[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10931-10933]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80021; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-87]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Conform to Proposed
Amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
To Shorten the Standard Settlement Cycle for Most Broker-Dealer
Transactions From Three Business Days After the Trade Date (``T+3'') to
Two Business Days After the Trade Date (``T+2'')

February 10, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On December 15, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to conform its rules to an amendment proposed by
the Commission to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act to shorten the standard
settlement cycle for most broker-dealer transactions from three
business days after the trade date (``T+3'') to two business days after
the trade date (``T+2'').\3\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 29, 2016.\4\ The Commission
received two comments on the proposal, each of which supports the
proposed rule change.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78962 (Sept. 28,
2016), 81 FR 69240 (Oct. 5, 2016) (File No. S7-22-16) (``T+2
Proposing Release'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79659 (Dec. 22,
2016), 81 FR 84635 (Dec. 29, 2016).
    \5\ See Letters from Manisha Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer,
Wealth Management, Thomson Reuters, dated January 19, 2017; and
Thomas F. Price, Managing Director, Operations, Technology & BCP,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated January 19, 2017.

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

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Rules 14T (Non-Regular Way
Settlement Instructions for Orders); Dealings and SettlementsT (Rules
45-299C); 64T (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks); 235T (Ex-
Dividend, Ex-Rights); 236T (Ex-Warrants); 257T (Deliveries After ``Ex''
Date); 282.65T (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures);
and Section 703.02T (part 2) of the Listed Company Manual (Stock Split/
Stock Rights/Stock Dividend Listing Process) in order to conform the
Exchange's rulebook to the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule
15c6-1(a) under the Act, which would shorten the standard settlement
cycle from T+3 to T+2 for most broker-dealer transactions.
    Exchange Rule 14 defines ``non-regular way'' settlement
instructions as instructions that allow for settlement other than
``regular way'' (i.e., other than settlement on the third business day
following trade date for securities other than U.S. Government
Securities). Proposed Exchange Rule 14T would amend this definition to
replace ``third business day'' with ``second business day.''
    The Exchange proposes similar changes to Exchange rules related to
Dealing and Settlements. Exchange rules related to Dealing and
Settlements define ``regular way'' as ``due on the third business day
following the day of the contract.'' Proposed Exchange Rule Dealing and
SettlementsT would replace ``third business day'' with ``second
business day.''
    Similarly, Exchange Rule 64(a) defines ``regular way'' as ``for
delivery on the third business day following the day of the contract.''
Proposed Exchange Rule 64T(a) would replace ``third business day'' with
``second business day.'' Exchange Rule 64(a)(ii) currently provides
that on the second and third business days preceding the final day for
subscription, bids and offers in rights to subscribe shall be made only
``next day.'' To conform with the move to a T+2 settlement cycle,
proposed Exchange Rule 64T(a)(ii) would delete the reference to the
third business day preceding the final day for subscription, because in
a T+2 settlement cycle, bids and offers in rights to subscribe on that
day would simply be subject to ``regular way'' settlement. Under
Current Rule 64(c), all ``seller's option'' trades, for delivery
between 2 and 60 business days, should be reported to the tape only in
calendar days. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 64T(c) to
replace the reference to ``two'' with a reference to ``three.''
    Exchange Rule 235 provides that transactions in stocks, except
those made for ``cash'' as prescribed in Exchange Rule 14, shall be ex-
dividend or ex-rights on the second business day preceding the record
date fixed by the corporation or the date of the closing of transfer
books. The Exchange proposes in Exchange Rule 235T to change ``second
business day preceding'' to ``business day preceding.'' The current
Exchange Rule 235 further provides that, if the record date or closing
of transfer books occurs upon a day other than a business day, Exchange
Rule 235 shall apply for the third preceding business day. The Exchange
proposes to change ``third preceding business day'' to ``second
preceding business day'' in proposed Exchange Rule 235T.
    Exchange Rule 236 pertaining to ex-warrants similarly provides that
transactions in securities that have subscription warrants attached,
except those made for cash, shall be ex-warrants on the second business
day preceding the date of expiration of the warrants, except that when
the date of expiration occurs on a day other than a business day, the
transactions shall be ex-warrants on the third business day preceding
the date of expiration. The Exchange proposes to adopt proposed
Exchange Rule 236T and change the warrant period to the business day
preceding expiration of the warrants instead of the second business
day. Under proposed Exchange Rule 236T, when warrant expiration does
not occur on a business day, the ex-warrant period will begin on the
second business day preceding the expiration date instead of on the
third business day.
    Exchange Rule 257 prescribes that the time frame for delivery of
dividends or rights for securities sold before the ``ex'' date but
delivered after the record date must occur within three days after the
record date. Proposed Exchange Rule 257T would shorten the time frame
to two days.
    Subdivision (1)(A) of Supplementary Material .65 to current
Exchange Rule 282 provides that, when a liability notice is sent by
parties to a contract who are not both participants in a Qualified
Clearing Agency that has an automated service for notifying a failing
party of the liability that will be attendant to a failure to deliver,
that notice must be issued no later than one business day prior to the
latest time and the date of the offer or other event in order to obtain
the protection provided under Exchange Rule 282. The Exchange proposes
to amend the Supplementary Material so that Exchange Rule 282.65T(1)(A)
would provide that, to obtain the protection provided by Exchange Rule
282, the receiving member organization must send the liability notice
to the delivering member organization as soon as practicable but not
later than two hours prior to the cutoff time set forth in the
instructions on a specific offer or other event.
    Finally, Section 703.02 (part 2) of the Listed Company Manual
prescribes that a distribution of less than 25% of a company's common
stock is traded ``ex'' on or after the second business day after the
record date. This procedure is based on the Exchange's current three-
day delivery rule in which contracts made on the Exchange for the
purchase and sale of securities are settled by delivery on the third
business day after the contract is made, unless other terms of
settlement are specified at the time the contract is made. The Exchange
proposes to adopt Section 703.02T (part 2) to provide that a
distribution of less than 25% of a company's common stock is traded
``ex'' on and after the business day prior to the record date.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the rules but delay making the rules
operative until the compliance date of any amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a)
under the Act that the Commission adopts. The Exchange proposes to add
preambles to each amended rule, and to the rule it would replace, to
provide that (1) the existing rule will remain operative until the
Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish
the operative date of the revised rule, to delete the current rule and
proposed preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the revised
rule; and (2) in addition to filing the necessary proposed rule
changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative
date of the deletion of the current rule and implementation of the
proposed rule designated with a T.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments,
the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange.\6\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ which requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed, among

