[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58110-58113]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0622; Product Identifier 2016-NM-192-AD; Amendment
39-19120; AD 2017-25-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -
214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -
211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of a vertical strut penetrating through the cabin floor during
an emergency water landing and on airframe ground contact at certain
speeds/accelerations. This AD requires modification of the fuselage
structure at a certain frame. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 16,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0622.

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-2017-
0622; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318
and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and
-233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June
23, 2017 (82 FR 28596) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports
of a vertical strut penetrating through the cabin floor during an
emergency water landing and on airframe ground contact at certain
speeds/accelerations. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the
fuselage structure at frame (FR) 65. We are issuing this AD to prevent
the central vertical strut at FR65 from penetrating through the cabin
floor in certain conditions, which could lead to injury of occupants
and delays during an emergency evacuation.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0212, dated October 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 and A319
series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In service occurrences were reported where, as a consequence
[during an emergency water landing and] of an airframe ground
contact above certified vertical speed/vertical acceleration, the
vertical strut at Frame (FR) 65 penetrated through the cabin floor.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to injury of
occupants and/or delays during emergency evacuation.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed mod
153724, a structural change which prevents the central vertical
strut at FR65 to pass through the cabin floor, and issued Service
Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1262 to provide instructions for installation
of this modification on aeroplanes in service. After SB A320-53-1262
was issued, incorrect MSN [manufacturer serial number] allocations
and configuration definitions were identified in it. Consequently
Airbus revised that SB, and in addition issued SB A320-53-1333 and
SB A320-53-1334.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the fuselage structure at FR65.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0622.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request for Different Method of Compliance for Foam Tape

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we include an exception to
allow the use of a different foam tape that better meets the needs of
its fleet. UAL mentioned that the purpose of the tape is to reduce
vibration and prevent chafing from the floor panels, and that the
location is considered a ``wet'' area of the aft cabin that is
susceptible to corrosion. UAL also stated that the tape specified does
not meet its corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) standards,
and that the tape can retain moisture and may not adequately seal
between the floor panel and floor support structure. UAL indicated that
protecting the floor beams from moisture ingress has been an ongoing
effort on its fleet through the CPCP committee and that due to
corrosion reports UAL uses a different foam tape on all floor support
structure in the cabin ``wet'' areas. UAL pointed out that it has
benefited from superior corrosion protection due to using the different
foam tape and stressed its continual commitment to monitoring and
evaluating new products and procedures for the aft cabin ``wet'' areas.
    UAL also requested that we provide an exception to the ``RC''
(Required for Compliance) specification associated with installation of
the foam tape.
    We agree to include an exception for the reasons provided. We have
added paragraph (h), ``Service Information Exceptions,'' to this AD and
redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. In paragraph (h)(1) of
this

AD, we added an exception for using an alternative foam tape, in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA).

Request for Exception for Placard Installation at FR65

    UAL also requested that we provide an exception to the ``RC''
specification associated with installation of the placard. UAL
concurred with marking of modification areas to prevent de-
modification, but uses a different method (marking AD areas when there
is high risk of de-modification, and denoting the applicable
Engineering Authorization and/or AD). UAL stated that marking the
modification area in accordance with the service information does not
bring awareness to technicians and that the service information may not
be readily available for reference. Additionally, UAL pointed out that
because the modification is a complex alteration which cannot be easily
returned to the original configuration, it considers the modification
to be low risk of de-modification. UAL also pointed out that Airbus has
identified illustrated parts catalog (IPC) and structural repair manual
(SRM) publications affected in the specified service information and
that the IPC changes will identify the proper configuration between
pre- and post-modification accomplishment. UAL mentioned that excepting
the placard marking on FR65 from the ``RC'' requirement will allow
operators (if they choose) to mark their applicable Engineering
Authorization and/or AD instead and that applying the placard does not
affect the technical intent of the modification.
    We agree to include an exception for the reasons provided. In
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, we added an exception to specify that the
referenced placard installation is not required by this AD.

