[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15445-15447]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66555; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Online Form NMA, the Standardized
Membership Application Form Applicants Must File Pursuant to NASD Rule
1013 (New Member Application and Interview)

March 9, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 5, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend online Form NMA, the standardized
membership application form applicants must file pursuant to NASD Rule
1013 (New Member Application and Interview) as part of their new
membership application.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to NASD Rule 1012 (General Provisions) and NASD Rule 1013
(New Member Application and Interview), each applicant for FINRA
membership must complete and electronically file the standardized
online Form NMA as part of its new member application. The standardized
online Form NMA was implemented several years ago to streamline the new
member application process and to assist applicants in compiling a
complete application package by identifying and organizing the
information and supporting documentation required by NASD Rule 1013
into eight major sections: (1) Section I (General Information); (2)
Section II (Business Lines); (3) Section III (Personnel); (4) Section
IV (Net Capital and Sources of Funding); (5) Section V (Contractual and
Business Arrangements); (6) Section VI (Policies and Procedures); (7)
Section VII (Facilities); and (8) Section VIII (Recordkeeping).
    Prior to FINRA's adoption of Form NMA, applicants would submit
inadequate or incomplete new member applications that were subject to
rejection pursuant to NASD Rule 1013(a)(3) as not substantially
complete.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53564 (March 29,
2006), 71 FR 16847 (April 4, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-038) (Order
Approving File No. SR-NASD-2006-038); NASD Notice to Members 06-16
(April 2006) (NASD Amends Rule 1013 to Adopt a Standardized
Application Form (Form NMA) to be Used by All New Member
Applicants); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55412
(March 7, 2007), 72 FR 11414 (March 13, 2007) (Order Approving File
No. SR-NASD-2007-015); NASD Notice to Members 07-20 (May 2007) (NASD
Amends Rules 1012 and 1013 to Require Applicants for Membership to
Submit Applications Using Online Form NMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is now proposing to revise Form NMA to further streamline the
new member application process and to organize Form NMA according to
the 12 standards for membership enumerated in NASD Rule 1014
(Department Decision) and further detailed below.\5\ The revisions also
seek to group information requests on specific topics that currently
are located throughout existing Form NMA, as well as reduce current
duplicative information requests in Form NMA. Additionally, revised
Form NMA provides the following new user-friendly features intended to
reduce the administrative burden placed on applicants:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ While NASD Rule 1014 sets forth 14 standards for membership,
Form NMA does not elicit specific information from the applicant
regarding standards 13 (FINRA does not possess information
indicating that the applicant may circumvent the federal securities
laws or FINRA rules) or 14 (the application is consistent with the
federal securities laws and FINRA rules). See NASD Rule 1014(a)(13)
and (14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Information fields, included in standards 1, 2, 8, and 12,
that are pre-populated with information previously provided by
applicants to FINRA in other submissions (e.g., Central Registration
Depository (``CRD''[supreg]) entitlement forms and Form BD) or
otherwise available to FINRA from CRD records (e.g., continuing
education status), thereby minimizing the time necessary for applicants
to complete the new form;
     Information fields, included in standards 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,
and 12, requesting information that applicants are currently required
to provide during FINRA's review of the new member application that
were not included in current Form NMA but rather obtained during
application review through requests from FINRA for additional
information. These information fields, which were added based on
industry and staff feedback on existing Form NMA and the new member
application process should reduce the need for extensive follow-up
during the review process which currently results in processing delays;
and
     Information fields, included in all standards except
standard 9, allowing applicants to provide additional information, if
applicable to their proposed business activities, structures, or
circumstances.
    Below is a synopsis of the content of revised Form NMA, by
standard, and its nexus to existing Form NMA:
     Standard 1 (Overview of the Applicant):
    This standard seeks certain applicant overview information
currently contained primarily in Sections I (General Information) and
VII (Facilities) of existing Form NMA (e.g., formation information,
identification of