other things, 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 to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the
proposed rule change.\8\ Both comment letters express support for
Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal would amend the Exchange's
rules to conform to the amendment that the Commission has proposed to
Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act \9\ and support a move to a T+2 standard
settlement cycle. In the T+2 Proposing Release the Commission stated
its preliminary belief that shortening the standard settlement cycle
from T+3 to T+2 will result in a reduction of credit, market, and
liquidity risk,\10\ and as a result a reduction in systemic risk for
U.S. market participants.\11\ The Commission also notes that it has not
yet adopted the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act and
that the Exchange has, accordingly, not proposed to make its amended
rules operative at present. Instead, the Exchange has proposed to
announce the operative date of the Exchange's proposal via Information
Memo and by filing a separate proposed rule change. The Commission
expects that the operative date of the proposed rule change would
correspond with the compliance date of any amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a)
that is adopted by the Commission. The Commission notes that, in
October 2014, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, in
collaboration with the Investment Company Institute, SIFMA, and other
market participants, formed an Industry Steering Group (``ISC'') and an
industry working group to facilitate the transition to a T+2 settlement
cycle for U.S. trades in equities, corporate and municipal bonds, and
unit investment trusts.\12\ The ISC has identified September 5, 2017,
as the target date for the transition to a T+2 settlement cycle to
occur.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3.
    \10\ Credit risk refers to the risk that the credit quality of
one party to a transaction will deteriorate to the extent that it is
unable to fulfill its obligations to its counterparty on settlement
date. Market risk refers to the risk that the value of securities
bought and sold will change between trade execution and settlement
such that the completion of the trade would result in a financial
loss. Liquidity risk describes the risk that an entity will be
unable to meet financial obligations on time due to an inability to
deliver funds or securities in the form required though it may
possess sufficient financial resources in other forms. See T+2
Proposing Release, supra note 3, 81 FR at 69241 n. 3.
    \11\ See T+2 Proposing Release, supra note 3, 81 FR at 69241.
    \12\ See Press Release, DTCC, Industry Steering Committee and
Working Group Formed to Drive Implementation of T+2 in the U.S.
(Oct. 2014), http://www.dtcc.com/news/2014/october/16/ust2.aspx.
    \13\ See Press Release, ISC, US T+2 ISC Recommends Move to
Shorter Settlement Cycle On September 5, 2017 (Mar. 7, 2016), http://www.ust2.com/pdfs/T2-ISC-recommends-shorter-settlement-030716.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would 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 to protect investors and the public interest.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2016-87), be and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03110 Filed 2-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Skip to main content