Request To Refer to Later Revisions of the Service Information

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that we delay issuance of the
final rule until the manufacturer can release Revision 02 (we referred
to Revision 01 in the NPRM) of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262.
AAL pointed out that Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-
1262 is expected to address certain discrepancies found during
validation of the service information. UAL also requested that we
verify that the required service information specified in the NPRM is
at the latest revision level to prevent alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) requests immediately following publication of the
final rule.
    We have verified that the required service information specified in
this AD is at the latest revision level. We do not consider that
delaying this action until release of the planned service information
is warranted, since Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262
is not yet approved and we cannot allow future revisions of service
information in this AD. Additionally, AAL did not provide any further
details associated with the discrepancies discovered during validation.
We have determined that using Revision 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1262 adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition.
However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, we will
consider requests for approval of an AMOC to allow the use of Revision
02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262 after issuance of the
updated service information. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following Airbus service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix
01 and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016;
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix
01 and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016; and
     Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix
01 and including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.
    The service information describes procedures for modifying the
fuselage structure at FR65. These documents are distinct since they
apply to different airplane configurations. This service information 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

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,123 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..........................  18 work-hours x $85 per          $16,600         $18,130     $20,359,990
                                         hour = $1,530.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance

of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has
delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category
airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-25-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-19120; Docket No. FAA-2017-0622;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-192-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 16, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which
Airbus Modification 153724 was embodied in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a vertical strut penetrating
through the cabin floor during an emergency water landing and on
airframe ground contact at certain speeds/accelerations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the central vertical strut at frame (FR)
65 from penetrating through the cabin floor in certain conditions,
which could lead to injury of occupants and delays during an
emergency evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD:
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
fuselage structure at FR65, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service bulletin specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -
212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112,
-131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, as identified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, Revision 01, dated July 29,
2016: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix 01
and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016.
    (2) For Model A320-211, -212, -214, -232, and -233 airplanes, as
identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, dated July 29,
2016: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix 01
and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016.
    (3) For Model A321-211, -213, and -231 airplanes as identified
in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, dated July 29, 2016: Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix 01 and including
Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.

(h) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where the service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD specifies to use ABS5006 foam tape on
the new floor support beam, this AD allows the installation of an
alternative foam tape, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) Where the service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD specifies to install a placard at FR65,
that placard installation is not required by this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as specified in
paragraph (h) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0212, dated October 25, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0622.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:
425-227-1405; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) 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) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1262, excluding Appendix 01
and including Appendix 02, Revision 01, dated July 29, 2016.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1333, excluding Appendix 01
and including Appendix 02, dated July 29, 2016.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1334, excluding Appendix
01 and including Appendixes 02 and 03, dated July 29, 2016.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet:
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 16, 2017.
Chris Spangenberg,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-26260 Filed 12-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33739]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-359-030]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Service
Agreement

June 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing a copy of the executed fourth
amendment to the service agreement with Washington Gas Light Company
(WGL) that contains a recalculated negotiated delivery point facilities
surcharge (Facilities Surcharge) under Transco's Rate Schedule FT for
the costs of the Rock Creek Meter Station, a delivery point to
Washington Gas Light Company (WGL). The effective date of this revised
Facilities Surcharge is July 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9117 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76314]
[DOCID:fr20de06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-22-000]

Notice of Filing; City of Riverside, CA

December 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 5, 2006, the City of Riverside,
California tendered for filing its fourth annual revision to its
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-21688 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034; FRL-       ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

