[Federal Register: February 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7002-7004]
[DOCID:fr12fe09-12]

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0057; Directorate Identifier 85-ANE-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4 Series
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce (RR) RB211-535E4 series turbofan
engines. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive inspections
of the outer combustion case for cracks and possible removal. This
proposed AD would require the same inspections, but would require using
RR Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated
April 9, 1999. This proposed AD results from RR issuing a revision to
the MSB. We are proposing this AD to prevent an uncontained outer
combustion case burst, which could result in damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by April 13,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United
Kingdom; telephone: 44 (0) 1332-242424; fax: 44 (0) 1332-249936, for
the service information identified in this proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0057; Directorate
Identifier 85-ANE-25-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    On March 24, 1986, the FAA issued AD 86-07-01, Amendment 39-5273
(51 FR 12511, April 11, 1986). That AD requires initial and repetitive
inspections of the combustor case welds using RR MSB RB.211-72-7775,
dated June 28, 1985. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the
airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified us that an
unsafe condition may exist on RR RB211-535E4 series turbofan engines.
The CAA advises that RR has issued MSB RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3,
dated April 9, 1999 to add the option of using an ECI to inspect the
outer combustion case for cracks. That condition, if not corrected,
could result in an uncontained outer combustion case burst, which could
result in damage to the airplane.

Actions Since AD 86-07-01 Was Issued

    Since that AD was issued, RR has issued MSB RB.211-72-7775,
Revision 1, dated January 24, 1992; RB.211-72-7775, Revision 2, dated
February 27, 1998; and RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999.
MSB RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999 allows using an
eddy current inspection (ECI) instead of the fluorescent penetrant
inspection required by MSB RB.211-72-7775, dated June 28, 1985; RB.211-
72-7775, Revision 1, dated January 24, 1992; and RB.211-72-7775,
Revision 2, dated February 27, 1998. Also, we no longer consider using
red dye penetrant, as specified in MSB RB.211-72-7775, dated June 28,
1985, an acceptable inspection method.

Special Flight Permits Paragraph Removed

    The current AD, AD 86-07-01, contains a paragraph pertaining to
special flight permits. Even though this NPRM does not contain a
similar paragraph, we have made no changes with regard to the use of
special flight permits to operate the airplane to a repair facility to
do the work required by this AD. In July 2002, we published a new Part
39 that contains a general authority regarding special flight permits
and airworthiness directives;

see Docket No. FAA-2004-8460, Amendment 39-9474 (69 FR 47998, July 22,
2002). Thus, when we now supersede ADs, we will not include a specific
paragraph on special flight permits unless we want to limit the use of
that general authority granted in section 39.23.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of RR
Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated
April 9, 1999, that describes procedures for inspecting the outer
combustion case for cracks. The CAA classified this service bulletin as
mandatory and issued AD CAA 008-07-85 in order to ensure the
airworthiness of these RR engines in the United Kingdom.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. For that reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require initial and repetitive ECI of the outer combustion
case, and if necessary, replacing the case. The proposed AD would
require that you do these actions using the service information
described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 300 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions, and
that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. No parts are
required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the
proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $24,000.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-5273 (51 FR
12511, April 11, 1986) and by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

Rolls-Royce plc (RR) (Formerly Rolls-Royce Limited): Docket No. FAA-
2009-0057; Directorate Identifier 85-ANE-25-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by April 13,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 86-07-01, Amendment 39-5273.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to RR RB211-534E4-37, RR RB211-534E4-37, RR
RB211-534E4-37, RR RB211-534E4-37 turbofan engines that don't
incorporate RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-8045. These engines
are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 757 and Tupolev Tu204
airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from RR issuing revisions to Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) RB.211-72-7775. We are issuing this AD to
prevent an uncontained outer combustion case burst, which could
result in damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Initial Inspection

    (f) Perform an initial inspection of the outer combustion
casing. Use the Accomplishment Instructions 3.A. of RR MSB RB.211-
72-7775, Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999 and the following
compliance schedules:
    (1) For cases with 1,500 or fewer cycles-since-new (CSN) on the
effective date of this AD, inspect before accumulating 1,500 CSN.
    (2) For cases with more than 1,500 CSN on the effective date of
this AD, inspect within 50 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the
effective date of this AD.
    (3) If you detect any cracks of 1.5 inches or more, replace the
case before further flight.

