Cost Savings Estimate of Adding 1,2,3 Propanetriol ( CASRN 56 81 5) to the 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2) Chemical Substance List The Inventory Update Reporting Rule ( IUR) requires manufacturers of certain chemicals to report every four years information concerning the manufacturing, processing, and use of their subject chemical. Chemicals listed at 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2) are partially exempt from this reporting requirement and do not report the processing and use information required by 40 CFR 710.52( c)( 4). The Environmental Protection Agency is adding 1,2,3 propanetriol ( CASRN 56 81 5) to this partial exemption through a direct final rulemaking action. The addition of this chemical results in a cost savings of $ 119,483 to $ 128,960 in the first cycle and $ 95,586 to $ 103,168 in future cycles. This paper provides the basis for this conclusion.

Table 1: Non CBI Inventory Update Reporting for 1,2,3 Propanetriol ( CASRN 56 81 5)

Reporting Year Number of Reports Total Production Volume 2002 21 100 million to 500 million lbs.

1998 28 100 million to 500 million lbs.

The non CBI IUR reporting represents only a portion of IUR reporting. Based on that, EPA assumes 22 reports in excess of 300,000 pounds would be received for 1,2,3 propanetriol ( CASRN 56 81 5).

Table 2: Estimate of Savings Due to Addition of 1,2,3 Propanetriol ( CASRN 56 81 5) to the IUR Partial Exemption First Reporting Period Future Reporting Periods Report Type Full Partial Difference Full Partial Difference Per report cost estimate High $ 7,228.00 $ 1,366.70 $ 5,861.84 $ 5,919.40 1,229.9 3 $ 4,689.47 Low $ 6,342.41 $ 911.38 $ 5,431.03 $ 5,166,03 $ 821.20 $ 4,344.83 Number of reports 22 reports with production volumes of 300,000 lbs. or greater Total savings estimate High $ 128,960 $ 103,168 Low $ 119,483 $ 95,586 Note: Figures from table 3 13 in the Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Final Rule, August 2002.


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 47304]
[DOCID:fr15se09-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: 2009-0830]

Airport Privatization Pilot Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Receipt and Acceptance for Review: Preliminary
Application for Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, New
Orleans, LA.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed its
review of the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY)
preliminary application for participation in the airport privatization
pilot program received under 49 U.S.C. 47134. The preliminary
application is accepted for review, with a filing date of August 5,
2009. The City of New Orleans, the airport sponsor, may select a
private operator, negotiate an agreement and submit a final application
to the FAA for exemption under the pilot program. 49 U.S.C. 47134
establishes an airport privatization pilot program and authorizes the
Department of Transportation to grant exemptions from certain Federal
statutory and regulatory requirements for up to five airport
privatization projects. The application procedures require the FAA to
publish a notice in the Federal Register after review of a preliminary
application. The FAA must publish a notice of receipt of the final
application in the Federal Register for public review and comment for a
sixty-day period. The MSY preliminary application is available for
public review at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA
Docket Number 2009-0830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Willis<PHONE_NUMBER>) Airport
Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction and Background

    Title 49 of the U.S. Code Sec.  47134 authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation, and through delegation, the FAA Administrator, to
exempt a sponsor of a public use airport that has received Federal
assistance, from certain Federal requirements in connection with the
privatization of the airport by sale or lease to a private party.
Specifically, the Administrator may exempt the sponsor from all or part
of the requirements to use airport revenues for airport-related
purposes, to pay back a portion of Federal grants upon the sale or
lease of an airport, and to return airport property deeded by the
Federal Government upon transfer of the airport. The Administrator is
also authorized to exempt the private purchaser or lessee from the
requirement to use all airport revenues for airport-related purposes,
to the extent necessary to permit the purchaser or lessee to earn
compensation from the operations of the airport.
    On September 16, 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a
notice of procedures to be used in applications for exemption under
Airport Privatization Pilot Program (62 FR 48693). A request for
participation in the Pilot Program must be initiated by the filing of
either a preliminary or final application for exemption with the FAA.
    The City of New Orleans submitted a preliminary application to the
Airport Privatization Pilot Program for Louis Armstrong New Orleans
International Airport on August 5, 2009; the filing date of this
preliminary application. The City may select a private operator,
negotiate an agreement and submit a final application to the FAA for
exemption.
    If FAA accepts the final application for review, the application
will be made available for public review and comment for a sixty-day
period.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2009.
Randall S. Fiertz,
Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Field Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-22144 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76320-76324]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68487; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-124]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Proposed Rule To Amend Various CBOE Rules
Governing Letters of Guarantee and Authorization