business activities, types of customers (and/or counterparties),
owners, officers, directors, and control persons, validation of
clearing arrangements).
     Standard 2 (Licenses and Registrations):
    This standard consists of information requests regarding licenses
and registrations (e.g., required licenses and registrations, two-
principal requirement waiver, Securities Information Center exemption,
other self-regulatory organization registrations) currently contained
primarily in Sections I and III (Personnel) of existing Form NMA as
well as incorporating additional information requests (e.g., intent to
claim exemptions from registration or seek examination waivers for
personnel).
     Standard 3 (Compliance With Securities Laws, Just and
Equitable Principles of Trade):
    This standard consists of specific requests for information (e.g.,
disciplinary history) contained in Sections I and III of existing Form
NMA that FINRA considers necessary for the applicant to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of this standard in the revised Form
NMA and also incorporates additional information requests (e.g., state
or federal orders or decrees, statements of claims, settlement
agreements).
     Standard 4 (Contractual and Business Relationships):
    This standard includes the information requests regarding an
applicant's contractual and business relationships currently contained
in Sections I, IV (Net Capital and Sources of Funding) and V
(Contractual and Business Arrangements) of existing Form NMA (e.g.,
description of contractual arrangements, expense sharing agreements,
financing arrangements, fidelity bonds or fidelity bond applications,
support and service agreements, auditor information).
     Standard 5 (Facilities):
    This standard consists of information requests regarding an
applicant's facilities primarily contained in Section VII of existing
Form NMA (e.g., space sharing arrangements, leasing or sub-leasing
arrangements). This standard also incorporates requests for additional
information (e.g., authorizations to sublet, deeds of ownership).
     Standard 6 (Communications and Operational Systems):
    This standard includes information requests regarding an
applicant's communications and operational systems currently in
Sections VI (Policies and Procedures) and VII of existing Form NMA
(e.g., communications and operational systems descriptions, supervision
arrangements of multiple locations, business continuity plan
documents). The standard also incorporates requests for additional
information (e.g., information relating to the use of social media
sites).
     Standard 7 (Maintaining Adequate Net Capital):
    This standard includes information regarding an applicant's net
capital requirements currently requested primarily in Section IV of
existing Form NMA (e.g., information on the nature and source of
capital, additional funding plans, minimum net capital requirements,
future funding sources).
     Standard 8 (Financial Controls):
    This standard seeks information regarding an applicant's financial
controls currently requested primarily in Sections I, III, and VI of
existing Form NMA (e.g., information regarding the FINOP's experience,
financial controls, FINOP outside business activity notification) as
well as incorporates requests for additional information (e.g., net
capital deficiency plans).
     Standard 9 (Written Procedures):
    This standard seeks information regarding an applicant's written
procedures currently requested in Sections III, VI, and VIII
(Recordkeeping System) of existing Form NMA (e.g., written supervisory
procedures (``WSP''), WSP checklist, sample reports to support
supervision and financial controls, heightened supervisory procedures
attestation).
     Standard 10 (Supervisory Structure):
    This standard seeks information regarding an applicant's
supervisory structure currently requested in Sections I and III of the
existing Form NMA (e.g., information regarding supervisors' experience
and duties, chief compliance officers' experience, non-FINOP outside
business activities notifications).
     Standard 11 (Books and Records):
    This standard seeks information regarding an applicant's books and
records currently requested primarily in Section VIII of existing Form
NMA (e.g., recordkeeping system, sample books and records,
recordkeeping service providers).
     Standard 12 (Continuing Education):
    This standard seeks information regarding an applicant's continuing
education (``CE'') obligations currently requested in Section VI of
existing Form NMA (e.g., firm element owner identification, CE
checklist, CE needs assessment) as well as incorporates additional
requests for information (e.g., information regarding the applicant's
CE deficiency mitigation plan).
    FINRA worked closely with an industry task force, comprised of
seven representatives from small and large firms, several of whom also
act as consultants, during the development of revised Form NMA.\6\
Among other things, the task force's input assisted FINRA to make
changes intended to reduce applicants' administrative burden when
completing Form NMA. Overall, FINRA believes that revised Form NMA will
facilitate more effective and efficient application processing for
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The task force also assisted FINRA in creating a new online
Form CMA for continuing member applicants. See SR-FINRA-2012-018
(February 28, 2012) (proposed rule change amending NASD Rules 1012
and 1017 to adopt a new standardized online Form CMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date for the revised Form NMA will be
July 23, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed change restructures the content of
existing Form NMA to make the requested information and documentation
more consistent with the standards in NASD Rule 1014 against which they
are evaluated and elicits information that applicants are currently
required to provide during FINRA's review of the new member
application. FINRA believes that revised Form NMA will reduce new
member applicants' administrative burden and ensure a more streamlined
and efficient membership application process for both FINRA and
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-017. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-017 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6233 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11242]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04222]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form 13F. SEC File No. 270-22, OMB Control No. 3235-0006.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Section 13(f) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \2\ (the
``Exchange Act'') empowers the Commission to: (1) Adopt rules that
create a reporting and disclosure system to collect specific
information; and (2) disseminate such information to the public. Rule
13f-1 \3\ under the Exchange Act requires institutional investment
managers that exercise investment discretion over accounts that have in
the aggregate a fair market value of at least $100,000,000 of certain
U.S. exchange-traded equity securities, as set forth in rule 13f-1(c),
to file quarterly reports with the Commission on Form 13F.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(f).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.13f-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 249.325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collection requirements apply to institutional
investment managers that meet the $100 million reporting threshold.
Section 13(f)(6) of the Exchange Act defines an ``institutional
investment manager'' as any person, other than a natural person,
investing in or buying and selling securities for its own account, and
any person exercising investment discretion with respect to the account
of any other person. Rule 13f-1(b) under the Exchange Act defines
``investment discretion'' for purposes of Form 13F reporting.
    The reporting system required by Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act
is intended, among other things, to create in the Commission a central
repository of historical and current data about the investment
activities of institutional investment managers, and to improve the
body of factual data available to regulators and the public.
    The Commission staff estimates that 5,044 respondents make
approximately 20,176 responses under the rule each year. The staff
estimates that on average, Form 13F filers spend 80.8 hours/year to
prepare and submit the report. In addition, the staff estimates that
204 respondents file approximately 816 amendments each year. The staff
estimates that on average, Form 13F filers spend 4 hours/year to
prepare and submit amendments to Form 13F. The total annual burden of
the rule's requirements for all respondents therefore is estimated to
be 408,371 hours [(407,555 hours (5,044 filers x 80.8 hours)) + (816
hours (204 filers x 4 hours))].
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: February 24, 2015.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04222 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 30458-30461]
[DOCID:fr26my06-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53840; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Rule
312(f) Regarding Changes Within Member Organizations