	Maryland; Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Maryland, with the exception of its 2009
nitrogen oxides (NOx) ozone season and NOx annual allocations, its 2009
set-aside allocations and the Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP)
allocations.  The revisions establish budget trading programs for
nitrogen oxides (NOx) annual, NOx ozone season, and sulfur dioxides
(SO2) annual emissions to address the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).  Maryland will meet its CAIR requirements by
participating in the EPA-administered regional cap-and-trade program for
NOx annual, NOx ozone season, and SO2 annual emissions.  EPA is
determining that the SIP revisions fully implement the CAIR requirements
for Maryland.  Although the D.C. Circuit found CAIR to be flawed, the
rule was remanded without vacatur and thus remains in place.  Thus, EPA
is continuing to take action on CAIR SIPs as appropriate.  CAIR, as
promulgated, requires States to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx that
significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates
and/or ozone in any downwind state.  CAIR establishes budgets for SO2
and NOX for States that contribute significantly to nonattainment in
downwind States and requires the significantly contributing States to
submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets.  States have the
flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the
budgets, including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.  In
the SIP revisions that EPA is approving, Maryland will meet CAIR
requirements by participating in these cap-and-trade programs.  EPA is
approving the SIP revisions, with the exceptions noted, as fully
implementing the CAIR requirements for Maryland.  Consequently, this
action will also cause the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (CAIR FIPs)
concerning SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions by Maryland
sources to be automatically withdrawn.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  The final rule is effective on [Insert date of
publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034.  All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I.  What Action Did EPA Propose?

II. Summary of Maryland SIP Revision

III. What is the Final Action?

IV. What is the Effective Date?

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.	What Action Did EPA Propose?

On August 20, 2009 (74 FR 42038), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland.  No comments were received.
The NPR proposed approval of revisions to the Maryland SIP that
addresses EPA’s CAIR requirements.  The formal SIP revisions were
submitted by Maryland on October 24, 2007 and June 30, 2008.

Summary of Maryland SIP Revision

On October 24, 2007, the Maryland Department of the Environmental (MDE)
submitted a full CAIR SIP revision to meet the requirements of CAIR,
which was promulgated on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), and subsequently
revised on April 28, 2006, and December 13, 2006.  The SIP revision
consisted of new Maryland rule COMAR 26.11.28 – Clean Air Interstate
Rule (Maryland revision #07-14).  On June 30, 2008, MDE submitted a SIP
revision that amended Regulations .01 to .07 of COMAR 26.11.28 (Maryland
revision #08-08).  The regulations address all the requirements of the
40 CFR part 96 model rules set forth in the May 12, 2005 CAIR
rulemaking.

On August 20, 2009 (74 FR 27731), EPA published an NPR to approve
Maryland’s CAIR SIP revisions, with the exception of its 2009 NOx
ozone season and NOx annual allocations, its 2009 set-aside allocations
and the CSP allocations.  A detailed discussion of the CAIR
requirements, the CAIR history (including the CAIR remand), Maryland’s
CAIR submittals, and EPA’s rationale for approval of Maryland’s CAIR
SIP revisions may be found in the NPR and will not be repeated here.

EPA notes that, in North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 916-21, the Court
determined, among other things, that the State SO2 and NOX budgets
established in CAIR were arbitrary and capricious.  However, as
discussed above, the Court also decided to remand CAIR but to leave the
rule in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental
values covered by CAIR” pending EPA’s development and promulgation
of a replacement rule that remedies CAIR’s flaws.  North Carolina, 550
F.3d at 1178.  EPA had indicated to the Court that development and
promulgation of a replacement rule would take about two years.  Reply in
Support of Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc at 5 (filed Nov.
17, 2008 in North Carolina v. EPA, Case No. 05-1224, D.C. Cir.).  The
process at EPA of developing a proposal that will undergo notice and
comment and result in a final replacement rule is ongoing.  In the
meantime, consistent with the Court’s orders, EPA is implementing CAIR
by approving State SIP revisions that are consistent with CAIR (such as
the provisions setting State SO2 and NOX budgets for the CAIR trading
programs) in order to “temporarily preserve” the environmental
benefits achievable under the CAIR trading programs.

III. What is the Final Action?

EPA is approving Maryland’s CAIR SIP revisions submitted on October
24, 2007 and June 30, 2008, with the exception of its 2009 NOx ozone
season and NOx annual allocations, its 2009 set-aside allocations and
the CSP allocations.  Under the SIP revisions, Maryland will participate
in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for NOx annual, NOx ozone
season, and SO2 annual emissions.  The SIP revisions meet the applicable
requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NOX annual and
NOX ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO2
emissions.  As a consequence of the SIP approval, the CAIR FIPs for
Maryland are automatically withdrawn, in accordance with the automatic
withdrawal provisions of EPA’s November 2, 2007 rulemaking (72 FR
62338).   The automatic withdrawal is reflected in the rule text that
accompanies this notice and deletes and reserves the provisions in Part
52 that establish the CAIR FIPs for Maryland sources.