December 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 14, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend various CBOE rules governing letters of
guarantee and authorization. The text of the rule proposal is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that have trading functions on
CBOE, are required to submit a letter of guarantee or authorization \3\
for that TPH's trading activities on CBOE from a Clearing TPH.\4\ The
purpose of this proposal is to amend various CBOE rules governing
letters of guarantee and authorization to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A letter of guarantee is typically provided to CBOE by a
Clearing TPH guaranteeing any trades made by one of its TPH
customers, e.g., a Market-Maker. A letter of authorization is
typically provided to CBOE by a Clearing TPH accepting financial
responsibility for all transactions on CBOE made by a guaranteed
Floor Broker.
    \4\ CBOE Rule 1.1(f) defines ``Clearing Trading Permit Holder''
as a Trading Permit Holder that has been admitted to membership in
the Clearing Corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of
the Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a TPH does not have an effective letter of guarantee or
authorization on file with the Exchange;
     Provide that any written revocation of a letter of
guarantee or authorization will be given effect as quickly as CBOE can
process it;
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions by the Clearing Corporation,\5\ such as restricting
the activities of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') is currently the
only Clearing Corporation of CBOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a TPH if the TPH does not have a required letter of guarantee
or authorization in place for ninety consecutive days;
     Delete obsolete and outdated rule text; and
     Make technical, non-substantive rule text changes.
    The changes proposed in this filing are intended to clarify and
codify existing and well-established principles regarding activities
permitted by Clearing TPHs. While elementary, the Exchanges believes
that it is important to specifically provide in its rules that a TPH
must have a valid letter of guarantee or authorization in order to
engage in trading activities and, if one is not in place, the Exchange
is permitted to prevent connectivity and access to the Exchange by that
TPH. Similarly, the definition of a Clearing

