated with filing its sales material electronically, which is
negligible. For administrative purposes, we estimate an annual burden
of one hour. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a
quantitative, comprehensive, or even representative survey or study of
the burdens associated with Commission rules and forms.
    The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory.
Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09288 Filed 5-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 2000 Traverwood Drive
                                 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

June 6, 2016

MEMORANDUM

             SUBJECT:	Discussion with the Boeing Company Regarding the Proposed Aircraft GHG Emissions Findings and ANPR and International CO2 Standard - October 23, 2015

             FROM:	Bryan J. Manning, Mechanical Engineer Assessment and Standards Division
             Office of Transportation and Air Quality
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO:	The Air and Radiation Docket
             Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0828

This memorandum documents a meeting held on October 23, 2015 between representatives of the Boeing Company and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discuss the agency's proposed aircraft greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions findings and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) -- and the aircraft CO2 standards that were under development in the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO's) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP).

The meeting attendees from the Boeing Company included:

 Dan Allyn
 Peter Pagano
 Sean Newsum
 Bob Peterson (RMPAero, LLC a contractor for the Boeing Company)

The meeting attendees from the EPA included:

 Lucie Audette
 Bill Charmley
 Mike Samulski
 Bryan Manning

The discussion topics included an overview by the Boeing Company of the ICAO/CAEP aircraft CO2 standards and their CO2 emissions reduction strategy.  This overview was followed by clarifying questions about the EPA's proposed aircraft GHG emissions findings/ANPR, including next steps and schedule, and the ICAO/CAEP aircraft CO2 standards.

Attachments:
 Boeing draft meeting agenda
 Boeing Commercial Airplanes Overview
 Boeing ICAO CO2 Emissions Standard Overview


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73477-73478]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725s); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a renewal of currently approved
information collection, FERC-725S (Emergency Preparedness and
Operations (EOP) Reliability Standards).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due January 19,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-6-
000) by one of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
     Effective 7/1/2020, delivery of filings other than by
eFiling or the U.S. Postal Service should be delivered to Health and
Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725S, Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP)
Reliability Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0270.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725S information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.

    Abstract: The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title
XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), added a new section
215 to the Federal Power Act (FPA).\1\ FPA section 215 requires a
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be
enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the
Commission independently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o. The approved Reliability Standards are
available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system on
the NERC website, www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or
by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the ERO
pursuant to section 215 of the FPA. FERC-725S consists of Emergency
Preparedness and Operations (EOP) Reliability Standards, EOP-004-4
(Event Reporting), EOP-005-3 (System Restoration from Blackstart
Resources), EOP-006-3 (System Restoration Coordination), and EOP-008-2
(Loss of Control Center Functionality), EOP-010-1 (Geomagnetic
Disturbance Operations), and EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations).
Reliability standards EOP-004-4, EOP-005-3, EOP-006-3 and EOP-008-2,
EOP-010-1, and EOP-011-1, EOP Reliability Standards will enhance
reliability by:
    (1) Providing accurate reporting of events to NERC's event analysis
group to analyze the impact on the reliability of the bulk electric
system (Reliability Standard EOP-004-4).
    (2) delineating the roles and responsibilities of entities that
support system restoration from blackstart resources which generate
power without the support of the bulk electric system (Reliability
Standard EOP-005-3).
    (3) clarifying the procedures and coordination requirements for
reliability coordinator personnel to execute system restoration
processes (Reliability Standard EOP-006-3).
    (4) refining the required elements of an operating plan used to
continue reliable operations of the bulk electric system in the event
that primary control center functionality is lost (Reliability Standard
EOP-008-2).
    (5) address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each
Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating
Plan(s) to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are
coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator Area (EOP-010-1).
    (6) streamlines the requirements for Emergency operations of the
Bulk Electric System. Attachment 1, which is incorporated into
Requirements R2 and R6, provides the process and descriptions of the
levels used by the Reliability Coordinator when communicating the
condition of a Balancing Authority that is experiencing an Energy
Emergency (EOP-011-1).
    Type of Respondents: Public utilities subject to the FPA.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\ and cost \3\: The Commission
estimates there will be no changes in the annual public reporting
burden for the FERC-735S, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's skill set and
cost (for wages and benefits) for FERC-725S are approximately the
same as the Commission's average cost. The FERC 2020 average salary
plus benefits for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is $172,329/
year (or $83.00/hour).
    \4\ The number of respondents is based on NERC compliance
registration information as of October 2, 2020.

                                                               FERC-725S, Modifications Due to Final Rule in Docket No. XX-XX-XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of     Annual number
   Reliability standard and associated       respondents    of responses    Total number     Average burden & cost per  response      Total  annual burden & total annual cost       Cost per
               requirement                       \4\       per respondent   of responses                                                                                respondent ($)
                                                      (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)...................................  (3) * (4) = (5)..............................       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EOP-010-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      181               1             181  20 hrs.; $1,660.......................  3,620 hrs.; $300,460.........................          $1,660
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EOP-011-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       12               1              12  1,500 hrs.; $124,500..................  18,000 hrs.; $1,494,000......................         124,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             EOP-004-4,EOP-005-3,EOP-006-3,EOP-008-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      280               1             280  250.58 hrs.; $20,798..................  70,162.4 hrs.; $5,234,440....................         $20,798
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total EOP............................             473  ..............  ..............  ......................................  91,782 hrs.; $7,028,900......................  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 12, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25438 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60670-60673]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24029]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0211; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-230-AD;
Amendment 39-17597; AD 2013-19-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -
200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F, and 747SR series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracking at the aft upper corner of the main
entry door (MED) 5 cutout. This AD requires inspecting for the presence
of repairs and measuring the edge margin at certain fastener locations
around the upper aft corner of the door cutout, inspecting for any
cracking of the fuselage skin assembly and bear strap in the aft upper
corner area of the door cutout, and repairing or modifying the fuselage
skin assembly and bear strap if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the skin and bear straps at the aft
upper corner of the MED 5 cutout, which could result in in-flight
depressurization.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 6, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 6,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at 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: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 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 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18917).
The NPRM proposed to require inspecting for the presence of repairs and
measuring the edge margin at certain fastener locations around the
upper aft corner of the door cutout, inspecting for any cracking of the
fuselage skin assembly and bear strap in the aft upper corner area of
the door cutout, and repairing or modifying the fuselage skin assembly
and bear strap if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 18917, March 28, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Provide Clarification or Revision of Corrective Actions
Phrase in Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 18917, March 28, 2013)