IV. What is the Effective Date?

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective
upon publication because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to
the nature of the approval, which allows the State, as indicated in the
NPR for this rulemaking, to use its own methodology for distribution of
allowances from its set aside pool.  The expedited effective date for
this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides
that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction’’ and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with
the rule.’’

CAIR SIP approvals relieve states and CAIR sources within states from
being subject to provisions in the CAIR FIPs that otherwise would apply
to them, allowing states to implement CAIR based on their SIP-approved
state rule. The relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to
allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
 In addition, Maryland’s relief from these obligations provides good
cause to make this rule effective immediately upon publication, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).  The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. Where, as here, the final rule relieves obligations rather than
imposes obligations, affected parties, such as the State of Maryland and
CAIR sources within the State, do not need time to adjust and prepare
before the rule takes effect.

V.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  This action to approve Maryland’s CAIR rules may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

October 20, 2009___					__________/s/_________________

Dated:							William C. Early,

           Acting 	Regional Administrator,

							Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V(Maryland

2. In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for COMAR 26.11.28 after the existing entry for COMAR 26.11.27 to
read as follows:

( 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)* * *

       EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation

Title/subject

State effective date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100

          *            *               *              *              *
              *             *

    26.11.28             Clean Air Interstate Rule

<IP_ADDRESS>	Definitions

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

<IP_ADDRESS>	Incorporation By Reference

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	Affected Units and General Requirements

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	Requirements for New Affected Trading Units and NOx Set
Aside Pool

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	NOx Allowances for Renewable Energy Projects and Consumers
of Electric Power

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	NOx Allowances to be Distributed to Consumers of Electric
Power

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	Distribution of Unused NOx Allowances in the Set Aside Pool

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

	<IP_ADDRESS>	Allocation of NOx Allowances

6/16/08

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

Annual and Ozone Season Allocations start in 2010 instead of 2009

*            *               *              *              *
    *             *

*             *             *            *            *

§ 52.1084 [Removed and Reserved]

3.  Section 52.1084 is removed and reserved.

§ 52.1085 [Removed and Reserved]

4.  Section 52.1085 is removed and reserved.

1 The Court also determined that the CAIR trading programs were unlawful
(id. at 906-8) and that the treatment of title IV allowances in CAIR was
unlawful (id. at 921-23).  For the same reasons that EPA is approving
the provisions of Maryland’s SIP revision that use the SO2 and NOX
budgets set in CAIR, EPA is also approving, as discussed below,
Maryland’s SIP revision to the extent the SIP revision adopts the CAIR
trading programs, including the provisions, addressing applicability,
allowance allocations, and use of title IV allowances.

 PAGE  10

 PAGE

 PAGE  12


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43360-43363]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18221]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64892; File No. SR-FINRA-2011-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin
Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)

 July 14, 2011.
    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 July 11, 2011, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons and is approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to extend to January 17, 2012 the implementation
of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps) on an
interim pilot program basis and to make other revisions to update the
rule. FINRA Rule 4240, as approved by the SEC on May 22, 2009, and as
extended by FINRA on November 22, 2010, will expire on July 16, 2011.
The rule implements an interim pilot program with respect to margin
requirements for certain transactions in credit default swaps.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
    4000. Financial and Operational Rules.
* * * * *
    4200. Margin.
* * * * *
    4240. Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps.
    (a) Effective Period of Interim Pilot Program.
    This Rule establishes an interim pilot program (``Interim Pilot
Program'') with respect to margin requirements for any transactions in
credit default swaps executed by a member (regardless of the type of
account in which the transaction is booked), including those in which
the offsetting matching hedging transactions (``matching
transactions'') are effected by the member in contracts that are
cleared through [the central counterparty clearing services of the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME'')] a clearing agency or derivatives
clearing organization that provides central counterparty clearing
services using a margin methodology approved by FINRA as announced in a
Regulatory Notice (``approved margin methodology''). The Interim Pilot
Program shall automatically expire on [July 16, 2011] January 17, 2012.
For purposes of this Rule, the term ``credit default swap'' (``CDS'')
shall [mean any ``eligible credit default swap'' as defined in
Securities Act Rule 239T(d), as well as any other CDS that would
otherwise meet such definition but for being subject to individual
negotiation,] include any product that is commonly known to the trade
as a credit default swap and is a swap or security-based swap as
defined pursuant to Section

