[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39100-39102]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0350]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 30 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted April 16, 2016. The exemptions
expire on April 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (81 FR 14190). That notice listed 30 applicants' case histories.
The 30 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 30 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 30
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, anisometropic amblyopia, central retinal
scar, choroidal melanoma, complete loss of vision, corneal scarring,
macular scar, prosthetic eye, psuedophakia, ptisis bulbi, refractive
amblyopia, retinal detachment, temporal hemianopia, and traumatic
glaucoma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Twenty-one of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 9 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 4 to 46 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 30 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 4 to 53
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes,
and 2 drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 16, 2016
notice (81 FR 14190).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber,

Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American
Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded
that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study
used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers
in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 30 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and 2 drivers
were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 30 applicants listed in the notice of March
16, 2016 (81 FR 14190.
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 30 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the
certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 30 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Gary L. Bartels (TX)
Christopher Benavidez (NM)
William H. Brence (SD)
Dean B. Carrick (MI)
Jaime V. Cavazos (TX)
Jacob Dehoyos (NM)
Larry D. Fulk (MO)
Hugo A. Galvis Barrera (GA)
Harold J. Gilbert (CO)
Darrell K. Harber (MO)
Clair G. High (PA)
Robert E. Holbrook (TN)
Lowell E. Jackson (MO)
Maurice L. Kinney (NY)
Richard R. Krafczynski, Jr. (PA)
Michael S. McHale (PA)
Darin P. Milton (TN)
Myron Morehouse (MN)
Dakota J. Papsun (PA)
Raffaelo Petrillo (NJ)
William J. Powell (KY)
Cory R. Rand (NH)
Bobby W. Sanders (TN)
Logan D. Shaffer (SC)
Laurence W. Sellers (AL)
Johnny T. Solorio (CA)
Richard R. Vonderohe (IA)
William J. Watts (MT)
Russell Zelich (PA)
Frederick A. Zoeller, Jr. (NH)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 6, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14140 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59804-59806]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0657]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Grosse Pointe War Memorial Fireworks, Lake St.
Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters (all navigable waters within a 250 yard radius
of location 42[deg]23.13' N 082[deg]53.74' W (WGS 84)) within Lake St.
Clair in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
during a fireworks event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September
8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0657 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Tracy Girard, U.S. Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so is
impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive notice of the fireworks
with sufficient time to undergo notice and comment. We must establish
this safety zone by September 8, 2023 in order to protect the public
form the hazards associated with a fireworks event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks
display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks
starting September 8, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within
a 250-yard radius of the fireworks location. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while fireworks show is being displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on
September 8, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within a 250-yard radius of location 42[deg]23.13' N 082[deg]53.74' W
(WGS 84). The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the
fireworks show is being displayed. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Lake St. Clair for less than an
hour during the night when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human

environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than an hour
that will prohibit entry within 250-yard radius of 42[deg]23.13' N
082[deg]53.74' W (WGS 84). It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L[60] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  446 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0657 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0657   Safety Zones; Grosse Pointe War Memorial
Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

    (a) Location. This safety zone is established to encompass all U.S.
navigable waters of Lake St. Clair within a 250-yard radius of
42[deg]23.13' N 082[deg]53.74' W (WGS 84).
    (b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on
September 8, 2023.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Detroit or a designated on-
scene representative.
    (2) The safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP Detroit or a designated on-scene
representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP Detroit is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a federal, state,
or local law enforcement officer designated by the COTP Detroit to act
on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zones must contact the COTP Detroit or an on-scene representative to
obtain permission to do so. The COTP Detroit or an on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the COTP Detroit or an on-scene
representative.

    Dated: August 24, 2023.
Richard P. Armstrong,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2023-18712 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26297-26298]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[ File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of: Genosys, Inc.: Order of Suspension of Trading

May 5, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
GeNOsys, Inc. (``Genosys'') because Genosys has not submitted the
following required periodic filings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Filing                              Due date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual report on Form 10-K for period  February 28, 2012.
 ended Nov. 30, 2011.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      April 16, 2012.
 period ended Feb. 29, 2012.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      July 16, 2012.
 period ended May 31, 2012.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      October 15, 2012.
 period ended August 31, 2012.
Annual report on Form 10-K for period  February 28, 2013.
 ended Nov. 30, 2012.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      April 15, 2013.
 period ended Feb. 28, 2013.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      July 15, 2013.
 period ended May 31, 2013.
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      October 15, 2013.
 period ended August 31, 2013.
Annual report on Form 10-K for period  February 28, 2014.
 ended Nov. 30, 2013.

Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for      April 14, 2014.
 period ended Feb. 28, 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
Monday, May 5, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 16, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10553 Filed 5-5-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59919-59922]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7003; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for all PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.
Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes that would
supersede AD 2014-22-01. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations
section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g.,
maintenance manual). We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 17,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE.,

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS,
Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 73
11; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7003; 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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-7003;
Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-015-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

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an NPRM for all PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes
that would supersede AD 2014-22-01, which was published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36810). The NPRM proposed to require
actions intended to address the unsafe condition for the products
listed above and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by another country. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and
published in the Pilatus PC-12 Aircraft Maintenance Manual(s) (AMM)
under Chapter 4, Structural, Component and Miscellaneous--
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The limitations
contained in these documents have been identified as mandatory for
continued airworthiness.
    Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    EASA issued AD 2014-0170 requiring the actions as specified in
ALS, Chapter 4 of AMM report 02049 issue 28, for PC-12, PC-12/45 and
PC-12/47 aeroplanes, and Chapter 4 of AMM report 02300 issue 11, for
PC-12/47E aeroplanes.
    Since that AD was issued, Pilatus issued Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM
report 02049 issue 31, and Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM report 02300 issue
14 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the applicable ALS' in
this AD), to incorporate new six-year and ten-year inspection
intervals for several main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts, and
an annual inspection interval for the MLG shock absorber attachment
bolts, which was previously included in the AMM Chapter 5 annual
inspection. After a further review of the in-service data, Pilatus
issued Service Letter (SL) 186, extending the special compliance
time applicable for the MLG bolts inspection.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2014-0170, which is superseded, and requires
the accomplishment of the new maintenance tasks, as described in the
applicable ALS.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-7003-0002.
    Since the NPRM was issued, PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued new
revisions to the Limitations section, Chapter 4, to be incorporated
into the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued Structural, Component and
Miscellaneous--Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-A-04-00-00-00A-
000A-A, dated July 12, 2016, and Structural and Component Limitations--
Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated
July 19, 2016. 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 of this
supplemental NPRM.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments received on the NPRM.

Request To Incorporate Newly Issued Revisions to the Limitations
Section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Program (e.g.,
Maintenance Manual)

    Johan Kruger of Pilatus Aircraft requested incorporating a newly
issued revision of the Limitation section, Chapter 4, of each
applicable maintenace manual into the proposed AD.
    Johan Kruger of Pilatus Aircraft stated that in the Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) Airworthines Limitations Section (ALS) 12-A-
04-00-00-00A-000A-A, the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID) part has been updated with kit numbers and brought in line with
Service Bulletin (SB) SB 04-009. The commenter stated that the changes
were coordinated with the FAA, who concurred that no new limitations
are incorporated in the ALS. The AMM/ALS 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A has
also been updated by introducing an inspection of the passenger oxygen
(drop down mask) system if installed, and this change was also
coordinated with the FAA. Since the drop down O2 system is only
required by European operation requirements and not currently earmarked
for the United States, it is also not introducing new limitations for
U.S. operators.
    We agree with the commenter and have changed this supplemental NPRM
based on this comment.

Request To Change the Compliance Times for Inspecting the Main Landing
Gear (MLG) Attachment Bolts

    Johan Kruger of Pilatus Aircraft and Blake Morley of Aero Air, LLC
requested changing the compliance time for inspecting the main landing
gear (MLG) attachment bolts. The commenters stated that the compliance
time in the proposed AD is causing confusion because the way it is
currently stated, which is ``within the next 6 years . . . or within
the next 3 months . . . whichever occurs later,'' does not makes sense
because 6 years