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Form
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom of Form
                                                                           Home
                                                                        Sitemap
                                                                  NSET Agencies
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Events
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Meetings and Events
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      NNCO Public Webinars
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      National Nanotechnology Day
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Past Meetings and Events
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSTP Memo: Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials
Subject Area:
Non-NNI Other Reports
Author:
Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House
Publication date:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Description:
The realization of nanotechnology's full potential will require continued research and flexible, science-based approaches to regulation that protect public health and the environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, exports, and job creation.
In furtherance of those goals, the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) has developed a set of principles specific to the regulation and oversight of applications of nanotechnology, to guide the development and implementation of policies at the agency level.
These principles reinforce a set of overarching principles for the regulation and oversight of emerging technologies released on March 11, 2011. They also reflect recommendations from a report on nanotechnology by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The report encourages Federal support for the commercialization of nanotech products and calls for the development of rational, science- and risk-based regulatory approaches that would be based on the full array of a material's properties and their plausible risks and not simply on the basis of size alone.
Among the goals of all of these documents is the achievement of consistent approaches across different emerging technologies and to ensure the protection of public health and the environment while avoiding unjustifiably inhibiting innovation, stigmatizing new technologies, or creating trade barriers.
See the full OSTP blog post on this report here
Links:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/n... | Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials
Nanotechnology Fact
Depending on the shape, the application, or the components, nanomaterials may be called by a variety of different names, including nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanofilms, nanoshells, nanospheres, nanowires, nanoclays, nanoconcrete, nanopolymers, and much more. Other nanomaterials have distinct qualities that have led researchers to call them by other non-nano prefix names, such as quantum dots or graphene. Generally speaking, nanomaterials are objects with one or more dimension at the nanoscale. Efforts to standardize these words are currently underway, for example, by the International Organization for Standardization. For more information, visit the Standards page.
Stay Connected with the NNI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom of Form
Nano.gov Home | Sitemap | Contact Us | Nano Dashboard
Copyright Information | Privacy Policy | Link Policy | USA.gov
Nano 101 | About the NNI | Network and Communities | Publications | Commercialization | R&D Infrastructure | Educational Resources | Communications | Events
Official website of the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative


  From: <EMAIL_ADDRESS> To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA  Cc: <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 02/05/2007 05:25 PM  Subject: Holcim Mercury Testing

Hi Keith,  Following up to our last Friday phone conversation, this is to confirm that both Holcim plants (Midlothian and Portland) will voluntarily participate in the Mercury testing program.  As we discussed, the ML scrubbers are going through optimization.   The optimization would be critical in achieving the study objectives of establishing a more accurate range for the mercury emission reduction capability across the scrubber.  Therefore,  this needs to be considered in the ML test schedule planning.  At present, we are working with PCA in developing the test plan and the schedule.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Regards,  Meg


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81783-81785]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2148]

Submission of Premarket Notifications for Magnetic Resonance
Diagnostic Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Submission of Premarket
Notifications for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices.'' This
guidance provides a detailed description of the information that should
be included in a premarket notification for a magnetic resonance
diagnostic device (MRDD).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-2148 for ``Submission of Premarket Notifications for
Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Submission of Premarket Notifications for Magnetic Resonance
Diagnostic Devices'' to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and
Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jana Delfino, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or Sunder Rajan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 62, Rm. 1113,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The purpose of this guidance is to provide a detailed description
of the information that should be included in a premarket notification
for an MRDD. This guidance is a recommendation of how to comply with
certain requirements contained in 21 CFR 807.87 and is intended to be
used in conjunction with information regarding the content and format
of a 510(k) premarket notification. The approach outlined in this
guidance document is intended to facilitate the timely review and
marketing clearance of MRDDs.
    MRDDs are also electronic products under section 531(2) (21 U.S.C.
360hh(2)) of Subchapter C (Electronic Product Radiation Control (EPRC))
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). As such, MRDDs
are subject to the radiological health requirements in Title 21,
Subchapter J, parts 1000 through 1050 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, including applicability of general and specific
performance standards (parts 1010-1050) and other general requirements
for reporting and recordkeeping (part 1002), notification and
corrective actions for defective or non-compliant electronic products
(parts 1003 and 1004), and importation (part 1005).
    This guidance is applicable to MRDDs as defined in 21 CFR 892.1000.
An MRDD is intended for general diagnostic use to present images that
reflect the spatial distribution and/or magnetic resonance spectra that
reflect frequency and distribution of nuclei exhibiting nuclear
magnetic resonance. Other physical parameters derived from the images
and/or spectra may also be produced. The device includes hydrogen-1
(proton) imaging, sodium-23 imaging, hydrogen-1 spectroscopy,
phosphorus-31 spectroscopy, and chemical shift imaging (preserving
simultaneous frequency and spatial information). MRDDs are class II
medical devices that require premarket notification and an agency
determination of substantial equivalence prior to marketing.
    The principal components of current MRDDs include the main magnet,
shim and gradient systems, radiofrequency transmitter and receiver,
transmit and receive coils, power supplies, computer and software,
patient supports, and physiological gating devices. This guidance
document is applicable to

premarket notifications for new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and
magnetic resonance spectroscopy systems, components, and accessories,
and modifications to systems, components, and accessories that could
significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the MRDD. The
information in this guidance document is also applicable to the MRI
system components of dual-modality devices, such as positron emission
tomography/MRI systems.
    In the Federal Register of July 14, 2015 (80 FR 41046), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance and interested persons
were invited to comment by October 13, 2015. FDA has considered the
comments received, and has incorporated changes suggested by the
comments, as appropriate.
    This guidance supersedes FDA's guidance entitled ``Guidance for
Industry: Guidance for the Submissions of Premarket Notifications for
Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices'' dated November 14, 1998.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Submission of Premarket Notifications for
Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices.'' It does not establish any
rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can
use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons
unable to download an electronic copy of ``Submission of Premarket
Notifications for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices'' may send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 340 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E (premarket
notification), have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 (labeling) have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of
information in parts 1002 through 1050 (electronic product
requirements) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0025;
and the collections of information in the guidance document ``Requests
for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program
and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff'' have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: November 15, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-27842 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57260-57263]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20254]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89794; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings
To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a New Requirement Related to
the Qualification of Management for Companies From Restrictive Markets