1a(47) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Section 3(a)(68) of the
Exchange Act, respectively, or the joint rules and guidance of the CFTC
and the SEC and their staff. [and t]The term ``transaction'' shall
include any ongoing CDS position.
    (b) Central Counterparty Clearing Arrangements.
    Any member, prior to establishing any clearing arrangement with
respect to CDS transactions that makes use of any central counterparty
clearing services provided by any clearing agency or derivatives
clearing organization [, pursuant to Securities Act Rule 239T(a)(1),]
must notify FINRA in advance in writing, in such manner as may be
specified by FINRA in a Regulatory Notice.
    (c) Margin Requirements.
    (1) CDS Cleared [on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange] Through a
Clearing Agency or Derivatives Clearing Organization Using an Approved
Margin Methodology.
    Members shall require as a minimum for computing customer or
broker-dealer margin, with respect to any customer or broker-dealer
transaction in CDS with a member in which the member executes a
matching transaction that makes use of the central counterparty
clearing facilities of [the CME (``CME matching customer-side
transaction'')] a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization
using an approved margin methodology pursuant to this Rule, the
applicable margin pursuant to [CME rules (sometimes referred to in such
rules as a ``performance bond'')] the rules of such clearing agency or
derivatives clearing organization regardless of the type of account in
which the transaction in CDS is booked. Members shall, based on the
risk monitoring procedures and guidelines set forth in paragraph (d) of
this Rule, determine whether the applicable [CME] clearing agency or
derivatives clearing organization requirements are adequate with
respect to their customer and broker-dealer accounts and the positions
in those accounts and, where appropriate, increase such margin in
excess of such minimum margin. For this purpose, members are permitted
to use the margin requirements set forth in Supplementary Material .01
of this Rule.
    The aggregate amount of margin the member collects from customers
and broker-dealers for transactions in CDS must equal or exceed the
aggregate amount of margin the member is required to post at [CME] the
clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization with respect to
those customer and broker-dealer transactions.
    [CME matching customer-side t]Transactions that are cleared through
a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization using an
approved margin methodology pursuant to this Rule are not subject to
the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this Rule.
    (2) CDS That Are Cleared on Central Counterparty Clearing
Facilities That Do Not Use an Approved Margin Methodology [Other Than
the CME] or That Settle Over-the-Counter (``OTC'').
    Members shall require, with respect to any transaction in CDS that
makes use of central counterparty clearing facilities [other than the
CME] that do not use an approved margin methodology pursuant to this
Rule or that settle OTC, the applicable minimum margin as set forth in
Supplementary Material .01 of this Rule regardless of the type of
account in which the transaction in CDS is booked. However, members
shall, based on the risk monitoring procedures and guidelines set forth
in paragraph (d) of this Rule, determine whether such margin is
adequate with respect to their customer and broker-dealer accounts and,
where appropriate, increase such requirements.
    (d) through (e) No Change.
    . . . Supplementary Material:
    .01 No Change.
* * * * *