TPH requires that a TPH be admitted to membership in the OCC.\6\ If the
OCC restricts the activities of a Clearing TPH or terminates a Clearing
TPH's membership in the OCC, that TPH no longer meets the definition of
a ``Clearing TPH.'' As a result, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to codify its ability to take action, as necessary, to give
effect to any restriction or suspension issued by the OCC.\7\ Finally,
the Exchange is proposing to provide that if a TPH does not have a
required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for ninety
consecutive days, the TPH's TPH status and trading permit(s) will
automatically terminate (in addition to previous action by the Exchange
not to allow the TPH to have access and connectivity to the Exchange
without a required guarantee which would occur following the revocation
of a guarantee). If a TPH no longer has a valid letter of guarantee and
authorization, that TPH presents risk to the marketplace and the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to terminate trading, access and
connectivity and then TPH status in this situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 1.1(f).
    \7\ Earlier this year, the SEC approved a proposal by a stock
exchange that resulted in a modest expansion of its emergency
suspension authority. In that filing, the Chicago Stock Exchange
(``CHX'') proposed to permit officers designated by its Chief
Regulatory Officer to suspend or otherwise limit membership of a
market participant if a qualified clearing agency refuses to act to
clear and settle the trades of that market participant. The Exchange
believes its current proposal is similar in nature to the CHX filing
since CBOE is seeking to codify its ability to give effect to
actions (restrictions or suspensions) taken by the OCC. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66366 (February 9, 2012), 77 FR
8927 (February 15, 2012) (order approving SR-CHX-2011-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes to Rule 3.28 (Letters of Guarantee)
    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 3.28 so that it will
govern letters of guarantee and authorization (currently Rule 3.28 is
limited to letters of guarantee).\8\ The Exchange is proposing to add
new paragraphs (b) through (g) to Rule 3.28 to expressly provide CBOE
with remedial powers in the event the OCC restricts or suspends a
Clearing TPH. The Exchange is also proposing to add new paragraph (h)
to Rule 3.28 to govern the termination of TPH status when a TPH is
without a required letter of guarantee or authorization for a ninety
consecutive day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 6.72 will also continue to govern Letters of
Authorization for Floor Brokers and Rule 8.5 will also continue to
govern Letters of Guarantee for Market-Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange is proposing to provide that a TPH may not
engage in any trading activities on the Exchange if an effective letter
of guarantee or authorization required to engage in those activities is
not on file with the Exchange. If a Trading Permit Holder does not have
an effective letter of guarantee or authorization on file with the
Exchange, the Exchange will be permitted to prevent access and
connectivity to the Exchange by that Trading Permit Holder.
    Second, the Exchange is proposing to provide that letters of
guarantee and authorization filed with the Exchange will remain in
effect until a written notice of revocation has been filed with the TPH
Department and the revocation becomes effective or the letter of
guarantee or authorization otherwise becomes invalid pursuant to
Exchange rules. A written notice of revocation will become effective as
soon as the Exchange is able to process the revocation. A revocation
will in no way relieve a Clearing TPH of responsibility for
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the revocation.
    Third, the Exchange is proposing to provide that if the OCC
restricts the activities of a Clearing TPH or suspends a Clearing TPH
as a Clearing Member of the OCC, the Exchange will be permitted to take
action as necessary to give effect to the restriction or suspension.
For example, if the OCC restricts transactions cleared by a Clearing
TPH to ``closing only'' transactions, the Exchange will be similarly
able to restrict transactions on the Exchange for clearance by that
Clearing TPH as a Clearing Member of the OCC to ``closing only''
transactions. Similarly, if the OCC suspends a Clearing TPH, the
Exchange will be similarly able to prevent access and connectivity to
the Exchange by the suspended Clearing TPH.
    Fourth, the Exchange is proposing to provide that if a Clearing
TPH's status as a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a
Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is terminated, all letters of
guarantee and authorization on file with the Exchange from that
Clearing TPH will no longer be valid effective as soon as the Exchange
is able to process the invalidation of these letters of guarantee and
authorization.
    Fifth, the Exchange is proposing to provide that if a Clearing TPH
has been suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH,
all existing letters of guarantee and authorization from that Clearing
TPH will be invalid during the period of the suspension effective as
soon as the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of those
letters of guarantee and authorization.
    Sixth, the Exchange is proposing to provide that the invalidation
of a letter of guarantee or authorization will in no way relieve the
Clearing TPH that issued the letter of guarantee or authorization of
responsibility from transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness
of the invalidation.
    Seventh, the Exchange is proposing to provide that if a Trading
Permit Holder does not have a required letter of guarantee or
authorization for period of ninety consecutive days, the Trading Permit
Holder's trading permit(s) and status as a Trading Permit Holder shall
automatically be terminated.
    A revocation of a letter of guarantee or authorization will not
occur immediately upon receipt of the revocation by the TPH Department
because it takes time for the Exchange to process and effectuate the
revocation. For example, there are changes that must be input into the
Exchange's systems in order to systematize and effectuate a revocation.
Also Exchange staff may be occupied with other matters when a
revocation is received and may not immediately be able to process the
revocation. Accordingly, the revocation and invalidation of letters of
guarantee and authorization under proposed Rules 3.28(c) and 3.28(f)
shall become effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process the
revocation or invalidation. The Exchange will endeavor to process
revocations and invalidations in a timely manner under the
circumstances but makes no guarantees in this respect.
    If a TPH has a letter of guarantee or authorization that is revoked
or invalidated, that TPH's orders and quotes will be rejected after the
revocation or invalidation after the revocation or invalidation becomes
effective unless and until the TPH has another effective letter of
guarantee or authorization in place and on file with the Exchange. This
means that a TPH without an effective letter of guarantee or
authorization will not be able to continue to trade on the Exchange.
Changes to Rule 6.72 (Letters of Authorization)
    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 6.72 to provide that a
letter of authorization previously filed with the Exchange will remain
effective until a written notice of revocation has been filed with the
TPH Department and the revocation becomes effective or until such time
that the letter of authorization otherwise becomes invalid under CBOE's
rules. In the event a written notice of revocation is provided, the
Exchange is proposing to provide that the revocation shall become
effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process it. The current
rule sets forth a time