September 9, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On May 29, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a new requirement related to the
qualification of management for companies whose business is principally
administered in a jurisdiction that has secrecy laws, blocking
statutes, national security laws, or other laws or regulations
restricting access to information by regulators of U.S.-listed
companies. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 12, 2020.\3\ On July 20, 2020, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On August 21, 2020, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as originally
filed.\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89028 (June 8,
2020), 85 FR 35967 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-026/srnasdaq2020026.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89342, 85 FR 44951
(July 24, 2020). The Commission designated September 10, 2020 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-026/srnasdaq2020026.htm.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange states that it has observed instances where it appears
that a company's management lacked familiarity with the requirements to
be a Nasdaq-listed public company in the U.S. or was otherwise
unprepared for the rigors of operating as a public company.\8\ The
Exchange further states

that the risks arising from these situations are heightened when a
company's business is principally administered in a jurisdiction that
restricts access to information by regulators of U.S.-listed companies.
As a result, the Exchange is now proposing new requirements that it
believes will heighten compliance by such companies and enhance
investor protection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange states that, under federal securities laws, a
company's management is responsible for preparing financial
statements and for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. See
Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 4-5 (citing Sections 404(b), 302, and
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat.
745 (2002)). In addition, the Exchange states that its listing
requirements include quantitative criteria based on the company's
financial statements and market information, impose disclosure
obligations, and establish minimum corporate governance
requirements, and that a listed company's management is responsible
for ensuring compliance with these listing requirements on an
ongoing basis. See id. (citing Nasdaq Listing Rule 5625
(Notification of Noncompliance)).
    \9\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a new initial listing
standard in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5210(c) to require any Company \10\
that principally administers its business in a jurisdiction that Nasdaq
determines to have secrecy laws, blocking statutes, national security
laws, or other laws or regulations restricting access to information by
regulators of U.S.-listed companies in such jurisdiction (a
``Restrictive Market'') to have, and certify that it will continue to
have until the third anniversary of its listing date, at least one
member of senior management or a director who has relevant past
employment experience at a U.S.-listed public company or other
experience, training, or background that results in the individual's
general familiarity with the regulatory and reporting requirements
applicable to a U.S.-listed public company under Nasdaq rules and
federal securities laws.\11\ In the absence of such an individual, the
proposal would require a Company that principally administers its
business in a Restrictive Market (``Restrictive Market Company'') to
retain on an ongoing basis an advisor or advisors, acceptable to
Nasdaq, that will provide such guidance to the Company.\12\ In
determining whether a Company's business is principally administered in
a Restrictive Market, the proposed rule provides that Nasdaq may
consider the geographic locations of the Company's: (a) Principal
business segments, operations, or assets; (b) board and shareholders'
meetings; (c) headquarters or principal executive offices; (d) senior
management and employees; and (e) books and records.\13\ The Exchange
states that this definition would capture both foreign private issuers
based in Restrictive Markets and companies based in the U.S. or another
jurisdiction that principally administer their businesses in
Restrictive Markets.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Nasdaq Listing Rule 5005(a)(6) defines ``Company'' as the
issuer of a security listed or applying to list on Nasdaq.
    \11\ The Exchange also proposes to renumber the remaining
provisions of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5210.
    \12\ See proposed Rule 5210(c).
    \13\ See id.
    \14\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6 at 7, n.8. The Exchange
further provides the following example: A company's headquarters
could be located in Country A, while the majority of its senior
management, employees, assets, operations, and books and records are
located in Country B, which is a Restrictive Market. In this case,
Nasdaq would consider the company's business to be principally
administered in Country B, which is a Restrictive Market, and Nasdaq
would require the company to meet the criteria set forth in proposed
Rule 5210(c). See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to adopt new Nasdaq Listing
Rule 5250(g) to require any Company that was subject to proposed Rule
5210(c) upon initial listing and that continues to be a Restrictive
Market Company to have, until the third anniversary of its listing
date,\15\ at least one member of senior management or a director who
has relevant past employment experience at a U.S.-listed public company
or other experience, training, or background that results in the
individual's general familiarity with the regulatory and reporting
requirements applicable to a U.S.-listed public company under Nasdaq
rules and federal securities laws or, in the absence of such an
individual, to retain on an ongoing basis an advisor or advisors,
acceptable to Nasdaq, that will provide such guidance to the Company.
The Exchange is also proposing changes to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810
(Notification of Deficiency by the Listing Qualifications Department)
to allow a Restrictive Market Company subject to, but not in compliance
with, proposed Rule 5250(g) to submit a plan to regain compliance
pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(2)(iii).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange states that it believes three years will
provide a sufficient transition period for Restrictive Market
Companies because by the third anniversary of a company's listing
date, the company will have filed at least two annual reports and
gone through the accompanying reporting processes and procedures,
and the company's staff will have been subject to federal securities
laws and Nasdaq's regulatory and reporting requirements for a
sufficient period of time to gain experience with the requirements
and how to comply. See id. at 8.
    \16\ The Exchange states that a Restrictive Market Company would
be required to disclose that it does not meet the requirement set
forth in proposed Rule 5250(g) pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule
5810(b) and that, based on its review of the company's compliance
plan, Nasdaq Staff generally would be able to allow the company up
to 180 days to regain compliance under Nasdaq Listing Rule
5810(c)(2)(B). See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes would apply to Restrictive Market
Companies that apply to list on Nasdaq after the date of effectiveness
of the proposed rules and would not apply to companies already listed
on Nasdaq.\17\ Nasdaq states that it believes this is appropriate
because currently-listed companies are already subject to Nasdaq's
requirements and U.S. securities laws and have gained familiarity with
the reporting processes and procedures and disclosure requirements by
virtue of being subject to them.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 9.
    \18\ See id. at 10. Nasdaq further states that, to the extent
there are future concerns about a currently-listed company that
arise from an apparent unfamiliarity with the requirements to be a
U.S.-listed public company, Nasdaq would exercise its regulatory
authority and could consider that lack of familiarity when
determining whether to allow the company to remain listed. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Comment Letters Received