May 19, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Exchange Act''), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on August 15, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. On May 5, 2006, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the rule text in the original
filing in its entirety and proposes to clarify that Rule 312(f)
applies only to non-investment grade debt and equity securities.
Amendment No. 1 also adds Material Associated Persons (``MAPs''), as
that term is used in Rule 17h-1T of the Exchange Act, to the class
of persons for whose securities the solicitation of trades is
prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NYSE is filing with the SEC the proposed amendment to Exchange
Rule 312(f) to, among other changes, permit the recommendation of
purchases and sales of shares of companies controlled and under common
control with member organizations (other than MAPs),\4\ subject to
appropriate customer disclosure of the relationship. Below is the text
of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in brackets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Act Rule 17h-1T describes certain indicia of MAP
status: (i) Legal relationship between the broker or dealer and the
associated person; (ii) overall financing requirements of the broker
or dealer and the associated person, and the degree, if any, to
which the broker or dealer and the associated person are financially
dependent on each other; (iii) degree, if any, to which the broker
or dealer or its customers rely on the associated person for
operational support or services in connection with the broker's or
dealer's business; (iv) level of risk present in the activities of
the broker's or dealer's associated persons; and (v) extent to which
the associated person has the authority or the ability to cause a
withdrawal of capital from the broker or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Within Member Organizations

    Rule 312(a) to (e) no changes.
* * * * *
    (f)(1) After the completion of a distribution of its equity or non-
investment grade debt securities or those of any organization
controlling the member organization or of any Material Associated
Person (as used in Rule 17h-1T of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended) of the member organization, no member [corporation]
organization [which has any publicly held security outstanding] shall
effect any transaction (except on an

unsolicited basis) for the account of any customer in, or make any
recommendation with respect to, any such security [issued by such
member corporation]. [or]
    (2) Any member organization that makes any recommendation of any
[such] equity or non-investment grade debt security issued by any
[corporation controlling] person controlled by or under common control
with such member [corporation] organization (other than a Material
Associated Person) [.], shall promptly disclose to such customer the
existence and nature of such control at the time of recommendation and,
if this disclosure is not made in writing, shall provide this
disclosure in writing prior to the completion of the transaction.
    (3) No corporation which has any publicly held security outstanding
shall, without the prior written approval of the Exchange, dispose of
any such security for its own account and no member corporation shall
acquire any such security for its own account or for the account of any
corporation controlling, controlled by or under common control with
such member corporation except with the prior written approval of the
Exchange or pursuant to the terms and provisions of such security or of
any agreement between the member corporation and the holder of such
security, which agreement has previously been filed with and approved
by the Exchange. The Exchange will approve such a disposition or
acquisition of securities unless it determines that such action will
impair the financial responsibility or operational capability of the
member corporation.
* * * * *
    Remainder of Rule 312 unchanged.