period for the effectiveness of a revocation to take place. The
Exchange does not believe that a rigid timeframe is necessary. Due to
the Exchange's ability to process revocations more quickly, a rigid
timeframe for processing is no longer needed. The Exchange is also
proposing to eliminate the provision that a Clearing TPH may request
that the Exchange post notice of the revocation because the Exchange
believes that such notice is no longer necessary. A posting is not
currently required unless requested by the Clearing TPH that submitted
the revocation, and the Exchange believes that all such revocations
should be handled in the same manner in this regard. Since it is
unusual for a Clearing TPH to request that notice of a revocation be
posted, the Exchange does not see a need to do so based on this past
experience.
    The Exchange also proposes to include an internal cross reference
to Rule 3.28 that would provide that letters of authorization issued
for Floor Brokers under Rule 6.72 will be subject to Rule 3.28 whereas
those letters of authorization issued to Floor Brokers were previously
only governed by Rule 6.72. There would be some overlap between current
Rule 6.72 and the newly proposed provisions to Rule 3.28; however, the
following new provisions to Rule 3.28 would apply to letters of
authorization issued pursuant to Rule 6.72 by reference:
     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a Floor Broker TPH does not have an effective letter of
authorization on file with the Exchange (Proposed Rule 3.28(b));
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the
activities of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH (Proposed
Rule 3.28(d));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a Floor Broker's
letter of authorization if it was issued by a Clearing TPH whose
Clearing TPH status as a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if
a Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is terminated effective as soon
as the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the letter of
authorization (Proposed Rule 3.28(e));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a Floor Broker's
letter of authorization, if it was issued by a Clearing TPH who has
been suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during
the period of the suspension effective as soon as the Exchange is able
to process the invalidation of the letter of authorization (Proposed
Rule 3.28(f));
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of authorization
shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that issued the
letter of authorization of responsibility from transactions guaranteed
prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation (Proposed Rule 3.28(g));
and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Floor Broker TPH if the Floor Broker TPH does not have a
required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for ninety
consecutive days (Proposed Rule 3.28(h)).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make a few, non-substantive and
technical changes to Rule 6.72 (i.e., minor word phrasing changes).
Changes to Rule 8.5 (Letters of Guarantee)
    The Exchange is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 8.5 to provide that a
letter of guarantee previously filed with the Exchange will remain
effective until a written notice or revocation has been filed with the
TPH Department and the revocation becomes effective or until such time
that the letter of guarantee otherwise becomes invalid under CBOE's
rules. In the event a written notice of revocation is provided, the
Exchange is proposing to provide that the revocation shall become
effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process it. The current
rule sets forth a time period for the effectiveness of a revocation to
take place. The Exchange does not believe that a rigid timeframe is
necessary. Due to the Exchange's ability to process revocations more
quickly, a rigid timeframe for processing is no longer needed. The
Exchange is also proposing to eliminate the provision that a Clearing
TPH may request that the Exchange post notice of the revocation for the
same reasons set forth in the paragraph above relating to revocations
under Rule 6.72.
    The Exchange also proposes to include an internal cross reference
to Rule 3.28 that would provide that letters of guarantee issued for
Market-Makers under Rule 8.5 will be subject to Rule 3.28 whereas those
letters of guarantee issued to Market-Makers were previously only
governed by Rule 8.5. There would be some overlap between current Rule
8.5 and the newly proposed provisions to Rule 3.28; however, the
following new provisions to Rule 3.28 would apply to letters of
guarantee issued pursuant to Rule 8.5 by reference:
     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a Market-Maker TPH does not have an effective letter of guarantee on
file with the Exchange (Proposed Rule 3.28(b));
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the
activities of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH (Proposed
Rule 3.28(d));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a Market-Maker's
letter of guarantee if it was issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing
TPH status as a Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a
Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is terminated effective as soon as
the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the letter of
guarantee (Proposed Rule 3.28(e));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a Market-Maker's
letter of guarantee, if it was issued by a Clearing TPH who has been
suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during the
period of the suspension effective as soon as the Exchange is able to
process the invalidation of the letter of guarantee (Proposed Rule
3.28(f));
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee
shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that issued the
letter of guarantee of responsibility from transactions guaranteed
prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation (Proposed Rule 3.28(g));
and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Market-Maker Broker TPH if the Market-Maker TPH does not
have a required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for
ninety consecutive days (Proposed Rule 3.28(h)).
    The Exchange also proposes to make a few, non-substantive and
technical changes to Rule 8.5 (i.e., minor word phrasing changes).
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to delete Interpretations and
Policies .01, .02 and .04 from Rule 8.5 since .01 is obsolete as the
Exchange no longer offers trading in the product referenced in that
provision and .02 and .04 are obsolete since the OCC is no longer
involved in approving CBOE letters of guarantee.
Changes to Rules 24A.15 and 24B.13 (Letters of Guarantee or
Authorization)
    CBOE Rules 24A.15 and 24B.13 relate to FLEX options. The Exchange
is proposing to amend those rules by deleting a provision in each rule
relating to OCC approval of letters of guarantee that are being amended
to include FLEX option transactions, since that provision is obsolete
as the OCC is no longer involved in approving CBOE letters of
guarantee.