    One commenter stated that it fully supports the proposed rule
change inasmuch as it seems reasonably tailored to help ensure full,
complete, and transparent financial and other disclosure from
Restrictive Market Companies.\19\ Another commenter expressed its
support for the proposed requirements relating to management
qualifications for Restrictive Market Companies, but recommended that
the proposal be revised to apply to all Restrictive Market Companies
listed on Nasdaq, rather than just those companies that apply to list
on Nasdaq after the date of the proposed rule change's
effectiveness.\20\ This commenter stated that Nasdaq provided no basis
for this distinction between companies and suggested that such
distinction may raise issues about whether the proposal unfairly
discriminates among companies.\21\ In response, Nasdaq amended the
proposal to apply the proposed requirements to Restrictive Market
Companies only until the third anniversary of their listing date.\22\
Nasdaq stated that it believes it is appropriate to impose the proposed
requirement only for three years from the date that a Restrictive
Market Company lists and that after being subject to Nasdaq's
requirements for that period of time, it would potentially be unfair to
treat the company differently than other listed companies in the
absence of a specific identified concern.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Letter from Annemarie Tierney, Founder and Principal,
Liquid Advisors, Inc. (July 2, 2020), at 5.
    \20\ See Letter from Jeffrey P. Mahoney, General Counsel,
Council of Institutional Investors (June 25, 2020), at 6-7.
    \21\ See id. at 7.
    \22\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6.
    \23\ See id. at 10, n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NASDAQ-2020-026, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section

19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \24\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule
change. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\25\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities 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 to protect
investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed requirements: (1) Only apply to Restrictive
Market Companies that apply to list on Nasdaq after the date of
effectiveness of the proposed rules; (2) only apply until the third
anniversary of a Restrictive Market Company's listing date; and (3) do
not apply to Restrictive Market Companies already listed on Nasdaq,
even if such companies have been listed on Nasdaq for less than three
years. Accordingly, the Commission believes there are questions as to
whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and
its requirement, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \27\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\28\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the Act.

V. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \30\ of
the Act or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\31\ any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \32\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by October 6, 2020.
Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by October 20, 2020. The Commission
asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in Amendment
No. 1,\33\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit
about the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NASDAQ-2020-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-026. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-026 and should be submitted
by October 6, 2020.

Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 20, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20254 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44672-44677]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0145; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-066-AD;
Amendment 39-17899; AD 2014-14-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-18-10 for
certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. AD 2003-18-10 required
revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance
planning data (MPD) document. This new AD also requires revising the
maintenance program to incorporate an additional limitation, which
terminates the existing requirements; and adds airplanes to the
applicability. This AD was prompted by a re-evaluation of certain doors
and flaps based on their fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the principal structural
elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural integrity
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 5,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of October
16, 2003 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003).

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 view this 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0145; 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: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503,
September 11, 2003). AD 2003-18-10 applied to The Boeing Company Model
767 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February
22, 2012 (77 FR 10403). That NPRM proposed to continue to require
revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD document.
That NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to
incorporate an additional limitation, which terminates the existing
requirements; and adding airplanes to the applicability.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Reduce the Scope of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22,
2012)

    ABX Air requested that we reduce the scope of the NPRM (77 FR
10403, February 22, 2012).
    ABX Air stated that the ``SUMMARY'' and ``Actions Since Existing AD
was Issued'' sections of the NPRM imply that it is a result of an
unsafe condition relating to certain cargo doors and flaps. ABX Air
stated that the NPRM would require incorporation of the July 2011
revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document into the
operator's maintenance program. ABX Air stated that requiring the
complete revision is overreaching the AD's scope.
    We disagree with reducing the scope of this final rule. The NPRM
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) stated that re-evaluation of certain
doors and flaps prompted the new rulemaking. However, the re-evaluation
was not limited to certain doors and flaps, but rather a complete
review of the entire July 2011 revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD
Document. The AD is intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of
the principal structural elements (PSEs) listed in the July 2011
revision of Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural
Limitations, of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD

Document, as stated in the preamble of the NPRM. We have not changed
this final rule in this regard.