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
    On May 22, 2009, the Commission approved FINRA Rule 4240,\3\ which
implements an interim pilot program (the ``Interim Pilot Program'')
with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in credit
default swaps (``CDS''). On November 22, 2010, FINRA extended the
implementation of Rule 4240 to July 16, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59955 (May 22,
2009), 74 FR 25586 (May 28, 2009) (Notice of Approval of Proposed
Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-012) (``Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63391 (November 30,
2010), 75 FR 75718 (December 6, 2010) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-
2010-063).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Approval Order,\5\ FINRA Rule 4240, coterminous
with certain Commission actions,\6\ is intended to address concerns
arising from systemic risk posed by CDS, including, among other things,
risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a central
clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS. On July 21, 2010,
President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''),\7\ Title VII of which
established a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and
security-based swaps, including certain CDS. The new legislation was
intended among other things to enhance the authority of regulators to
implement new rules designed to reduce risk, increase transparency, and
promote market integrity with respect to such products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 74 FR 25588 through 25589.
    \6\ In early 2009 the Commission enacted interim final temporary
rules (the ``interim final temporary rules'') providing enumerated
exemptions under the federal securities laws for certain CDS to
facilitate the operation of one or more central clearing
counterparties in such CDS. See Securities Act Release No. 8999
(January 14, 2009), 74 FR 3967 (January 22, 2009) (Temporary
Exemptions for Eligible Credit Default Swaps To Facilitate Operation
of Central Counterparties To Clear and Settle Credit Default Swaps);
Securities Act Release No. 9063 (September 14, 2009), 74 FR 47719
(September 17, 2009) (Extension of Temporary Exemptions for Eligible
Credit Default Swaps To Facilitate Operation of Central
Counterparties To Clear and Settle Credit Default Swaps); Securities
Act Release No. 9158 (November 19, 2010), 75 FR 72660 (November 26,
2010) (Extension of Temporary Exemptions for Eligible Credit Default
Swaps To Facilitate Operation of Central Counterparties To Clear and
Settle Credit Default Swaps). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59578 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11781 (March 19, 2009)
(Order Granting Temporary Exemptions in Connection with Request of
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Citadel Investment Group,
L.L.C. Related to Central Clearing of Credit Default Swaps);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59165 (December 24, 2008), 74 FR
133 (January 2, 2009) (Order Granting Temporary Exemptions for
Broker-Dealers and Exchanges Effecting Transactions in Credit
Default Swaps).
    \7\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes it is appropriate to extend the Interim Pilot
Program for a limited period, to January 17, 2012, pending the final
implementation of new Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'')
and SEC rules pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act that would
provide greater regulatory clarity as to margin requirements for the
products addressed by FINRA Rule 4240.

    FINRA has revised the definition of ``CDS'' set forth in paragraph
(a) of the Rule to reflect the effectiveness of the definitions of
``swap'' and ``security-based swap'' in Section 1a(47) of the Commodity
Exchange Act \8\ and Section 3(a)(68) of the Act,\9\ respectively,
pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(47).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has revised FINRA Rule 4240(a) to clarify that the Interim
Pilot Program applies with respect to margin requirements for any
transactions in CDS executed by a member (regardless of the type of
account in which the transaction is booked), including those in which
the offsetting matching hedging transactions (``matching
transactions'') are effected by the member in contracts that are
cleared through a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization
that provides central counterparty clearing services using a margin
methodology approved by FINRA as announced in a Regulatory Notice
(``approved margin methodology''). FINRA believes that this serves the
interest of regulatory efficiency and is consistent with the goals set
forth in the Approval Order, which noted that FINRA would consider
margin methodology proposals from central clearing counterparties and
would amend Rule 4240 as appropriate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 74 FR 25589. FINRA has made conforming revisions to
paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Rule. See Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested the Commission to find good cause pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \11\ for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after its publication in the Federal Register,
such that FINRA can prevent FINRA Rule 4240 from lapsing and implement
the proposed rule change on July 16, 2011. The proposed rule change
will expire on January 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ 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. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
further the purposes of the Act because, consistent with the goals set
forth by the Commission when it adopted the interim final temporary
rules with respect to the operation of central counterparties to clear
and settle CDS, and pending the final implementation of new CFTC and
SEC rules pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the margin
requirements set forth by the proposed rule change will help to
stabilize the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA has requested that the Commission find good cause pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after publication in the Federal Register.\13\
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of
filing. The accelerated approval will, consistent with the goals set
forth by the Commission when it adopted the interim final temporary
rules with respect to the operation of central counterparties to clear
and settle CDS, and pending the final implementation of new CFTC and
SEC rules pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, help to
stabilize the financial markets by setting forth margin requirements
for certain transactions in CDS. The Commission believes the proposed
revisions to paragraph (a) of FINRA Rule 4240 are consistent with the
goals set forth in the Approval Order, which noted that FINRA would
consider margin methodology proposals from central clearing
counterparties and would amend Rule 4240 as appropriate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ See Section II.A.1. of this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules 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.\15\ This allows the existing pilot program to continue
without interruption and extend the benefits of a pilot program that
the Commission has previously approved and extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2011-034 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-2011-034. 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 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-2011-034 and
should be submitted on or before August 10, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18221 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46740-46742]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-E-2597]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; GIAPREZA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for GIAPREZA and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by
November 4, 2019. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA
for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted
with due diligence during the regulatory review period by March 3,
2020. See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
more information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before November 4, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 4, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://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 https://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): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, 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-