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

(1) Purpose
    a. Background. Rule 312(f) (the ``Rule'') was adopted in 1970 when
public ownership of member corporations was first permitted in order to
address what were perceived to be potential conflicts in such
transactions. Experience during the intervening 35 years \5\ has
indicated that certain potential conflicts can be effectively addressed
by way of disclosure, rather than prohibition. Further, fundamental and
wide-ranging changes in the securities industry since the Rule's
introduction also contributed to rendering aspects of the Rule
unnecessary, outdated and unnecessarily burdensome to member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NYSE previously proposed the amendment of Rule 312(f)
(which, at the time was Rule 312(g)) in 1982 (See File No. SR-NYSE-
83-3). Exchange Act Release No. 19462 (January 28, 1983) (notice of
filing of SR-NYSE-83-3). In the filing, NYSE stated that the rule
created a ``burden on competition'' by placing ``NYSE members and
their customers at a competitive disadvantage'' to similar
organizations subject only to the SEC disclosure requirements. NYSE
withdrew the proposal in 1994. That proposal differed from the
present proposal in allowing the recommendation of the member
organization's own publicly traded securities and those of its
parent corporation, subject to appropriate disclosure of the
relationship. The present proposal does not permit the
recommendation of (or the solicited execution of trades in the
shares of) a member organization or its parent following their
initial distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of responding to Rule 312(f) interpretive requests
over time, the Exchange has noted changes in the business and
regulatory environment that warrant reconsideration of the scope of
Rule 312(f)'s application. These changes include:
    (i) The wide diversification of business conducted by member
organizations and other entities in the same control family; and
    (ii) The nature of new products that are created for investors.
    The Exchange's regulatory experience relative to Rule 312(f) has
generally involved determinations as to the existence, or not, of a
control relationship involving a member organization among the
complicated interrelationships of, and equity investments by, financial
organizations. The sole purpose of determining whether such a control
relationship exists is to establish whether Rule 312(f) restrictions on
the recommendation of stock issued by entities in the member
organization's corporate family apply to the member organization. The
term ``recommendation'' in this context has been interpreted by NYSE to
include solicited transactions, the issuance of research or market
letters, and the use of ``active'' market making tactics (i.e.,
actively buying and selling a stock from a proprietary account as
opposed to ``passively'' standing ready to buy or sell).
    Typical member organization Rule 312(f) interpretive requests
involve submission to the Exchange of intricate factual representations
regarding board representation, equity ownership, and/or profit
participation and will request concurrence with the opinion that no
control relationship exists.\6\ Often, the request will involve one or
more investment partnerships, affiliated with a member organization,
that hold an interest in a subject security. An officer of the member
organization may be a general partner or on the board of directors of
the subject security's issuing company. The analysis to determine
control of the subject security involves objective factors as well as
consideration of the percentage of member organization personnel
represented on the issuing company's board of directors and/or their
ability to influence the issuing company. Such directors, while not
participants in day-to-day management of the issuing company, may
exercise a degree of control over it resulting either from their voting
power, from specially granted powers, or from participation in
committees. Ultimately, the determination of control is often, in good
measure, a subjective one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Rule 2 creates a presumption of control, in this
context, where a person possesses the right to vote 25% or more of
the voting securities, receives 25% or more of the net profits or is
a director of the other person. Rule 2 defines a ``person'' as ``a
natural person, corporation, partnership, association, joint stock
company, trust, fund or any organized group of persons whether
incorporated or not.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Proposed Amendments. The Rule, in pertinent part, currently
prohibits a member organization from soliciting transactions in its own
publicly traded securities and from making any recommendations with
respect to its publicly traded securities or the securities issued by
any corporation controlling, controlled by or under common control with
such member corporation (i.e., the securities of any parent, sister, or
subsidiary corporation relative to the member organization). The intent
of the Rule is to mitigate conflicts of interest that may arise when
recommending the public securities of companies in which the member
organization may have an interest.
    i. Proposed Codification to Exclude Investment Grade Debt from Rule
312(f). NYSE has interpreted Rule 312(f) to apply only to non-
investment grade debt and equity securities.\7\ This proposal would
codify that interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Another common interpretive inquiry with respect to Rule
312(f) involves, and NYSE anticipates would continue to involve, a
determination as to whether the security in question has ``debt-like
characteristics.'' The Exchange has generally interpreted Rule
312(f) restrictions to not apply to investment grade debt and
securities that function as investment grade debt. The
interpretation as to whether a security functions as investment
grade debt is based on the totality of the circumstances, e.g., (1)
whether the shares of stock have fixed dividends; (2) whether the
shares of stock are non-participatory in common dividends; (3)
whether the shares of stock have limited voting rights; and (4)
whether the shares of stock are non-convertible into common stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. Proposed Expansion to Include All NNon-Investment Grade Debt
and Equity Securities. The proposed rule change would also broaden the