Request To Revise Note 1 to Paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403,
February 22, 2012)

    Boeing requested that we revise the reference in Note 1 to
paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) from FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a)
to FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument&Highlight=faa ac 120-93).
Boeing stated that the FAA has revised AC 25.1529-1 at Revision A,
dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a),
to apply only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight; therefore,
AC 25.1529-1A no longer applies to Model 767 airplanes.
    We agree that FAA AC 25.1529-1A (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/E4111B5537E0B345862573B0006FA23B?OpenDocument&Highlight=ac 25.1529 1a)
does not apply to airplanes identified in this final rule, and have
determined that Note 1 to paragraph (c) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403,
February 22, 2012) is not needed. That note has been removed from this
final rule.

Request To Remove Reference to Certain Document

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we remove the reference
to Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011, of the
Boeing 767 MPD Document from paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 10403,
February 22, 2012). UPS stated that, if paragraph (g) of the NPRM is a
restatement of the requirements of AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301
(68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), then the July 2011 revision is not
required. UPS stated that, if the intent was to indicate those
revisions previously approved by rule or Alternative Method of
Compliance (AMOC) approval, then paragraph (g) of the NPRM should state
that those revisions were previously approved instead of referring to
specific revision dates.
    We disagree with the request to remove the reference. Including
this reference in paragraph (g) of this final rule gives an option to
the operator, and is not a requirement. No change has been made to this
final rule in this regard.

Requests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of MPD

    Boeing and AA requested that we permit the use of later revisions
of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, of the Boeing 767 MPD
Document. Boeing stated that since the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22,
2012) was published, new revisions of that document have been released.
    We agree to allow use of the most recent revision of the MPD
(Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision February 2014, of
the Boeing 767 MPD Document), and have added this reference in
paragraph (i) of this final rule accordingly. Operators may also
request approval to use prior revisions of the referenced MPD as an
alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (l)
of the final rule.

Requests To Provide Grace Period

    ABX Air, Japan Air Lines (JAL), and All Nippon Airways (ANA)
requested that we add a grace period to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77
FR 10403, February 22, 2012).
    ABX Air requested a 44-month grace period to allow operators to
revise their maintenance program and do the initial inspection and
repair without putting the fleet out of compliance. ABX Air stated that
airplanes that have exceeded the existing 25,000-flight-cycle
compliance time would be out of compliance when the AD is published.
ABX believes that extending the compliance time to 44 months will
provide an acceptable level of safety.
    JAL requested we add a 24-month grace period to paragraph (i) of
the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012). JAL stated that it has
airplanes that have exceeded the proposed compliance time.
    ANA requested that we change the compliance time for revising the
maintenance program from 18 months to 45 months, or establish a grace
period to coordinate with ANA's C-check maintenance schedule.
    American Airlines (AA) requested clarification of the compliance
times to address airplanes that are beyond the thresholds of the new
tasks specified in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. AA stated
that operators will have airplanes out of compliance with the
maintenance program when Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document is
incorporated.
    We find that clarification of the compliance time for the initial
inspection is necessary. We have added a sentence to paragraph (i)(1)
of this final rule to specify that the initial compliance times for the
inspections are to be done at the applicable times specified in
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18
months after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
    In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the
safety implications, the time necessary to design an acceptable
modification, and normal maintenance schedules for timely
accomplishment of the modification. In light of these items, we have
determined that the times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),
D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing
767 MPD Document; or within 18 months after the effective date of this
AD; for the initial inspection is appropriate. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (l) of the final rule, we will consider
requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would
provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Allow Alternate Method To Track Rotable Parts

    Boeing requested that we change paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR
10403, February 22, 2012) to allow Appendix 7 of FAA AC 120-93, dated
November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument), or

another method approved by a principal maintenance inspector (PMI), as
an alternative to the method for tracking rotable parts. Boeing stated
that the current statement in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document, is overly restrictive for
the purpose of identifying fleet problems with an exploratory
inspection program for removable structural components.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to change the method
of compliance for tracking rotable parts. The Boeing MPD method is
identical to, or less restrictive for fleet age than, the method
described in FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/F73FD2A31B353A71862573B000521928?OpenDocument). This AC permits a
``conservative'' implementation schedule to be established. However, a
``conservative'' schedule is undefined and, therefore, unenforceable.
As a result, the FAA guidance in the AC is inappropriate for inclusion
in this final rule. No change has been made to this final rule in this
regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l) of the final
rule, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method
for compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that
the alternative method would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Require Maintenance Program Revision

    UPS requested that we revise the text of paragraph (g) of the NPRM
(77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to require revising the maintenance
program to incorporate the identified MPD documents. UPS stated that
paragraph (g) of the NPRM requires operators to revise Subsection B of
Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD Document and Appendix B of Boeing 767
MPD Document. UPS noted that operators do not have control or revision
authority over the Boeing 767 MPD documents.
    We agree with this request. We have revised paragraph (g) of this
final rule to clarify how to revise the maintenance program.