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Thereafter, inspect cases at the following intervals. Use
the Accomplishment Instructions 3.A. of RR MSB RB.211-72-7775,
Revision 3, dated April 9, 1999.
    (1) Inspect within 500 cycles-since-last inspection (CSLI) if
you detected no cracks during the last inspection.
    (2) Inspect within 100 CSLI if you detected cracks less than or
equal to 0.5 inch in length during the last inspection.
    (3) Inspect within 50 CSLI if you detected cracks greater than
0.5 inch but less than 1.5 inches in length.

Credit for Previous Inspections

    (h) Cases inspected before the effective date of this AD using
RB.211-72-7775, Revision 2, dated February 27, 1998, or earlier
issue, meet the requirements of this AD for the initial or
repetitive inspections specified in paragraphs (f) through (f)(3)
and (g) through (g)(3) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD
if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Civil Aviation Authority airworthiness directive 008-07-85,
dated June 19, 1985, also addresses the subject of this AD.
    (k) Rolls-Royce plc MSB RB.211-72-7775, Revision 3, dated April
9, 1999, or earlier

issue, contains information related to the subject of this AD.
Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United
Kingdom; telephone: 44 (0) 1332-242424; fax: 44 (0) 1332-249936, for
a copy of this service information
    (l) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 23, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-3018 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7650-7652]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30882; Amdt. No. 3517]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective February 4, 2013. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of February 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18, 2013.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 7 MARCH 2013

Anaktuvuk Pass, AK, Anaktuvuk Pass, AKUMY THREE, Graphic DP
San Martin, CA, South County Arpt of Santa Clara County, GPS RWY 32,
Orig-A, CANCELED
San Martin, CA, South County Arpt of Santa Clara County, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 32, Orig
San Martin, CA, South County Arpt of Santa Clara County, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Walsenburg, CO, Spanish Peaks Airfield, GOSIP ONE, Graphic DP
Walsenburg, CO, Spanish Peaks Airfield, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Walsenburg, CO, Spanish Peaks Airfield, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Walsenburg, CO, Spanish Peaks Airfield, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Hartford, CT, Hartford-Brainard, LDA RWY 2, Amdt 2
Hartford, CT, Hartford-Brainard, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig
Hartford, CT, Hartford-Brainard, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Boise, ID, Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 28R,
Orig
Boise, ID, Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt
4
Coeur D'Alene, ID, Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington Field, COEUR
D'ALENE TWO, Graphic DP
Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2R, Orig
Chicago/West Chicago, IL, Dupage, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20L, Orig
Moline, IL, Quad City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2A
Thibodaux, LA, Thibodaux Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Beverly, MA, Beverly Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Eveleth, MN, Eveleth-Virginia Muni, GPS RWY 27, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Eveleth, MN, Eveleth-Virginia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Eveleth, MN, Eveleth-Virginia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 3
Eveleth, MN, Eveleth-Virginia Muni, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 1
Eveleth, MN, Eveleth-Virginia Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2
Greenwood, MS, Greenwood-Leflore, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 8
Greenwood, MS, Greenwood-Leflore, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2
Greenwood, MS, Greenwood-Leflore, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Greenwood, MS, Greenwood-Leflore, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Greenwood, MS, Greenwood-Leflore, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 7
Mount Olive, NC, Mount Olive Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Mount Olive, NC, Mount Olive Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2
Claremont, NH, Claremont Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A
Trenton, NJ, Trenton Mercer, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 24, Orig
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1B
Baker City, OR, Baker City Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Medford, OR, Rogue Valley Intl--Medford, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 10
Erie, PA, Erie Intl/Tom Ridge Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Erie, PA, Erie Intl/Tom Ridge Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Fayetteville, TN, Fayetteville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Navasota, TX, Navasota Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Navasota, TX, Navasota Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Navasota, TX, Navasota Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 2
San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
San Marcos, TX, San Marcos Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
Morrisville, VT, Morrisville-Stowe State, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 3

Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, NDB RWY 11, Amdt 5
Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2
Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 3
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig, CANCELED
Greybull, WY, South Big Horn County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 19, Orig, CANCELED
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS Y OR LOC RWY 19, Orig-A
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS Z OR LOC/DME RWY 19, Orig
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 19, Amdt 1
Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 19, Amdt 1

Effective 4 APRIL 2013

Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 11
Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34R, Amdt 2A

[FR Doc. 2013-02043 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76116-76119]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30979]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68470; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Sections 902.02 and 902.03 of the New York Stock Exchange LLC
Listed Company Manual To Introduce an Initial Application Fee

December 19, 2012.
    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 December 6, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 902.02 and 902.03 of its
Listed Company Manual to introduce an Initial Application Fee. The
Exchange proposes to immediately reflect the proposed changes in the
Listed Company Manual, but not to implement the proposed changes until
January 1, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those 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 parts 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 amend Sections 902.02 and 902.03 of its
Listed Company Manual to introduce an Initial Application Fee. The
Exchange proposes to immediately reflect the proposed changes in the
Listed Company Manual, but not to implement the proposed changes until
January 1, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange has proposed changes to the Listed Company
Manual, as reflected in the Exhibit 5 attached hereto, in a manner
that would permit readers of the Listed Company Manual to identify
the changes that would be implemented on January 1, 2013. The
Commission notes that the Exhibit 5 referenced in the previous
sentence is attached to the filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to introduce an Initial Application Fee of
$25,000 within Section 902.03 of the Listed Company Manual, which would
be effective January 1, 2013.\4\ An issuer would be required to pay an
Initial Application Fee if it applied to list an equity security on the
Exchange, except that an issuer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange also proposes to include references to the
Initial Application Fee in Section 902.02, where necessary and
appropriate. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend certain
text of Section 902.03 to account for the proposed inclusion of the
Initial Application Fee therein. The Exchange also proposes to amend
the text describing the implementation of Section 902.03 to reflect
that the reference to the proposed rule change that implemented the
text therein added the original text, not the text in its current
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Applying to list within 36 months following emergence from
bankruptcy and that has not had a security listed on a national
securities exchange during such period;
    (ii) relisting a class of stock that is registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') that was delisted from a
national securities exchange and only if such delisting was:
    (a) Within the previous 12 calendar months; and
    (b) due to the issuer's failure to file a required periodic
financial report with the Commission or other appropriate regulatory
authority; or
    (iii) transferring the listing of any class of equity securities
from any other national securities exchange

would not be required to pay an Initial Application Fee in connection
with its application for listing such equity security.
    Accordingly, issuers for whom the Initial Application Fee waivers
would be applicable would generally be the same as the issuers for whom
Listing Fees would be waived, as provided in Section 902.02 of the
Listed Company Manual.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68017 (October 9,
2012), 77 FR 63404 (October 16, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-47). The Initial
Application fee would only apply with respect to the listing of
equity securities. Listing Fees are not limited in this respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the Listing Fee waivers, none of the Initial Application
Fee waivers would be applicable to the listing of any class of
securities if the issuer's primary class of common stock remains listed
on another national securities exchange. The Initial Application Fee
would be non-refundable.
    An issuer applying to list an equity security on the Exchange is
subject to a preliminary confidential review by NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSER'') in which NYSER determines the issuer's qualification for
listing. As set forth in Section 702.02 of the Listed Company Manual,
if NYSER determines in connection with this preliminary confidential
review that the issuer is qualified for listing, the issuer is informed
that it has been cleared as eligible to list and that the Exchange will
accept a formal Original Listing Application from the Issuer. It is the
Exchange's practice to notify the issuer of its eligibility clearance
and the conditions to its listing by means of a letter (the ``pre-
clearance'' letter).
    For an issuer subject to the Initial Application Fee, its payment
would be a prior condition to eligibility clearance being granted. As a
practical matter, the Exchange anticipates that an issuer would pay the
Initial Application Fee after NYSER has completed its preliminary
confidential review and has determined that the issuer is eligible to
submit a formal Original Listing Application, but before the ``pre-
clearance'' letter has been issued. Typically, the Exchange is in
contact with an issuer prior to the issuance of a ``pre-clearance''
letter and provides oral confirmation of the issuer's