will always occur later and it goes against what is specified in the
revisions to the ALS that is being incorporated by this proposed AD.
    Johan Kruger of Pilatus Aircraft stated that, in the ALS Notes,
Note 1 (ALS 12-B-04) and Note 3 (ALS 12-A-04) respectively, the
inspection is to be done by a specific date, and he wants those dates
incorporated into this proposed AD. Blake Morley of Aeroa Air, LLC
stated that EASA has also adopted the grace period extension in EASA AD
2016-0083, stating: ``Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, the
thresholds and intervals include `special' compliance times for certain
tasks as defined in the applicable ALS, and the `special' compliance
time for the inspection of MLG bolts, as defined in SL 186.'' Blake
Morley also requested the ``3-month'' grace period compliance time be
changed to ``before December 31, 2016.''
    We partially agree with the commenters. We do agree that the
compliance times for the inspection of the MLG attachment bolts needs
to be corrected to reflect before or upon the accumulation of time-in-
service (TIS) on the MLG attachment bolts instead of the TIS on the
airplane, which then makes the 3-month grace period more applicable. We
have changed this supplemental NPRM action based on this portion of the
comment.
    We do not agree with using a specific date as a compliance time.
There is no correlation with the requested dates and the unsafe
condition. The mere fact that the service document or an international
civil aviation authority's AD refers to a calendar date is not enough
to justify using a calendar date in a U.S. AD. We have not changed this
supplemental NPRM action based on this portion of the comment.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 770 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $98,175,
or $127.50 per product. This breaks down as follows:
     Incorporating new revisions into the Limitations section,
Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance
manual): .5 work-hour for a fleet cost of $32,725, or $42.50 per
product.
     New inspections of the MLG attachment bolts: 1 work-hour
with no parts cost for fleet cost of $65,450 or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary corrective actions (on-
condition costs) that must be taken based on the proposed inspections,
would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing approximately
$100 for a cost of $185 per product. We have no way of determining the
number of products that may need these necessary corrective actions.
    The only costs that would be imposed by this proposed AD over that
already required by AD 2014-22-01 is the costs associated with the
insertion of the revised Limitation section and the MLG attachment
bolts inspection and replacement as necessary.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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 this 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 adding the following new AD:

PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.: Docket No. FAA-2016-7003; Directorate
Identifier 2016-CE-015-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November
13, 2014).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45,
PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers
(MSNs), certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to
incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4,
of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual).
The limitations were revised to include repetitive inspections of
the main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts. These actions are
required to ensure the continued operational safety of the affected
airplanes.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(6) of this AD:
    (1) Before further flight after October 5, 2016 (the effective
date of this AD), insert the following revisions into the
Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g.,
maintenance manual):
    (i) STRUCTURAL, COMPONENT AND MISCELLANEOUS--AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated July
12, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type--PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47,
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12-A-AM-00-
00-00-I, revision 32, dated July 18, 2016; and
    (ii) STRUCTURAL AND COMPONENT LIMITATIONS--AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated July
19, 2016, of the Pilatus Model type--PC-12/47E MSN-1001-UP, Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12-B-AM-00-00-00-I,
revision 15, dated July 30, 2016.
    (2) The new limitations section revisions listed in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD specify the following:
    (i) Establish inspections of the MLG attachment bolts,
    (ii) Specify replacement of components before or upon reaching
the applicable life limit, and
    (iii) Specify accomplishment of all applicable maintenance tasks
within certain thresholds and intervals.
    (3) Only authorized Pilatus Service Centers can do the
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) as required by
the documents in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD because
deviations from the type design in critical locations could make the
airplane ineligible for this life extension.
    (4) If no compliance time is specified in the documents listed
in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD when doing any
corrective actions where discrepancies are found as required in
paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD, do these corrective actions before
further flight after doing the applicable maintenance task.
    (5) During the accomplishment of the actions required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, if a
discrepancy is found that is not identified in the documents listed
in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD, before further flight
after finding the discrepancy, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. at the
address specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for a repair scheme
and incorporate that repair scheme.
    (6) Before or upon accumulating 6 years time-in-service (TIS) on
the MLG attachment bolts or within the next 3 months TIS after
October 5, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
later, inspect the MLB attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion and
before further flight take all necessary corrective actions.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343,
November 13, 2014) are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-7003-0002. For service information related to
this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager,
CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax:
+41 (0) 41 619 73 11; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 23, 2016.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20828 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59081-59084]
[DOCID:fr27se10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0657; FRL-9205-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; PSD Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions serve to meet
specific requirements of the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) construction permit program under the Federal Clean Air Act
(CAA). This program affects major stationary sources in Michigan that
are subject to or potentially subject to the PSD construction permit
program. On July 16, 2010, Michigan submitted revisions pertaining to
the ``net emission increase'' definition and the ``reasonable
possibility'' recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and EPA has
found the revisions acceptable.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 26, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 27, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0657, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section,
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Deliveries are only accepted during
the regional office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The regional
office's hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0657. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.