2018-E-2597 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; GIAPREZA.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. 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 Sec.  10.20 (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: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://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 Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, GIAPREZA
(angiotensin II). GIAPREZA is a vasoconstrictor to increase blood
pressure in adults with septic or other distributive shock. Subsequent
to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration
application for GIAPREZA (U.S. Patent No. 9,572,856) from George
Washington University and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated September 18, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of GIAPREZA represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that
FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
GIAPREZA is 1,639 days. Of this time, 1,463 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 176 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
June 28, 2013. The applicant claims November 16, 2014, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was June 28, 2013,
which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the first IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: June 29,
2017. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for GIAPREZA (NDA 209360) was initially submitted on
June 29, 2017.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 21, 2017. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 209360 was approved on
December 21, 2017.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 241 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the

Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-19110 Filed 9-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39062-39065]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-03-

07, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes. AD 2014-03-07 requires inspecting certain locations of the
wire bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and
corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-03-07 also requires installing
nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching
hardware, and a new extruded channel. Since we issued AD 2014-03-07, we
determined that it is necessary to require an inspection of the wire
bundles for damage at additional center upper auxiliary fuel tank
locations on certain airplanes. This proposed AD would add that
inspection and expand the applicability. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone
562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0770.

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-2017-
0770; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0770;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-030-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 21, 2014, we issued AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744
(79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014) (``AD 2014-03-07''), for certain The
Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2014-03-07
superseded AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249, December 31,
2009). AD 2014-03-07 requires inspecting certain locations of the wire
bundles of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank for damage, and
corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-03-07 also requires installing
nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps, new attaching
hardware, and a new extruded channel. AD 2014-03-07 resulted from
reports that identified additional locations where inspections and
corrective actions of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank are needed.
We issued AD 2014-03-07 to reduce the potential of ignition sources
inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Actions Since AD 2014-03-07 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-03-07, we determined that, for certain
airplanes, it is necessary to inspect the wire bundles at additional
center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations for damage. We have also
expanded the applicability to add one airplane (Line Number 579) that
is also affected by the identified unsafe condition.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated
July 1, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
inspecting certain wire bundles of the center auxiliary fuel tank for
damage, and repairing or replacing damaged wires. This service
information also describes procedures for installing barrier/shield
sleeving, clamping, and an extruded channel. This service information
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.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2014-03-07.
This proposed AD would add inspection requirements for certain
airplanes and expand the applicability. This proposed AD would require
accomplishing the actions specified in the service information
described previously, except as discussed under ``Difference between
this Proposed AD and Service Information.'' For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0770.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1,
2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions,
but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification
deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and