eligibility clearance prior to the issuance of the ``pre-clearance''
letter.
    The Initial Application Fee would be applied towards the applicable
Listing Fees for an issuer that lists on the Exchange. If an issuer
paid an Initial Application Fee in connection with the application to
list an equity security but did not immediately list such security, the
Issuer would not be required to pay a subsequent Initial Application
Fee if it later listed such security so long as (i) the issuer had a
registration statement regarding such security on file with the
Commission, or, (ii) if the issuer withdrew its registration statement,
the issuer refiled a registration statement regarding such security
within 12 months of the date of such withdrawal. The Exchange is
proposing the Initial Application Fee because it would allow the
Exchange to recover, in part, the costs associated with processing and
evaluating an issuer's application, irrespective of whether the
relevant issuance qualifies for listing or whether such issuer decides
to list on the Exchange. In addition, the Initial Application Fee would
provide a disincentive for impractical applications by issuers. The
proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other matter,
and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem that issuers
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Initial Application Fee of
$25,000 is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to recover,
in part, the costs associated with processing and evaluating an
issuer's application, irrespective of whether the relevant issuance
qualifies for listing or whether such issuer decides to list on the
Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the Initial
Application Fee of $25,000 is reasonably related to the amount of time,
resources and cost associated with the Exchange's review of an initial
application for listing an equity security.\8\ Furthermore, the
Exchange believes that the Initial Application Fee is reasonable
because it would provide a disincentive for impractical applications by
issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that NASDAQ also charges a non-refundable
$25,000 application fee to issuers on The NASDAQ Global Market. See
NASDAQ Rule 5910. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61669
(March 5, 2010), 75 FR 11958 (March 12, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-081).
NASDAQ also charges a non-refundable $5,000 application fee to
issuers on The NASDAQ Capital Market. See NASDAQ Rule 5920. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 (March 31, 2009), 74 FR
15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Initial Application Fee is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would be charged to all
issuers that apply for listing an equity security on the Exchange,
except, as proposed, those issuers that qualify for a waiver. In this
regard, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge an Initial Application Fee to issuers that
apply to list an equity security, but not to issuers of other types of
securities (e.g., closed-end funds or structured products).
Specifically, while the Exchange conducts a comprehensive and thorough
review of every listing application it receives, regardless of security
type or issuer, the Exchange believes that its costs associated with
processing and evaluating an issuer's application to list an equity
security on the Exchange are generally significantly higher than the
costs associated with other types of securities, such that it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge the Initial
Application Fee only to issuers of equity securities. In this regard,
the Exchange notes that the review that is required to be performed
with respect to an issuer of an equity security is more extensive than
that required for the review of, for example, an issuer of a closed-end
fund.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to waive the Initial
Application Fee for an issuer that applies to list within 36 months
following emergence from bankruptcy, so long as such issuer has not had
a security listed on a national securities exchange during such period,
because this will incentivize such issuer to list its security on the
Exchange, which will result in increased transparency and liquidity
with respect to the issuer's security, thereby benefiting investors. In
this regard, the Exchange notes that the issuer, like all other listing
applicants, would be required to satisfy the Exchange's listings
standards as well as the other governance requirements and standards
that the Exchange requires of issuers listed on the Exchange.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is in the public's interest,
and the interest of the issuer, to provide an opportunity for the
increased transparency and liquidity that is attendant with listing on
the Exchange, and therefore that it is reasonable to waive the Initial
Application Fees for such issuers. The Exchange believes that the
number of additional issuers that will qualify for this waiver, as
proposed, will be limited. The Exchange also believes that limiting the
waiver period to 36 months following emergence from bankruptcy is
reasonable because, in the Exchange's opinion, it is a period of time
that is sufficient for the issuer to meet the Exchange's qualifications
for listing.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to limit the
waiver to issuers that have emerged from bankruptcy but have not yet
had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such
period because if an issuer has already listed its security post-
emergence, it has already exposed itself to the requirements and
transparency associated with listing on a national securities exchange,
which is what the Exchange is incentivizing by waiving the Initial
Application Fees. The Exchange also believes that this is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the goal of the waiver is to
incentivize listing, and the transparency and public benefits (e.g.,
increased liquidity) that are attendant therewith. Accordingly, these
goals would already be achieved for an issuer that has already listed
on another national securities exchange post-emergence, and to waive
the Initial Application Fee would therefore be inconsistent with the
waiver's purpose.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of the Initial Application Fee to an issuer listing a class of
stock that is registered under the Act that was delisted from a
national securities exchange if such delisting was (a) within the
previous 12 calendar months, and (b) due to the issuer's failure to
file a required periodic financial report with the Commission or other
appropriate regulatory authority. The Exchange anticipates that these
will be companies that were otherwise in compliance with the
quantitative listing standards of the Exchange or another national
securities exchange, but that fell behind on their Act reporting
because their auditors or the Commission required restatements of their
financial statements and that these companies will relist on the
Exchange (or another national securities exchange) as soon as their
filings are up to date. The Exchange believes that it