If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air
Permits Section, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-4447<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What Proposed Revisions Are Included in This Approval?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On December 21, 2006, Michigan submitted to EPA the Michigan Air
Pollution Control Rules, part 18, rules R 336.2801 [(a) through (tt)
except (j) and (ff)] to R 336.2819 and R 336.2823(1) to (14) (``part
18'') for approval into the Michigan SIP. Part 18 relates to the State
of Michigan's PSD permit program. Revisions to part 18 were adopted by
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) on
December 4, 2006. EPA proposed to conditionally approve the PSD SIP
rules under section 110 of the CAA on January 9, 2008 (73 FR 1570). EPA
received several comments on its proposal. On September 16, 2008, after
considering the comments, EPA finalized its conditional approval of the
submittal, except for Michigan rule R 336.2816, ``Sources Impacting
Federal Class I Areas--Additional Requirements'' (73 FR 53366). In a
separate action on September 16, 2008, EPA addressed that excepted
section by proposing to partially disapprove the portion of Michigan's
SIP revision submission consisting of Michigan rule R 336.2816 (73 FR
53401).
    On September 30, 2008, MDNRE submitted additional revisions to the
SIP which incorporated the corrections required by EPA in the
conditional approval. Specifically, the rules revised are R
336.2801(r)(ii)(definition of ``emission unit'') and R 336.2801(hh)
(definition of ``potential to emit''). EPA concluded that the submitted
revisions to the SIP satisfied the conditions listed in EPA's
conditional approval, and converted its prior conditional approval to
full approval on March 25, 2010 (75 FR 14401).

II. What proposed revisions are included in this approval?

    On July 16, 2010, Michigan submitted two SIP revisions pertaining
to the ``net emission increase'' definition and the ``reasonable
possibility'' recordkeeping and reporting requirements. As part of its
December 21, 2006 submittal, Michigan had established and EPA had
approved the definition of ``net emissions increase'' in R
336.2801(ee). As allowed by 40 CFR 51.166(b), this definition was more
stringent than the corresponding Federal definition at 40 CFR
51.166(b). However, in a letter dated May 17, 2007, Michigan indicated
that it was revising the definition of ``net emissions increase'' so
that it would follow the same requirements as the Federal rule. The
revision was approved by the State on September 11, 2008, and Michigan
submitted it to EPA on July 16, 2010, for approval into the Michigan
SIP. The definition in the July 16, 2010, submittal is consistent with
the definition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3).
    Michigan also established the ``reasonable possibility''
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in R 336.2818(3) and submitted
the rule for approval into the Michigan SIP as part of the December 21,
2006, submittal. Michigan rule R 336.2818 places specific requirements
on the PSD permit, including recordkeeping requirements for applicants
using certain methods for determining if a project results in a
significant emissions increase. However, the MDNRE's minor source
permitting program--Michigan rule R 336.201--requires this information
to be submitted for all sources as part of a complete Permit To Install
application before beginning actual construction on the proposed
project (rather than where there is a ``reasonable possibility'' that
the source may exceed the projected actual emissions, as required by
the Federal regulations). Therefore, on September 11, 2008, Michigan
adopted a revised rule R 336.2818(3) and, on July 16, 2010, submitted
it to EPA for approval into the Michigan SIP. The revision is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6).

III. Final Action

    As explained above, MDNRE submitted revisions to R 336.2801(ee) and
R 336.2818(3). The revisions are consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.166. Therefore, EPA is taking direct final action to approve
Michigan's SIP revisions.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 26,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 27, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective November 26, 2010.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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
regulations, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
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 (Pub. L. 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 CAA; 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 will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 of 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2010. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 11, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart X--Michigan

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA-Approved
Michigan Regulations'' is amended by adding new entries in numerical
order for part 18 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective
        Michigan citation                Title               date          EPA approval date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                         Part 18. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.2801......................  Definitions.......  September 11, 2008  September 27,       Section (ee).
                                                                           2010, [Insert
                                                                           page number where
                                                                           the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.2818......................  Source Obligation.  September 11, 2008  September 27,       Section (3).
                                                                           2010, [Insert
                                                                           page number where
                                                                           the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-23987 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Snow Shoe, PA; South Webster, OH; and Washington, PA. Documents include numerous letters, memorandums, and surveys.