    The Exchange also proposes to include an internal cross reference
to Rule 3.28 that would provide letters of guarantee or authorization
issued for FLEX Market-Makers and Floor Brokers under Rules 24A.15 and
24B.13 will be subject to Rule 3.28 whereas those letters of guarantee
or authorization issued to FLEX Market-Makers or Floor Brokers were
previously only governed by Rules 24A.15 and 24B.15. There would be
some overlap between current Rules 24A.15 and 24B.15 and the newly
proposed provisions to Rule 3.28; however, the following new provisions
to Rule 3.28 would apply to letters of guarantee or authorization
issued pursuant to Rules 24A.15 and 24B.15 by reference:
     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a FLEX Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH does not have an effective
letter of guarantee or authorization on file with the Exchange
(Proposed Rule 3.28(b));
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the
activities of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH (Proposed
Rule 3.28(d));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a FLEX Market-Maker or
Floor Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization if it was
issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH status as a Clearing Member
of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's status as a CBOE TPH is
terminated effective as soon as the Exchange is able to process the
invalidation of the letter of guarantee or authorization (Proposed Rule
3.28(e));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a FLEX Market-Maker or
Floor Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization, if it was
issued by a Clearing TPH who has been suspended as a Clearing Member of
the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during the period of the suspension effective
as soon as the Exchange is able to process the invalidation of the
letter of guarantee or authorization (Proposed Rule 3.28(f));
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee or
authorization shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that
issued the letter of guarantee or authorization of responsibility from
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation
(Proposed Rule 3.28(g)); and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a FLEX Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH if the FLEX Market-
Maker or Floor Broker TPH does not have a required letter of guarantee
or authorization in place for ninety consecutive days (Proposed Rule
3.28(h)).
    Finally, the Exchange also proposes to make a few, non-substantive
and technical changes to Rules 24A.15 and 24B.13 (i.e., the addition of
the word ``effective'' in subparagraphs (a) and (b) to each rule).
Changes to Rules 26.11 (Market-Makers) and 26.13 (Floor Broker
Financial Requirements)
    CBOE Rules 26.11 and 26.13 relate to market basket contracts, which
the Exchanges does not currently list for trading, but the Exchange is
taking the opportunity to amend the identified rules since the changes
proposed in this filing are on subject. The Exchange is proposing to
amend those rules by deleting a provision in each rule relating to OCC
approval of letters of guarantee that are amended to include market
basket transactions, since that provision is obsolete as the OCC is no
longer involved in approving CBOE letters of guarantee.
    The Exchange also proposes to include an internal cross reference
to Rule 3.28 that would provide that letters of guarantee issued for
Market-Makers in market basket contracts and letters of authorization
issued for Floor Brokers in market basket contracts under Rules 26.11
and 26.13, respectively, will be subject to Rule 3.28 whereas those
letters of guarantee or authorization issued to Market-Makers and Floor
Brokers in market basket contracts were previously only governed by
Rules 26.11 and 26.13. There would some overlap between current Rules
26.11 and 26.13 and the newly proposed provisions to Rule 3.28;
however, the following new provisions to Rule 3.28 would apply to
letters of guarantee or authorization issued pursuant to Rules 26.11
and 26.13 by reference:
     Give CBOE the ability to prevent access to its marketplace
if a Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH in market basket contracts does
not have an effective letter of guarantee or authorization on file with
the Exchange (Proposed Rule 3.28(b));
     Give CBOE the ability to take any action necessary to give
effect to actions by the Clearing Corporation, such as restricting the
activities of a Clearing TPH or suspending a Clearing TPH (Proposed
Rule 3.28(d));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a market basket
Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or authorization
if it was issued by a Clearing TPH whose Clearing TPH status as a
Clearing Member of the OCC is terminated or if a Clearing TPH's status
as a CBOE TPH is terminated effective as soon as the Exchange is able
to process the invalidation of the letter of guarantee or authorization
(Proposed Rule 3.28(e));
     Give CBOE the ability to invalidate a market basket
Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH's letter of guarantee or
authorization, if it was issued by a Clearing TPH who has been
suspended as a Clearing Member of the OCC or as a CBOE TPH, during the
period of the suspension effective as soon as the Exchange is able to
process the invalidation of the letter of guarantee or authorization
(Proposed Rule 3.28(f));
     Provide that the invalidation of a letter of guarantee or
authorization shall in no way relieve the Clearing Trading Holder that
issued the letter of guarantee or authorization of responsibility from
transactions guaranteed prior to the effectiveness of the invalidation
(Proposed Rule 3.28(g)); and
     Automatically terminate the trading permit(s) and TPH
status of a Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH in market basket contracts
if the Market-Maker or Floor Broker TPH in market basket contracts does
not have a required letter of guarantee or authorization in place for
ninety consecutive days (Proposed Rule 3.28(h)).
    The Exchange also proposes to make a few, non-substantive and
technical changes to Rules 26.11 and 26.13 (i.e., the addition of the
words ``Exchange'' and ``effective'' to Rule 26.11 and the addition of
the word ``valid'' to Rule 26.13).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Expressly permitting the Exchange to take action as needed to give
effect to a restriction or suspension issued by the OCC will protect
the integrity of the Exchange's marketplace by limiting