would be appropriate to waive Initial Application Fees for these
companies and that such a waiver does not constitute an inequitable or
unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because such companies would
have previously paid an initial listing fee to another national
securities exchange, and that to make them pay the Initial Application
Fee, which would be applied towards the applicable Listing Fee for an
issuer that lists on the Exchange, would further penalize them
unnecessarily. The Exchange also believes that limiting the waiver
period to 12 months after delisting is reasonable because the waiver
would apply to issuers that were delisted within a relatively recent
time frame.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge Initial Application Fees to issuers that were
delisted for reasons other than financial reporting because these other
issuers would not have been in compliance with the quantitative listing
standards of the Exchange at the time of delisting from a listing
standards perspective, and such lack of compliance would be due to
reasons other than financial reporting. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that these issuers differ from other delisted issuers because
such delisting was not due to a quantitative listing standard of the
Exchange, but instead was because of a financial reporting requirement
under the Act. Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to charge Initial Application Fees to
issuers that are registered under the Act but not previously listed on
a national securities exchange because such issuers would not have
previously paid an Initial Application Fee to the Exchange or,
presumably, a similar fee to another national securities exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that this aspect of the proposed change
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to
applying equally to all issuers that are applying to list equity
securities on the Exchange, it would differentiate between those
issuers whose securities are delisted solely for financial reporting
reasons and those issuers whose securities were delisted for other
reasons or were not previously listed on a national securities
exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that these issuers
would not be unfairly penalized if they are required to pay Initial
Application Fees.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of the Initial Application Fee to an issuer transferring the
listing of any class of equity securities to list on the Exchange
because such an issuer would have been free to continue to list on the
other national securities exchange on which it was previously listed.
In this regard, the issuer would have already paid a listing fee and
may have already paid an application fee to the other exchange for the
initial application to list on that market.\9\ Accordingly, it is
reasonable to not charge the Initial Application Fee so as to avoid
double-charging issuers for the listing of their equity securities. It
is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to waive the Initial
Application Fee to an issuer transferring the listing of any class of
equity securities to list on the Exchange because all issuers
transferring the listing of their equity securities in this manner
would be eligible for the waiver of the Initial Application Fee. It is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such issuers
would be under no obligation to transfer their listing to the Exchange
and would be disincentivized to do so if they were subject to the
Initial Application Fee. In this regard, the waiver would contribute to
providing issuers with the ability to choose the listing market that
best suits their needs and that is the ideal market for listing their
equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See e.g., Id. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the Exchange believes that instances of the Initial
Application Fee waiver being granted to issuers that apply to list on
the Exchange will be relatively rare. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not anticipate that it will experience any meaningful diminution in
revenue as a result of the proposed waiver and therefore does not
believe that the proposed waiver would in any way negatively affect its
ability to continue to adequately fund its regulatory program or the
services that the Exchange provides to issuers.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive
changes that are proposed, which are technical and conforming changes,
are reasonable because they will ensure that the proposed substantive
changes are incorporated in a clear and accurate manner. These changes
are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will
benefit all issuers and all other readers of the Listed Company Manual.