application of the Rule to all non-investment grade debt and equity
securities, including privately placed issues. The current Rule's
prohibition applies only to publicly traded securities.
    The Rule currently prohibits effecting solicited transactions only
as to the securities of member organizations. The proposed rule change
would extend that prohibition to the non-investment grade debt and
equity securities of companies controlling member organizations (e.g.,
parent companies) and MAPs. By their nature, MAPs can substantially
influence a registered broker-dealer, and the inclusion of such
entities along with controlling organizations \8\ acts to limit
inevitable conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Rule 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. Proposed Amendment to Permit Certain Recommendations If
Disclosed. The Exchange also proposes to amend the Rule to permit the
recommendation of purchases and sales of shares of companies controlled
by and under common control with member organizations (other than
MAPs), subject to appropriate customer disclosure of the
relationship.\9\ Given the varied and numerous sister corporations that
a member organization owned by a diversified holding company may have,
the Rule 312(f) restrictions on recommendations of securities issued by
all such corporations can sometimes be an unnecessary burden to
legitimate business activity. The rule has had the unintended impact of
affecting the way merger and acquisition deals are structured, in that
unnecessarily complex and unwieldy ownership models are developed
primarily to avoid the 25% voting or profit presumption of control
established by NYSE Rule 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\  See proposed Rule 312(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To alleviate these unintended burdens, the Exchange proposes
amendments to Rule 312(f) that would permit member organizations to
recommend equity or non-investment grade debt securities \10\ issued by
any person controlled by, or under common control with, a member
organization (other than a MAP); however, any such recommendation would
be subject to a requirement to disclose to the customer the existence
and nature of such control at the time of recommendation. If the
disclosure at the time of the recommendation is not made in writing,
then the member must also provide this disclosure in writing prior to
the completion of the transaction.\11\ This proposal is consistent with
and similar to other Exchange regulations such as Rule 472, which
addresses the issue of research analysts' conflicts, in part, through
disclosure of potential conflicts involving ownership of equity that is
the subject of research and market making activity involving the
subject equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As previously noted, the proposed change would broaden the
application of the Rule to all securities including privately placed
issues. The current Rule applies only to publicly traded securities.
    \11\ See proposed Rule 312(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange believes that disclosure is adequate to address
certain conflicts of interest that could arise with respect to a
member's recommendation to buy or sell securities of many affiliated
entities, the Exchange believes that it is warranted to retain the
prohibition on the solicitation of purchases in the securities of the
member organization, any controlling organization or a MAP, given the
greater potential for a conflict of interest inherent in such
relationships. For instance, an employee of a member organization could
act on material non-public information in connection with either the
member organization or its parent. Of special concern is stock issued
by the member organization itself, as a registered representative/
employee may attempt to drive up the price to increase the value of his
or her company stock plan portfolio. To address these potential abuses,
the Exchange is proposing to preserve the prohibition on making a
recommendation or otherwise acting on such information in these
contexts.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements
of section 6(b)(5) \12\ of the Exchange Act. Section 6(b)(5) requires,
among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national
market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. In addition section 3(f) of the Exchange Act requires, among
other things, whenever there is a requirement to consider or determine
whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
to also consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether
the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The proposed change in Rule 312(f) will act to assure adequate and
continuing protection for investors while promoting efficiency,
competition, and capital formation by permitting the recommendation of
purchases and sales of shares of companies controlled and under common
control with member organizations (other than MAPs), subject to
appropriate customer disclosure of the relationship, by expanding
certain restrictions on effecting solicited transactions, and by
codifying NYSE interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2005-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NYSE-2005-58 and should
be submitted on or before June 16, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8096 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40394-40395]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2010-0161]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated April 8, 2016, the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum (HVRM),
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223, Railroad Safety Glazing
Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0161.
    HVRM has requested a permanent waiver of compliance for one caboose
from the requirements of 49 CFR part 223, which requires certified
glazing in all windows. HVRM's five cabooses, B&LE 1989, EL C345, NKP
471, GTW 75072, and EJ&E 184, were previously granted relief from the
glazing requirements in FRA's July 14, 2011, decision letter. Since
that time, the glazing requirements have been amended to add provisions
for glazing on equipment that is over 50 years of age from its original
construction date. Only Caboose EJ&E 184, which was built in 1970, does
not meet the 50-year threshold in order to be covered under the
recently enacted glazing rule for antiquated equipment. Caboose EJ&E
184 is less than 50 years of age and does not meet the glazing
requirements of 49 CFR 223.13, and thus requires regulatory relief to
continue in operation.
    HVRM is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization located in North
Judson, Indiana. It is a member of the Association of Tourist Railroads
& Railway Museums, and operates the railroad museum with the mission to
preserve railroad history in northwest Indiana. The town of North
Judson acquired 33 miles of rail line, purchased in 2004 from CSX
Transportation to help maintain a rail corridor for railway excursions
provided by HVRM using the heritage equipment. HVRM is all volunteer
operated, has 15 or less ``hours of service'' volunteer workers, and
has FRA-approved certification programs for engineers and conductors.
HVRM operations/train excursions are conducted primarily on weekends.
There are also 10 or less weekday excursions annually for school field
trips and community organizations. The town of North Judson contracts
with a Class III short line operator, the Chesapeake & Indiana Railroad
(CKIN), to maintain the rail line and provide freight service to the
rail line customers. The primary freight corridor is Malden to La
Crosse to Wellsboro, Indiana. La Crosse contains a wye track used both
by HVRM and CKIN for their respective operations. HVRM provides a 30-
day advance notice of excursion train schedules to CKIN. Both entities
operate under the General Code of Operating Rules and the entire 33-
mile rail line is operated under yard limits at speeds not to exceed 20
miles per hour.
    HVRM notes that the use of this caboose for tourist, historic, or
excursion operations will be on expanded territory as referenced in
HVRM's April 11, 2016, letter assigned to FRA Docket Number FRA-2006-
24647. In addition to the 10 miles between North Judson and La Crosse,
the caboose will occasionally operate in tourist, excursion, and
special event trains as far as Malden, South Thomaston, Hanna, and
Wellsboro.
    The subject caboose, EJ&E 184, is only operated at limited track
speed under yard limits subject to the authority of the CKIN, which is
part of the general railroad system. HVRM notes that the installed
glass in the subject caboose is in good condition, operations are in a
benign environment, and the expense of retrofitting the subject caboose
with FRA certified glazing imposes a financial burden.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
the request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 5, 2016 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written

communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-14533 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 1 EPA National Community Recognition Program Validation of Beta Application Thank you very much for contributing your expertise and time to assist the EPA in creating this national recognition program for communities who are creating smart growth initiatives that also specifically enhance the health and well being of older Americans.

The purpose of the beta testing process is to establish content validity of the project questions and gather feedback for question revision through rankings by content area experts in smart growth and active aging, local/ county/ state officials, and others representing potential applicants to the recognition program. We also want to assess the ease of completing the on line instrument.

Instructions:

Please read the introductory section containing the definitions of the smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programming of interest, and the descriptions of the process and program levels. Applicants will also be asked to acknowledge their review of accompanying documents regarding specific components of smart growth policy, and the participation of a local aging services official in completion of the recognition program application.

Read each statement beginning on page 3 for items 1A through 5D and rate each on a scale of 1  10 as to how well it reflects the content described in the process and program definitions provided below. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO COMPLETE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM ITSELF, ONLY THE SECTION REGARDING HOW WELL THE ITEM ASSESSES THE CONTENT REGARDING SMART GROWTH ( SG) and/ or PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ( PA). WE WANT TO DETERMINE IF THE ITEM IS CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE TO YOU. Questions for you to complete are in red and bold type. Regardless of your rating, we encourage you to suggest any revision that would clarify the content of the item.