that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those
findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per  product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/installation [retained  168 to 182 work-         $15,708 to  $29,988 to $43,475   $3,748,500 to
 actions from AD 2009-26-16,        hours x $85 per            $28,005   per inspection       $5,434,375 per
 Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249,   hour = $14,280 to                    cycle.               inspection cycle.
 December 31, 2009)].               $15,470 per
                                    inspection cycle.
Inspection/installation for        Up to 9 work-hours           $6,166  Up to $6,931.......  Up to $866,375.
 Groups 1, 2, and 5, all            x $85 per hour =
 Configuration 2 airplanes          $765.
 (retained actions from AD
 2014[dash]03[dash]07).
Inspection/installation for        Up to 4 work-hours               $0  Up to $340.........  Up to $42,500.
 Groups 1, 2, and 5, all            x $85 per hour =
 Configuration 2 airplanes (new     $340.
 proposed action).
Inspection/installation for Line   4 work-hours x $85          $28,005  $340...............  $28,345.
 Number 579 (new proposed action).  per hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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)
2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392, February 19, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0770; Product Identifier
2017-NM-030-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 2,
2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-03-07, Amendment 39-17744 (79 FR 9392,
February 19, 2014) (``AD 2014-03-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer that indicated the need to inspect wire bundles at
certain locations of the center upper auxiliary fuel tanks in
addition to inspection locations required by AD 2014-03-07. We are
issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Action, With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated
June 18, 2009: Within 60 months after February 4, 2010 (the
effective date of AD 2009-26-16, Amendment 39-16155 (74 FR 69249,
December 31, 2009)), do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2009; Revision 4,
dated November 29, 2011; or Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except
as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of
this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated
July 1, 2016, may be used. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles between
Stations 1238.950 and 1361.000 to determine if wires touch the upper
surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank, and mark the
location, as applicable.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection for splices and damage of all wire
bundles above the center upper auxiliary fuel tank between Stations
1218.950 and 1381.000.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) of the
upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank.
    (4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (burn marks) on the fuel
vapor barrier seal.
    (5) Install a nonmetallic barrier/shield sleeving, new clamps,
new attaching hardware, and a new extruded channel.

(h) Retained Additional Inspections and Corrective Action, With Revised
Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2014-03-07, with revised service information. For airplanes in Group
1, Configuration 2; Group 2, Configuration 2; and Group 5,
Configuration 2; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-
126, Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011: Within 60 months after
March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), do a detailed
inspection of wire bundles for splices and damage (chafing, arcing,
and broken insulation) and damage (burn marks) on the upper surface
of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank and fuel vapor barrier seal;
install barrier/shield sleeving and clamping; and do all applicable
corrective actions at the applicable locations specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126,
Revision 4, dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin
MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; except as required by
paragraph (k) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only
Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016,
may be used for the actions required by this paragraph. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For Group 1, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations
1238.950 and 1381.000, Stations 1238.950 and 1256.000, and Stations
1238.950 and 1256.800, depending on passenger or freighter
configuration.
    (2) For Group 2, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations
1238.950 and 1275.250, and Stations 1238.950 and 1275.250, passenger
configuration only.
    (3) For Group 5, Configuration 2 airplanes, between Stations
1381.000 and 1238.950.

(i) New Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For Groups 1, 2, and 5 Configuration 2 airplanes, as identified
in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1,
2016: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the wire bundles at the
additional center upper auxiliary fuel tank locations to determine
if wires touch the upper surface of the fuel tank, and mark the
location as applicable.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the wire bundles for splices and
damage on the upper surface of the center upper auxiliary fuel tank
and fuel vapor barrier seal; install barrier/shield sleeving,
clamping, and extruded channels, as applicable; and do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight; except as
required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) New Requirements for Line Number 579

    For airplane Line Number 579: Within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016,
except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

(k) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 1, dated
June 18, 2009; Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 4,
dated November 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126,
Revision 6, dated July 1, 2016; specifies to contact The Boeing
Company for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the
auxiliary fuel tank using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using the
service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) or (l)(1)(ii)
of this AD.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 2, dated
November 18, 2010.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June
3, 2011.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
March 26, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-07), using Boeing
Service Bulletin MD11-28-126, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2011.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO 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 local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) 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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-03-07 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Lee,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5262; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 28, 2017.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16560 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P