 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 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b 4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSE-2012-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR- NYSE-2012-68. 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-68 and should be submitted on or before
January 16, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30979 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


of breathing air for atmosphere-supplying respirators.
    (G) Procedures for regularly evaluating the effectiveness of the
program.
    (H) Recordkeeping.
    (ii) Authorized respirators. The following NIOSH-certified
respirators meet the minimum requirements of this section:
    (A) Any NIOSH-certified air-purifying elastomeric half-mask
respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100
filters;
    (B) Any appropriate NIOSH-certified N100 (if oil aerosols absent),
R100, or P100 filtering facepiece respirator;
    (C) Any NIOSH-certified air-purifying full facepiece respirator
equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters. A
full facepiece air-purifying respirator, although it has a higher APF
of 50, is required to provide full face protection because the PMN
substance presents significant exposure concern for mucous membranes,
eyes, or skin;
    (D) Any NIOSH-certified negative pressure (demand) supplied-air
respirator equipped with a half-mask; or
    (E) Any NIOSH-certified negative pressure (demand) self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA) equipped with a half mask.
    (d) Alternative to respirator requirement. Commercial users of NMP
products for paint and coating removal may use an existing chemical
exposure limit (ECEL) as a means of controlling inhalation exposures
whenever practicable rather than respirators.
    (1) Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL). The employer must
ensure that no person is exposed to an airborne concentration of NMP in
excess of 20 mg/m\3\ (the ECEL) as an 8-hour time-weighted average
(TWA) without using a respirator. For non-8-hour work-shifts, the ECEL
for that work-shift (ECELn) must be determined by the following
equation: ECELn = ECEL x (8/n) x [(24-n)/16], where n = the number of
hours in the actual work-shift.
    (2) Verification of method validity. An independent accredited
reference laboratory must verify the validity of the analytical method
for NMP in paint and coating removal products. The sampling and
analytical method, and all exposure monitoring data relied on by the
employer, must be accurate to within 25% at a 95% confidence level for
concentrations of NMP ranging from one half the ECEL to twice the ECEL.
    (3) Exposure monitoring. The employer must collect samples that are
representative of the potential exposure of each person who is
reasonably likely to be exposed to airborne concentrations of NMP.
    (i) Initial monitoring. Before the employer may deviate from the
respirator requirements in subsection (d) of this section, the employer
must conduct initial exposure monitoring to accurately determine the
airborne concentration of NMP for each exposure group in which persons
are reasonably likely to be exposed.
    (ii) Results. (A) Employees whose exposures are represented by
initial monitoring results below the ECEL need not wear the respirators
required in subsection (d) of this section.
    (B) Employees whose exposures are represented by initial monitoring
results above the ECEL must continue to wear the respirators required
in subsection (d) of this section until such time as two monitoring
results below the ECEL, sampled at least 24 hours apart, are obtained.
    (C) Within 15 days of the date exposure monitoring results are
received, the employer must provide the results to each person whose
exposure is represented by the monitoring. If the result is above the
ECEL, the employer must also provide the employee with information on
the actions the employer will take to reduce employee exposures to the
ECEL or below.
    (iii) Periodic monitoring. The employer must repeat exposure
monitoring:
    (A) Every 6 months for those employees whose initial monitoring
results are between 0.5 ECEL and the ECEL, until such time as 2 results
below 0.5 ECEL, from samples collected at least 24 hours apart, are
obtained,
    (B) Every 3 months for those employees whose initial monitoring
results are at or above the ECEL. If 2 results below the ECEL, from
samples collected at least 24 hours apart, are obtained, then frequency
may be reduced to every 6 months. If 2 results below 0.5 ECEL, from
samples collected at least 24 hours apart, are obtained, then exposure
monitoring under this subsection need not be repeated unless there is a
process, equipment, environment, or personnel change.
    (C) At any time when process, equipment, environment, or personnel
changes may reasonably cause new or additional exposures to NMP.
    (e) Hazard communication program. Each employer that performs
commercial NMP paint and coating removal activities must develop and
implement a written hazard communication program for the substance in
each workplace. The written program will, at a minimum, describe how
the requirements of this section for labels, SDSs, other forms of
warning material, and employee information and training will be
satisfied. The employer must make the written hazard communication
program available, upon request, to all employees, contractor
employees, and their designated representatives. The employer may rely
on an existing hazard communication program that satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) General. The written program must include the following:
    (i) A list of each NMP paint and coating removal product present in
the work area. The list must be maintained in the work area and must
use the identity provided on the appropriate