Requests To Permit Use of Later Revisions of Service Information

    Boeing and JAL requested that we permit the use of future FAA-
approved revisions of the service information.
    We disagree. Using the phrase ``later-approved revisions'' violates
the Office of the Federal Register regulations for approving materials
that are incorporated by reference. According to the provisions of
paragraph (l) of this final rule, operators may request approval of an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to use a later revision of the
referenced MPD document as an alternative, if the request is submitted
with substantiating data that demonstrate the later revision will
provide an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this final
rule in this regard.

Requests To Expand AMOC Section To Include Previous Approvals

    United Airlines (United), AA, and UPS requested that we expand the
AMOC section of the NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 2012) to include
previous approvals for AMOCs for AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68
FR 53503, September 11, 2003).
    We agree with the request. Repairs previously approved as AMOCs in
accordance with AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503,
September 11, 2003), are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions required by this final rule. We have added a new
paragraph (l)(4) to this final rule accordingly.

Requests To Expand AMOCs To Include Certain Repairs

    AA and Boeing requested that we expand the AMOC section to include
repairs approved under section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) as acceptable methods of
compliance. AA recommended that we approve as AMOCs to the NPRM (77 FR
10403, February 22, 2012) all repairs approved by a Boeing-authorized
representative on parts listed in Section 9 of the Boeing 767 MPD
Document that were found to be compliant with 14 CFR 25.571 and 14 CFR
26.43(d). Boeing recommended ``grandfathering'' existing repairs to new
CMRs/structural significant items (SSI) provided adequate damage
tolerance has been performed at repair approval.
    We agree with the commenter. We have added a new paragraph (l)(5)
to this final rule to allow the following repairs done before the
effective date of this AD as acceptable methods of compliance where the
inspections of the baseline structure cannot be accomplished: Repairs
that are approved under both section 25.571 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
to make those findings; provided that the repair specified an
inspection program (inspection threshold, method, and repetitive
interval); and that operators revised their maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to include the inspection program for the
repair.

Request for Clarification of Certain AMOC Section

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (77 FR
10403, February 22, 2012) to include inspecting as an alternative
method to satisfy the damage tolerance requirements. (Paragraph (k)(3)
of the NPRM corresponds to paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule.) Boeing
stated that doing so would clarify that, in cases where an operator
cannot perform an inspection ``per D622T001-9 Subsection B and
D622T001-DTR in baseline configuration,'' an alternate inspection type
that satisfies the damage tolerance requirements can be used with an
appropriate AMOC approval.
    We disagree with adding the requested text to this final rule.
Paragraph c. of Section 2-7 of Chapter 2, DER (designated engineering
representative) Authority and Limitations, of FAA Order 8110.37E, DER
Handbook, effective March 30, 2011 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/3679F39DB79BB62A8625786A0066C662?OpenDocument&Highlight=8110.37e), does
permit an authorized DER or other authorized representative to approve
an alternative inspection method, threshold, or interval, where a new
repair or modification results in the inability to accomplish the
existing AD-mandated inspection, or necessitates a change in the
existing AD-mandated inspection threshold. This delegation is already
provided in paragraph (l)(3) of this final rule. No change has been
made to the final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Compliance Time for the Reporting Requirements

    Delta Airlines (Delta) requested that we clarify the compliance
time for the proposed reporting requirements. Delta stated that the
instruction in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural
Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Revision July 2011, or
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD

Document, specifies reporting within 10 days. Delta requested a change
to state that reporting is required within 10 days after the airplane
is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual
finding.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have added new paragraph
(i)(3) to this final rule to clarify that the compliance time for
reporting is within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service,
instead of 10 days after each individual finding. We have also added
new paragraph (j) to this final rule to include the Paperwork Reduction
Act Burden Statement, and re-designated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

Other Changes to This Final Rule

    We have moved the information from Note 2 of the NPRM (77 FR 10403,
February 22, 2012) into paragraph (i)(2) of this final rule.
    We have clarified the language in paragraph (k) of this AD and
added a reference to paragraph (l) of this AD.

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:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 10403, February 22, 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 10403, February 22, 2012).
    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 417 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise airworthiness limitations        1 work[dash]hour x $85                $0             $85         $35,445
 [retained action from AD 2003-18-10,    per hour = $85.
 Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503,
 September 11, 2003)].
Revise airworthiness limitations [new   1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          35,445
 requirement].                           hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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)
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-14-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17899; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0145; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-066-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 5,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR
53503, September 11, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category,
line numbers 1 through 997 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 51, Standard Practices/Structures; 52, Doors;
53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelle/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 56, Windows; and
57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a re-evaluation of certain doors and
flaps based on their fatigue-critical nature. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the principal structural
elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of Section 9 of the Boeing 767 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003),
with clarification for revising the maintenance program. For Model
767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes having line
numbers 1 through 895 inclusive: Within 18 months after October 16,
2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-18-10), revise the maintenance
program to incorporate Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing 767 MPD
Document D622T001, entitled ``Airworthiness Limitations and
Certification Maintenance Requirements,'' Revision October 2002, and
Appendix B of Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001, Revision December
2002; or Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural
Limitations, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document.