trading to only those TPHs with effective and unrestricted letters of
guarantee and authorization. A key purpose for having Clearing TPHs is
to reduce the risk of market participants failing to honor executed
trades. By requiring that TPHs have an effective and unrestricted
letters of guarantee, the Exchange is advancing this purpose.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest in that it will allow CBOE to
take actions to give effect to restrictions or suspensions issued by
the OCC. The ability to take action is designed to prevent the
execution of trades on CBOE which may not be able to be ultimately
cleared and settled if access to CBOE's marketplace is not restricted
in tandem with a restriction or suspension issued by the OCC. Also,
preventing access and connectivity to the Exchange by a TPH if that
TPH's Clearing TPH revokes the TPH's letter of guarantee or
authorization is beneficial to the marketplace and serves to protect
investors since it prevents trading by a TPH without a financial
guarantee for that trading. If a TPH no longer has a valid letter of
guarantee or authorization, that TPH presents risk to the marketplace
and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to prevent access and
connectivity to the Exchange by that TPH in this situation. The
Exchange also believes that having the ability to terminate the TPH
status and trading permit(s) of a TPH that does not have a required
letter of guarantee or authorization for ninety consecutive days is
desirable since it allows the Exchange to appropriately manage and
control access to its marketplace by limiting access only to those with
a financial guarantee which thereby serves to protect investors by
ensuring that counterparties to trades have such a guarantee.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is also consistent
with the Section 6(b)(7) \11\ requirements that the rules of an
exchange provide a fair procedure for the denial of membership to any
person seeking membership therein and the prohibition or limitation by
an exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered by
the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, with respect to the proposed automatic termination
provision when a TPH does not have a required letter of guarantee or
authorization for ninety consecutive days, the Exchange believes that
that provision establishes a fair procedure because it strikes the
appropriate balance between giving a deficient TPH an adequate amount
of time to cure the deficiency of not having a required letter of
guarantee or authorization and allowing the Exchange to appropriately
limit access to its marketplace only to those TPHs with a financial
guarantee. Furthermore, the automatic termination provision does not
prohibit or limit a previously terminated TPH from seeking to gain
access again to the Exchange by applying to become a TPH subsequent to
the termination if the TPH is able to again acquire the required letter
of guarantee and authorization.