[Federal Register: April 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 17698]
[DOCID:fr16ap09-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Poseidis, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

April 14, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Poseidis, Inc. (``Poseidis'') because it has not filed a periodic
report since its 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2006,
filed on November 21, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Poseidis.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in Poseidis securities is
suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 14, 2009, through
11:59 p.m. EDT on April 27, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8829 Filed 4-14-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24648-24650]
[DOCID:fr03my07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55681; File No. SR-OCC-2007-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendment No. 5 of the Restated Participant Exchange
Agreement

April 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2007, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially
by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change would amend the Restated Participant
Exchange Agreement (``RPEA'') between and among OCC and its six
participant exchanges, which are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the
Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.,
the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), NYSE Arca, Inc.,
and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC 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

    The proposed rule change amends Sections 2(g) and 23 of the RPEA
that obligates the participant exchanges to indemnify OCC against
specified losses incurred in connection with the introduction of new
products.
1. Background
    New derivative products pose a variety of legal risks to OCC. While
OCC generally declines to clear a product if it believes that there are
valid concerns as to the product's legality, there can be no assurance
that a product's legality will not be later challenged. Litigating such
matters can be expensive, and an adverse outcome or settlement could
result in substantial liabilities to OCC.

    New products sometimes raise intellectual property (``IP'') issues.
For example, in January 2005 when the ISE proposed to trade unlicensed
options on SPDRs, Standard & Poor's parent company, the McGraw-Hill
Companies, sued ISE and OCC asserting that a license was required not
only to trade options on a proprietary index but also options on an
exchange trade fund (``ETF'') based on a proprietary index.\4\ In May
2005, when ISE proposed to trade unlicensed options on DIAMONDS, Dow
Jones & Company filed a similar action against ISE and OCC.\5\ (The two
lawsuits were later consolidated and eventually dismissed by court
order, which order was upheld on appeal.) \6\ More recently, ISE and
OCC were sued by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') and two co-plaintiffs that asserted that ISE had proposed to
trade unlicensed options on the S&P 500 Index and the Dow Jones
Industrial Average in violation of exclusive license arrangement
between CBOE and each of its co-plaintiffs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v. International Securities
Exchange, Inc. and The Options Clearing Corporation, 05 Civ. 112
(HB) (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.) In consideration of OCC's agreeing to clear
unlicensed SPDR options, ISE agreed to indemnify OCC against any
resulting liabilities or expenses.
    \5\ Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. International Securities
Exchange, Inc. and The Options Clearing Corporation, 05 CV 4954
(U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.) As in the SPDR case, id., ISE agreed to
indemnify OCC against any resulting liabilities or expenses.
    \6\ Dow Jones & Co. v. International Securities Exchange, Inc.,
451 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2006).
    \7\ Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, et al v.
International Securities Exchange, LLC and The Options Clearing
Corporation, 06 CH 24798, Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.,
Chancery Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current RPEA between and among OCC and the six options
exchanges obligates the exchanges to indemnify OCC against specified
losses (e.g., losses resulting from an exchange's violation of the Act
or the RPEA or failure to make adequate disclosure regarding a product
that it trades). However, the current RPEA does not generally obligate
the exchanges to indemnify OCC against losses resulting from a
product's illegality or against IP liability.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OCC's clearing agreement for futures products, which was
drafted more recently than the RPEA, contains broader
indemnification provisions. It obligates the futures exchange to
indemnify OCC against losses resulting from the exchange's violation
of ``any law or governmental regulation'' and contains an express
indemnity for IP liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Discussion
    OCC is not obligated to clear a product if doing so would be
illegal or would violate the IP rights of others.\9\ However, legal
issues are not always identifiable in advance. For example, claims that
a new product violates IP rights of third parties may not surface until
after the product is already trading. Even when an issue is identified
in advance, OCC's assessment of its seriousness may be erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 3 of the RPEA provides that if a proposed underlying
interest does not fall within certain specified categories, OCC
cannot be required to clear options on it without the approval of
its Board. Even when the interest does fall within the specified
categories (e.g., a securities index), OCC could not be required to
clear options on it if doing so would be unlawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, no matter how carefully OCC analyzes new
products, there will often be some legal risk. To mitigate this risk,
OCC and its participant exchanges are amending the RPEA to obligate an
exchange that introduces a new product to provide indemnification
similar to that required of futures exchanges for which OCC provides
clearing services.\10\ The terms of the amendment reflect the agreement
of each participant exchange to severally, and not jointly, indemnify
OCC and specified affiliates against losses and expenses incurred in
connection with any action based on any options claim (i.e., a claim
that the exchange does not have the right to trade an option or that
the trading of such option by the exchange, that the issuance of such
option by OCC or that the clearance and settlement of trades therein or
exercises thereof by OCC would violate the IP or other rights of a
third party).\11\ In addition, the amendment redesignates and makes
certain technical changes in preexisting indemnification
provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., Filings No. SR-OCC-2006-18 (futures clearing
agreement with PBOT) and 2003-06 (futures clearing agreement with
CFE).
    \11\ New Sections 23(c) through (g) of the RPEA.
    \12\ See Section 1 of Amendment No. 5 and redesignated Sections
23(c) and (h) of the RPEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section
17A of the Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated thereunder because it
reduces the legal exposure borne by OCC in connection with issuing and
clearing new derivative products introduced by its participant
exchanges and thereby strengthening OCC's ability to perform its duties
as a registered clearing agency. OCC further states that the proposed
change contributes to the safeguarding of securities and funds in the
custody or control of OCC and that the proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules
proposed to be amended.