Introduction Definitions:

* Smart Growth ( SG): Smart Growth is defined as community development that serves the environment, community, economy, and public health. The principles of smart growth include: 1) Mix land use; 2) Take advantage of compact building design; 3) Create a range of housing opportunities and choices; 4) Create walkable neighborhoods; 5) Foster distinctive, attractive neighborhoods with a sense of place; 6) Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical resources; 7) Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; 8) Provide a variety of transportation choices; 9) Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; 10) Encourage community stakeholders collaboration in development decisions.

To be completed by applicant:

I have reviewed the accompanying policy and activity components that are integral to the smart growth principles above, and understand that they should form the basis for our community's responses to the application items for the Smart Growth and Active. Aging National Recognition Program. EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 2 * Active Aging/ Physical Activity ( PA): includes planning and implementing a variety of widely accessible programs and/ or self directed opportunities for those 60+ and which emphasize activities that increase endurance, strength, flexibility, balance, and the principles of injury prevention. These types of activities include walking, biking, fitness trails and similar activities/ programs at various levels of intensity to fit the capacities of participants. * This section will include additional resource links * Community assessment or survey: can include formal needs assessment or community survey or discussion of community needs with service providers with smart growth or active aging/ physical activity programming or opportunities in the community. * This section will include additional resource links * Denotes information link to definitions, examples, weblinks, etc Description of process and program levels:

Process I: Awareness of and general commitment to basic smart growth principles and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Process II: Awareness of smart growth and active aging/ physical activity principles, applications and implementation strategies formulated with attention to linking smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities in the community.

Process III: Well established processes combining smart growth and active aging with coherent framework and broad smart growth and aging network community participation Well conceived and funded strategic attention to smart growth principles and active aging programs and opportunities; ability to mentor or serve as model for other communities. Processes are scalable, sustainable, and sharable,

Program I: Actively engaged in formulating pilot programs and activities combining smart growth and active aging.

Program II: Established/ expanding programs combining smart growth and active aging; engagement of broader segments of the community in program activity; active promotion of the program on a community basis.

Program III: Ongoing/ expanding programs on a wide community basis that are effectively applying principles of smart growth and active aging; wide community involvement of multiple sectors within the community; program funding sources established; ability to mentor or serve as a model program for other communities. Programs are scalable, sustainable, and sharable. EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 3 BETA Items Level1 1 A: SG Process I: Our community has defined goals or a mission for advancing or applying * smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8____ Suggestions for revision:

1 B: SG Process I: Our community has conducted a * community assessment, survey or other planning activity for applying * smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 7___ Suggestions for revision: Our community governing body has been instructed in the principals of smart growth and we are conducting a community assessment, survey or other plannning activity. ( My experience is that the governing body must be an integral part of this process for it to matter.) EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 4 1 C: PA Process I: Our community has defined goals or a mission for increasing older adult participation in * active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8____ Suggestions for revision:

1 D: PA: Process I: Our community has conducted a * community assessment or survey, or reviewed information/ data for increasing older adult participation in active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: _____ 8_ Suggestions for revision:

Level 2 2 A: SG: Process II: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 5 Our community's strategic development plan includes aspects of feasibility, cost, impact, time frame and leadership for applying smart growth principles.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8____ Suggestions for revision:

2 B: SG: Process II: Our community is actively engaged in formulating plans and strategies for specifically linking smart growth initiatives with programs, amenities or opportunities that include active aging/ physical activity for older adults

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 8____ Suggestions for revision:

2 C: PA: Process II: Our community has a broad based planning process that includes feasibility, cost, impact, time frame and leadership for creating/ promoting active aging/ physical activity for aging adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 6 Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: _ 8_____ Suggestions for revision:

2 D: PA: Process II: Our community has established interagency committees, task forces, or other community partnerships with local aging organizations, service providers, and agencies as a means of coordinating activities and programs with smart growth and active aging/ physical activity components.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Process II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 9___ Suggestions for revision:

Level 3 3 A: SG & PA: Process III: Our community's comprehensive planning integrates smart growth principles and promotes application of these to encompass active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 7 > How well does this item assess the content for Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 9___ Suggestions for revision:

3 B: SG: Program I: Our community has legislative, zoning, comprehensive plan initiatives and other policies in place or in consideration that include provision for both smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs or opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ____ 9__ Suggestions for revision:

3 C: PA: Program I: Our community has created pilot programs, or has existing programs for active aging/ physical activity for older adults which take advantage of the resources and environments created by local smart growth activities such as safe walking area, biking amenities, age sensitive exercise trails, safe parks, etc. * This section will include additional resource links

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 8 > How well does this item assess the content for Program I:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 10____ Suggestions for revision:

Level 4 4 A: SG: Program II: Our community is increasing its capacity through budget allocation, staff resources, infrastructure improvement, etc. for systematically expanding existing initiatives that combine smart growth principles and planning and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 10____ Suggestions for revision:

4 B: SG: Program II: Our community is reaching out to local/ county/ state officials and departments, land developers, and community organizations to expand the integration of smart growth and active aging/ physical activity programs.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 9 > How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 10____ Suggestions for revision:

4 C: PA: Program II: Our community includes gathering evidence about and evaluating the effectiveness of and level of participation in our active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially complete

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 3___ Suggestions for revision: Includes gathering evidence and evaluating effectiveness in what   the programs? reports to officials? It's an awkward question.