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2012-124 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-124. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-124 and should be
submitted on or before January 17, 2013

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31119 Filed 12-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68666]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-50]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2002-
13021 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, ANM-113,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Katherine Haley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking
(ARM-203), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2010.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2002-13021.
    Petitioner: Embraer.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.901(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Embraer requests an amendment to
Exemption No. 7933. The amendment would provide relief from the no-
single-failure requirements as they relate to uncontrollable, high-
thrust failure conditions on Embraer Model EMB-135BJ Enhanced (Legacy
650) airplanes equipped with AE3007A2 engines.

[FR Doc. 2010-28146 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52903-52904]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20561]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-0549; FRL-8932-01-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request:
Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous
Substances (Renewal) EPA ICR Number 1049.15, OMB Control Number 2050-
0046

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), Notification of Episodic Releases
of Oil and Hazardous Substances (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 1049.15, OMB
Control Number 2050-0046) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through May 31, 2022. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2013-0549, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Hoffman, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8794; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is closed
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information about the EPA's public docket, Docket Center services and
the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,
requires the person in charge of a facility or vessel to immediately
notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a hazardous substance
release into the environment if the amount of the release equals or
exceeds the substance's reportable quantity (RQ) limit. The RQs for the
hazardous substance can be found in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended, requires the
person in charge of a vessel to immediately notify the NRC of an oil
spill into U.S. navigable waters if the spill causes a sheen, violates
applicable water quality standards, or causes a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining
shorelines. The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is at
or above the substance's RQ allows the federal government to determine
whether a federal response action is required to control or mitigate
any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the
environment. Likewise, the reporting of oil spills allows the federal
government to determine whether cleaning up the oil spill is required
to mitigate or prevent damage to public health or welfare or the
environment. The hazardous substance and oil release information
collected under CERCLA section 103(a) and CWA section 311 also is
available to EPA program offices and other federal agencies that use
the information to evaluate the potential need for additional
regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or
sources, or improved emergency response planning.
    Release notification information is stored in EPA's WebEOC, a web-
based crisis management system which supports response management for
significant incidents and daily operations in the Regional Response
Centers and EPA's Headquarters Emergency Operations Center. State and
local government authorities and the regulated community use release
information for purposes of local emergency response planning. The
general public has access to release information through the Freedom of
Information Act. The public may request release information for
purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of releases are
occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being
taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment.
    The burden estimates, numbers and types of respondents, wage rates
and unit and total costs for this ICR renewal will be revised and
updated if needed during the 60-day comment period while the ICR
Supporting statement is undergoing review at OMB.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities and vessels that may have
releases of any hazardous substances or oil at or above its RQ.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under CERCLA section
103 (a).
    Estimated number of respondents: 18,447.
    Frequency of response: As releases occur from a facility or a
vessel.
    Total estimated burden: 18,816 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,046,314 (per year), which includes no
capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with this ICR.
    Changes in Estimates: Any change in burden or cost resulting from
the 60-day OMB review period will be described and explained in this
section when the updated ICR Supporting Statement is completed.