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \14\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing OCC service that does not
adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in OCC's
custody or control or for which it is responsible and does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of OCC or
persons using the service. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-OCC-2007-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2007-03. This file
number

should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at OCC's principal office and on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/
 proposed--

changes.jsp. 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 No. SR-OCC-
2007-03 and should be submitted on or before May 24, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8429 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54803-54804]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0489; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-229-AD;
Amendment 39-17174; AD 2012-17-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports that the fire extinguisher in the toilet vanity unit needs
to be mounted vertically rather than horizontally. This AD requires
inspecting to determine if a certain fire extinguisher bottle is
installed, and repositioning the affected fire extinguisher bottle to
the vertical position. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the
orientation of the fire extinguisher bottle in the toilet vanity unit
to the vertical position, which if not corrected, could result in a
toilet waste bin fire spreading, and consequent damage to the airplane
and injury to its occupants.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 11,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2012 (77 FR
29914). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The Jetstream 4100 is equipped with a fire extinguisher that, if
a fire is detected, discharges into the waste bin located within the
toilet vanity unit.
    On the majority of aeroplanes, the furnishing vendor's original
design installs the fire extinguisher bottle part number (P/N)
BA20509AM-4 in a horizontal position within the vanity unit. BAE
Systems have subsequently been informed by the fire extinguisher
manufacturer that the fire extinguisher bottle should be mounted
vertically, as its operation cannot be guaranteed when mounted
horizontally. In the event of a fire in the waste bin the
extinguishant may not fully discharge from the fire extinguisher
bottle.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in a toilet waste
bin fire propagation and consequent damage to the aeroplane and/or
injury to its occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA)] AD requires [an inspection to determine if a certain
fire extinguisher is installed and] the repositioning of the fire
extinguisher bottle from a horizontal orientation to a vertical
orientation.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 29914, May 21,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed--except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 29914, May 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 29914, May 21, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 4 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $170 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $3,400, or 850 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 29914, May 21, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any

comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

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 AD:

2012-17-11 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-17174.
Docket No. FAA-2012-0489; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-229-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 11,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that the fire extinguisher of
the toilet vanity unit needs to be mounted vertically, rather than
horizontally. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct the
orientation of the fire extinguisher bottle in the toilet vanity
unit to the vertical position, which if not corrected, could result
in a toilet waste bin fire spreading, and consequent damage to the
airplane and injury to its occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, determine
from the table specified in paragraph 2.A.(1) of BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-26-008, Revision 2, dated
September 20, 2011, if fire extinguisher bottle part number (P/N)
BA20509AM-4 is fitted to the airplane. If a fire extinguisher bottle
P/N BA20509AM-4 is fitted, before further flight, reposition the
fire extinguisher bottle, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
J41-26-008, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2011.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Service Bulletin J41-26-008, dated October 5, 2010; or BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-26-008, Revision 1, dated
April 12, 2011.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0194, dated October 6, 2011; and BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-26-008, Revision
2, dated September 20, 2011; for related information.

(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-26-
008, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 22, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21288 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Regulatory Technical References

E.H. Pechan, “Control Measure Development Support Analysis for the
Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules”, March 31, 2001.

OTC 2006.  Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures:
Draft Technical Support Document.  Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs,
Inc., Herndon, Virginia for the Ozone Transport Commission. August 4,
2006