4 D: PA: Program II: Our community has an initiative that includes promotion, advertising, recruitment, and widely available programs and opportunities to engage more older adults in active aging/ physical activity.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 10 > How well does this item assess the content for Program II:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 3___ Suggestions for revision: " to inform more older adults of the opportunity to engage in active aging/ physical activity"

Level 5 5 A: SG: Program/ Process III: Our community has already implemented, or has the capacity to implement a model program combining smart growth principles with programs emphasizing active aging/ physical activity for older adults.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 9___ Suggestions for revision:

5 B: SG: Program/ Process III: Our community has a well established smart growth initiative and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities and is planning to expand these to a wider segment of our population as well as the partnerships that will support these programs.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 11 > How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 10____

Suggestions for revision:

5 C: PA: Program/ Process III: Our community has an established coalition of service providers, advocacy organizations, businesses and governmental agencies who are cooperating to create more innovative and widely available programs that integrate smart growth principles and active aging/ physical activity programs and opportunities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Describe Activity:

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: __ 10____ Suggestions for revision:

5 D: PA: Program/ Process III:

Our community has an existing model program integrating active aging/ physical activity and smart growth for older adults and we can provide technical assistance and a contact person to share information with other communities.

Not at all

Just starting

Partially completed

Fully Completed

Ongoing Please describe your program/ initiative below or attach additional information: EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 12 Contact Person for program/ initiative described above: Name:_____________________________________________ Title:______________________________________________ Organization:_______________________________________ Address:___________________________________________ ____________________________________________ City:________________________________ State:_____ Zip:__________ Phone:___________________ Fax:_________________ Email:__________________________________________

> How well does this item assess the content for Program/ Process III:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all Adequately Very Well Your Score: ___ 9___ Suggestions for revision:

BETA TEST RESPONDENTS: PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONS BELOW:

> How was the process of completing this document for you and/ or your staff?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Easy Somewhat Difficult Difficult If you rated this process with a score of 6   10, please suggest how we might make this questionnaire easier to complete:

> Approximately how long did it take to complete this? _____ hrs. ___ 10__ min.

> Would you recommend applying for this recognition program to other communities? __ x_ Yes ___ No EPA Smart Growth & Active Aging National Recognition Program DCTM_ ARP. doc 13 Applicant completing this beta test form:

Name: ___ Toni Foran _____________________________________

Title: ___ Deputy Recorder___________________________________________

Organization: _ Hurricane City______________________________________

Address: _ 147 N. 870 West__________________________________________ ___________________________________________

City: __ Hurricane_____________________________ State:_ UT____ Zip:_ 84737_________

Phone: _ 435 635 2811 ext. 118____ Fax:__ 435 635 2184_______________

Email: ___ tonif@ infowest. com_________________________________

Thank you for you assistance. Please return the completed MSWord document to Dr. John Migliaccio at drjohnmig@ aol. com or hardcopy by mail to Maturity Mark Services Co., 55 Springdale Ave., White Plains, NY 10604 2309 ( 914) 684 9112.


 [Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 51117] [FR Doc No: C1-2014-19157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0529; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-260-AD] RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2014-19157 beginning on page 47395 in the  issue of Wednesday, August 13, 2014, make the following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 47399, in the table titled ``Figure 1 to Paragraph (i) of  This AD--AFM Revision'', in the fourth line, ``AGN-32'' should read  ``ABN-32''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-19157 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

	 ADVANCE \x15 DATE:

SUBECT:

	November 19, 2007

Technical Support Document (TSD)—Virginia;  Control of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOCs) Emissions from the Kraft Foods Global, Inc.—
Bakery located in Henrico County, Virginia

 ADVANCE \x15 FROM:

	Irene Shandruk, Environmental Scientist     /s/

 ADVANCE \x15 TO:

	Virginia; Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1139

 ADVANCE \x15 THRU:

	Cristina Fernandez, Chief       /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch

A. BACKGROUND

	The federal Clean Air Act requires that Virginia adopt and enforce a
plan, known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP), to attain and
maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) throughout
the Commonwealth.  In 1985, a plan to attain and maintain the 1-hour
ozone air quality standard in the Richmond Nonattainment Area was
adopted.  The 1985 plan provided that the State Air Pollution Control
Board must, on case-by-case basis, determine whether there is a
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to reduce volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from major sources for which the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not issued a control
technology guideline (CTG).

Under the 1-hour ozone standard requirements established by the Clean
Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Richmond area was designated as a
moderate nonattainment area.  The area’s air quality improved, and a
redesignation request and maintenance plan were sent to EPA and approved
on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61237).  On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone.  On September 22, 2004, under this new
standard, the Richmond area was classified as a marginal nonattainment
area.  On September 20, 2006, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) formally submitted a request to redesignate the Richmond
area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone.  On
September 25, 2006, the VADEQ submitted a maintenance plan for the
Richmond area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment.  The
redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved on June 1, 2007
(72 FR 30485).

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA stipulates that for an area to be
redesignated, EPA must approve a maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of Section 175A.  All applicable nonattainment area
requirements remain in place.  The maintenance plan constitutes a SIP
revision, and must provide for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the
area for at least 10 years after redesignation.  Virginia developed a
maintenance plan that meets all EPA requirements and demonstrates that,
because of permanent and enforceable measures, emissions will remain
within the regional emissions budget while allowing for growth in
population and vehicle miles traveled.  The plan includes a
demonstration that emissions will remain within the 2005 levels for a
10-year period by keeping in place key elements of the current federal
and state regulatory programs, including case-by-case RACT requirements
for the area.