SDS. The list may be compiled for the workplace or for individual work
areas.
    (ii) The methods the employer will use to inform contractors of the
presence of NMP paint and coating removal products in the employer's
workplace and of the provisions of this part applicable to the NMP
products if employees of the contractor work in the employer's
workplace and are reasonably likely to be exposed to the NMP products
while in the employer's workplace.
    (2) Employee information and training. Each employer must ensure
that employees are provided with information and training on NMP paint
and coating removal products. This information and training must be
provided at the time of each employee's initial assignment to using an
NMP paint and coating removal product.
    (i) Information provided to employees under this paragraph must
include:
    (A) The requirements of this section.
    (B) The location and availability of the written hazard
communication program.
    (ii) Training provided to employees must include:
    (A) The potential human health hazards of the NMP paint and coating
removal products as specified on the label.
    (B) The measures employees can take to protect themselves from the
NMP paint and coating removal products, including specific procedures
the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to the
substance, including appropriate work practices, emergency procedures,
personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and other measures
to control worker exposure.
    (3) Existing hazard communication program. The employer need not
take additional actions if existing programs and procedures satisfy the
requirements of this section.

Sec.  751.209  Downstream notification.

    Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce
NMP for any use after [date 45 calendar days after the date of
publication of the final rule] must, prior to or concurrent with the
shipment, notify companies to whom NMP is shipped, in writing, of the
restrictions described in this subpart.

Sec.  751.211  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in
commerce any NMP after [date 45 calendar days after the date of
publication of final rule] must retain in one location at the
headquarters of the company documentation showing:
    (1) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies
to whom NMP was shipped;
    (2) A copy of the notification provided under Sec.  751.209; and
    (3) The amount of NMP shipped.
    (b) The documentation in (a) must be retained for 3 years from the
date of shipment.
[FR Doc. 2017-01222 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38679]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1136-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash
Out Activity.
    Filed Date: 4/27/12.
    Accession Number: 20120427-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-171-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Report Filing: Notice of Auxiliary Installation
Reimbursement Fee Effective Date.
    Filed Date: 6/22/15.
    Accession Number: 20150622-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-23-007.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Settlement Agreement.
    Filed Date: 6/22/15.
    Accession Number: 20150622-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1195-003.
    Applicants: Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Tariff Record Correction Compliance
to be effective 10/31/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150618-5095
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16588 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P