(h) Retained Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    This paragraph restates the alternative inspection and
inspection interval limitations specified by paragraph (d) of AD
2003-18-10, Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003).
Except as provided by paragraphs (i) and (l) of this AD: After the
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished,
no alternative inspections or inspection intervals shall be approved
for the structural significant items (SSIs) contained in Section 9
of Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001-9, Revision October 2002.

(i) New Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance program to incorporate the Limitations section in
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or
Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document. Doing this
maintenance program revision terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the
inspections are at the applicable times specified in Subsection B,
Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision July 2011 or Revision
February 2014, of the Boeing 767 MPD Document; or within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, the terms PSEs as used in this
AD, and SSIs as used in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-
9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767
MPD Document, are considered to be interchangeable.
    (3) Reports specified in Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-
9, Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767
MPD Document, may be submitted within 10 days after the airplane is
returned to service, instead of 10 days after each individual
finding, as specified in Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9,
Revision July 2011 or Revision February 2014, of the Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.

(j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(k) Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

(l) 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 (m) 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 Aircraft
Certification Office (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.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-18-10,
Amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003), are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
    (5) Repairs done before the effective date of this AD that meet
the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(5)(i), (l)(5)(ii), and
(l)(5)(iii) of this AD are acceptable methods of compliance for the
repaired area where the inspections of the baseline structure cannot
be accomplished.
    (i) The repair was approved under both section 25.571 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) and section 26.43(d) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)) by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings.
    (ii) The repair approval provides an inspection program
(inspection threshold, method, and repetitive interval).
    (iii) Operators revised their maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to include the inspection program (inspection
threshold, method, and repetitive interval) for the repair.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
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>

(n) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 5, 2014.
    (i) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision
July 2011, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document.
    (ii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622T001-9, Revision
February 2014, of the Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 16, 2003 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003).
    (i) Appendix B of Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data Document
D622T001, Revision December 2002.
    (ii) Subsection B, Section 9, of Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning
Data Document D622T001-9, Revision October 2002.
    (5) 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.
    (6) 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.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17996 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


2008 VOC & NOx Target Levels

(Remainder on separate CD)

VOC Target Level for 2008 Milestone

Baltimore Nonattainment Area

Emissions in Tons per Day

 	 	Formula

A	2002 Base Year Inventory	 	494.68

B	Biogenic Emissions	 	223.20

C	2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory	A - B	271.48

D	FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008	 	9.10

E	2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Calculated Relative to 2008	C - D 262.38

F	Ratio	 	0.0800

G	Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 and 2008	E * F	20.99

H	Target Level for 2008  [TL(2008)]	C - D - G	241.39

I	Contingency Requirements	3%	7.87

J	Target Level for 2008  [TL(2008)] + Contingency	I - J	233.52

 	Emission Level Obtained	 	219.25

	NOx Target Level for 2008 Milestone

Baltimore Nonattainment Area

Emissions in Tons per Day

 	 	Formula

A	2002 Base Year Inventory	 	338.08

B	Biogenic Emissions	 	0.00

C	2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory	A - B	338.08

D	FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008	 	22.60

E	2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Calculated Relative to 2008	C - D 315.47

F	Ratio	 	0.0700

G	Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 and 2008	E * F	22.08

H	Target Level for 2008  [TL(2008)]	C - D - G	293.39

I	Contingency Requirements	0%	0.00

J	Target Level for 2008  [TL(2008)] + Contingency	I - J	293.39

 	Emission Level Obtained	 	277.50


[Federal Register: May 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23629-23630]
[DOCID:fr20my09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0293]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across the Miami Beach Channel
(Biscayne Bay), mile 0.0 at Miami, FL. The deviation is necessary to
perform rehabilitation work on the bridge. This deviation allows the
bridge to not open to vessel traffic from May 1 through June 20, 2009,
except for emergency response vessels.

DATES: This deviation is effective from May 1, 2009 until June 20,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0293 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0293
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Michael Lieberum, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This deviation was requested by the
contractor, Kiewit Construction, on behalf of the bridge owner, Miami-
Dade County, in order to complete rehabilitation and painting of the
Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across Miami Beach Channel (Biscayne
Bay), Miami, FL. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 5 feet in the
closed position and a horizontal clearance of 57 feet.

The work will require a waterway closure from May 1 through June 20,
2009, for the safety of the workers. From May 1 through May 30, 2009,
this bridge will also be closed to vehicle traffic. The normal
operating schedule for the bridge is in 33 CFR 117.269, which states
that the draw shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need only
open on the hour and half-hour. This deviation is effective until June
20, 2009.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 1, 2009.
P.J. Brown,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-11691 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P