RACT is the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available with the consideration of technological and economic
feasibility.  When the Richmond area was originally designated as an
ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard, it was
classified as “moderate” and thereby had to meet the non-CTG RACT
requirements of § 182.  As part of the 1-hour ozone standard attainment
plan, one of the sources located in the area identified as being subject
to non-CTG RACT was Nabisco Brands (now Kraft Foods).  Cookies,
crackers, and pretzels are produced at this plant using two different
dough processes: sponge-dough and straight-dough.  In the sponge-dough
process, doughs are formulated by yeast leavening; while in the
straight-dough process, doughs are leavened chemically in the absence of
yeast.  The sources of VOC emissions at this plant are proof-room,
ovens, and oil treatment facilities.

The facility underwent RACT analysis, and a federally-enforceable state
operating permit was issued to the facility, which became effective on
April 24, 1991.  The permit was then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision,
and approved into the Commonwealth’s SIP on March 6, 1992 (57 FR
8080).  Because the Richmond area in which this facility is located has
continuously been classified as either a nonattainment or a maintenance
area, the RACT requirements remain in effect. In 2006, Kraft made a
number of modifications to its process that necessitated revisions to
its RACT permit.  Therefore, change to the facility’s RACT permit
necessitates a change to the SIP.

B. EPA REQUIREMENTS

When the Richmond area was originally designated as an ozone
nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard, it was classified as
moderate and thereby had to meet the non-CTG RACT requirements of §
182.  Under the 8-hour ozone standard the Richmond nonattainment area
was designated as marginal.  Under Section 182(b) of the CAA, stationary
sources in moderate nonattainment areas must comply with the
requirements for sources in marginal nonattainment areas.  The
additional, more comprehensive control measures in § 182(b)(2)(B)
require that existing stationary sources emitting VOC for which a CTG
existed prior to adoption of the 1990 Amendments also use RACT.  Section
182(b)(2)(C) requires RACT controls on major VOC stationary sources not
covered by an existing CTG.  A major source in a nonattainment area is
defined in § 302(j) to be a stationary source emitting or having the
potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of a pollutant.

C. EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

In 2006, Kraft made a number of modifications to its process that
necessitated revisions to its RACT permit.  Therefore, a SIP revision
request concerning this RACT permit was submitted to EPA on October 29,
2007 and received by EPA on November 1, 2007.  Pursuant to the
requirements of Section 110 of the CAA, Virginia is requesting approval
of a SIP revision, which was approved by the State and became effective
on September 19, 2007 under the authority of § 10.1-1185 of the Code of
Virginia, and submitted in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans).

The revision consists of a federally enforceable state operating permit
(which was drafted in compliance with the non-CTG RACT requirements of
Article 51 of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40) containing terms and conditions for
the control of emissions of VOCs from the Kraft Foods Global,
Inc.—Richmond Bakery located in Henrico County, Virginia.  The
submittal is for the purpose of meeting the requirements for RACT in
order to implement the attainment and maintenance plans for the Richmond
8-hour ozone maintenance area.

D. RECOMMENDATION

Virginia has met the requirements for submitting a RACT SIP revision.
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The revision will result in the Richmond 8-hour
ozone maintenance area in being able to implement its attainment and
maintenance plans. Therefore,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA approval of this
SIP revision is recommended.

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber
and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42689-42691]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0349; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00103-T;
Amendment 39-21660; AD 2021-15-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of missing or disbonded pressure seals on two thrust reverser
(TR) translating cowls. This AD requires a one-time inspection of each
thrust reverser for damage, seal bonding rework, and replacement of
translating cowl pressure seals if necessary, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated
by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 9,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0349.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0349; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule,

any comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is 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: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0035, dated January 25, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0035) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A330-841 and -941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24790). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
missing or disbonded pressure seals on two TR translating cowls. The
NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of each TR for damage,
seal bonding rework, and replacement of translating cowl pressure seals
if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0035.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing or disbonded TR
translating cowl seal segments. In a case where all seal segments were
missing, this condition, if not addressed, could lead to loss of thrust
at maximum continuous thrust or at takeoff/go-around, possibly
resulting in substantially reduced performance of the airplane. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, (ALPA)
indicated its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0035 describes procedures for inspecting each TR for
damage (including tears, cracks, unwanted sealant on the contact
surface, missing pieces, worn-out seals, or glass or ceramic ply that
is not impacted), reworking the pressure seal bonding, and replacing
damaged translating cowl pressure seals.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour = $595 (per thrust reverser).....              $0             $595           $4,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,870          $42,268          $44,138
 (per thrust reverser)................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-15-13 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21660; Docket No. FAA-2021-0349;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00103-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 9,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing or disbonded pressure
seals on two thrust reverser (TR) translating cowls. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address missing or disbonded TR translating cowl
seal segments. In a case where all seal segments were missing, this
condition, if not addressed, could lead to loss of thrust at maximum
continuous thrust or at takeoff/go-around, possibly resulting in
substantially reduced performance of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0035, dated January 25, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0035).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0035

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0035 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0035 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0035
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0035,
dated January 25, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0035, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0349.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 16, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16562 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P