    UPS requested that the phrase ``applicable corrective or additional
actions'' be used in place of ``applicable corrective actions'' in
paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 18917, March 28, 2013). UPS found
the use of ``applicable corrective actions'' to be confusing in the
case when no cracks are found during the inspection and stated the
phrase could lead to problems with interpretation. UPS stated that for
airplanes on which no cracks are found, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, specifies the installation of a
preventative modification, with the option of doing the repetitive
inspections until installation of the preventative modification. UPS
added that it is not intuitively clear that corrective action is
required for the case where no cracks are found.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. We have revised the
phrasing and paragraph structure of paragraph (g)(2) of this final rule
to clarify what is required or acceptable in the case of no crack
findings. However, we have not used the phrase ``applicable corrective
or additional actions'' as suggested by UPS.

Request To Add Option To Do Certain Actions by Using Service
Information

    Boeing requested that paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 18917,
March 28, 2013) be revised to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, for instructions instead of
referencing the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process. Boeing
referred to similar language in the last sentence of paragraph (g)(2)
of the NPRM and suggested adding that language to paragraph (g)(1) of
the NPRM would clarify the required actions.
    We disagree. For the condition addressed by paragraph (g)(1) of
this final rule, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated
November 6, 2012, states to ``Do inspections or change the repair, as
described by Boeing.'' To require operators to contact Boeing for these
actions would be delegating our rulemaking authority to the
manufacturer. Paragraph (h)(2) of this final rule also requires using
the AMOC process instead where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing. We have
not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Approve an Alternate Generic Repair Scheme as an AMOC

    British Airways requested that an alternate generic repair scheme
be approved as an AMOC to this final rule. British Airways stated that
it is in favor of doing the detailed inspections for the presence of
repairs and measuring the edge margin, as it has had several findings
during the accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839,
dated November 6, 2012. However, due to insufficient availability of
the modification kit (due to the service bulletin validation process),
Boeing had provided an alternate generic repair scheme to British
Airways which allowed British Airways to manufacture certain repair
parts. British Airways stated it has requested that Boeing include the
alternate generic repair scheme in the next revision of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012.
    We disagree. An AMOC is issued only after an AD has been issued and
only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is
complete and addresses the unsafe condition. The alternate generic
repair scheme that British Airways attached to its comment states that
the ``repair is generic, and may need to be modified to account for the
existing configuration and reported conditions.'' Therefore, each
repair will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Once we issue
this final rule, anyone may submit an AMOC request to use an alternate
generic repair scheme under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this
final rule. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate the
generic repair and show that it would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM (78 FR 18917, March 28, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 18917, March 28, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 246 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                Labor cost         Parts cost         Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect for repair and         1 work-hour x    None................  Up to $170..........  Up to $41,820.
 measure edge margin.           $85 per hour =
                                $85 per door
                                (up to 2 doors
                                per airplane).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repetitive
inspections, repairs or modifications that would be required based on
the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these inspections, repairs or modification:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections of un-repaired  6 work-hours x $85 per   None...................  $510 per door, per
 area.                                  hour = $510 per door,                             inspection cycle.
                                        per inspection cycle.
Repair or modification...............  10 work-hours x $85 per  Between $7,654 and       Between $8,504 and
                                        hour = $850 per door.    $17,426 per door.        $18,276 per door.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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):

2013-19-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17597; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0211; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-230-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 6, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, -
100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F, and 747SR
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at the aft upper
corner of the main entry door (MED) 5 cutout. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct cracking of the skin and bear straps at the
aft upper corner of the MED 5 cutout, which could result in in-
flight depressurization.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Measurement

    Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012:
Do a detailed inspection for the presence of repairs at the aft
upper corner of the MED 5 cutout, and measure the edge margin at
certain fastener locations around the corner of the door cutout, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012.
    (1) If a repair is found: Before further flight, inspect or
change the repair, using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) If no repair is found, except as specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839,
dated November 6, 2012: Do detailed and high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspections for any cracking of the fuselage skin assembly
and bear strap in the aft upper corner area of the door cutout, as
applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, except as required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable

corrective actions before further flight. If no cracking is found:
Before further flight, install a preventative modification, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, except as
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
    (i) Options provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, for accomplishing the applicable
corrective action are acceptable for the corresponding requirements
of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided that the inspections and
preventative modification are done at the applicable times in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012.
    (ii) Options provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, for accomplishing the preventative
modification when no cracking is found are acceptable for the
corresponding requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided
that the inspections and preventative modification are done at the
applicable times in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012.

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated
November 6, 2012, specifies compliance times ``after the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance times ``after the effective date of
this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated
November 6, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, do the action using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(i) Post-Repair/Post-Modification Inspections

    The post-repair or post-modification inspections specified in
table 3 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, are not required by
this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD: The post-repair or post-
modification inspection specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated
November 6, 2012, may be used in support of compliance with section
121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)). The corresponding
actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6, 2012, are not
required by this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2839, dated November 6,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at 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 September 13, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24029 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P