    Dated: September 16, 2021.
Donna Salyer,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-20561 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77874-77876]
[DOCID:fr19de08-200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0183; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain complete
model year 2007-2008 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPV) built with the Limousine Builders Package and
certain complete 2008 model year Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor
(CVPI) passenger cars built with two front bucket seats did not fully
comply with paragraph S4.3(b) of 49 CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor
Vehicles With a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. Ford
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Ford has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Ford's, petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 233 model year 2007-2008 Ford Expedition
and Lincoln Navigator MPVs with the

Limousine Builders Package (built from September 6, 2006 through March
12, 2008 at Ford's Michigan Truck Plant) and approximately 34,682 model
year 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor passenger cars
equipped with two front bucket seats (built from June 27, 2007 through
May 7, 2008 at Ford's St. Thomas Assembly Plant).
    Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent part:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side
B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle
opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the
forward edge of the rear side door. If the above locations do not
permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and
prominent, the placard shall be permanently affixed to the rear edge
of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the
affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the
placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle
next to the driver's seating position. This information shall be in
the English language and conform in color and format, not including
the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example
set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. At the manufacturer's
option, the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as
appropriate, (h) and (i) may be shown, alternatively to being shown
on the placard, on a tire inflation pressure label which must
conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding
the entire label, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 2 in
this standard. The label shall be permanently affixed and proximate
to the placard required by this paragraph. The information specified
in S4.3 (e) shall be shown on both the vehicle placard and on the
tire inflation pressure label (if such a label is affixed to provide
the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate, (h)
and (i)) may be shown in the format and color scheme set forth in
Figures 1 and 2 * * *
    (b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total
number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear
seat location) * * *

    In its petition, Ford explained that the noncompliances with FMVSS
No. 110 exist due to errors on the tire and loading information
placards that it affixed to the vehicles. Ford described the
noncompliances as incorrect listing of designated seating positions on
the tire and loading information placard. Specifically:
    1. Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the Limo Builders Package
are built with only two front seats. No rear seats are installed. The
tire information placard identifies the seating capacity as five total
(two front; three rear) or seven total (two front; five rear), instead
of two total (two front; zero rear).
    2. CVPI passenger cars with two front bucket seats--the designated
seating capacity was incorrectly identified as six total (three front;
three rear) instead of five total (two front; three rear).
    Ford also explained its belief that in each of these cases the
number of seats and the number of safety belts installed in the vehicle
will clearly indicate to the customers the actual seating capacity.
Ford also declared its belief that NHTSA has reached a similar
conclusion that the presence of seat belts will alert the operators to
the number of seating positions in any row of seating. Ford
specifically details its reasoning as follows:

    In the case of the Expedition and Navigator vehicles built with
the Limo Builders Package are equipped with only two front seats and
two sets of safety belts when delivered to the Qualified Vehicle
Modifier (QVM). When the QVM completes the modifications to the
vehicles, the final number of seating positions will be specified on
the label required to be affixed by the QVM.
    In the case of the CVPI vehicles that are equipped with front
bucket seats, the seats are separated by approximately 11 inches and
Ford believes that nearly all of these vehicles will have a center
console (typically used to mount police equipment such as lap top
computers, communications radios, siren and lighting controls, etc.)
installed by the aftermarket upfitters who perform police vehicle
conversions.

    Ford stated that in all cases, the weight capacity, the tire size
designation and the cold tire inflation pressure data listed on the
tire and loading information placard is correct for the vehicles on
which they are installed. Ford additionally stated that because the
weight capacity is accurate, it believes that there is no potential for
vehicle overloading due to the incorrect value in the designated
seating capacity.
    Ford also stated that it was not aware of any field or owner
complaints of misunderstanding of the actual number of seats in these
vehicles.
    Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production.
    In summation, Ford states that it believes that the noncompliances
are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective
action is warranted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement is in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477-78).
    You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and

supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed
and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is
granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: January 20, 2009.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 15, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-30132 Filed 12-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5028-5032]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0173; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-069-AD;
Amendment 39-18083; AD 2015-02-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-06-06 for
all Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes. AD 2009-06-06
required revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations
and maintenance tasks for aging systems maintenance. This new AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate
new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD was
prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced
control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 6, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 6,
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of April
28, 2009 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173; or in person at the
Docket Management

Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, 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 supersede AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228,
March 24, 2009). AD 2009-06-06 applied to all Airbus Model A310 and
Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-
600 series airplanes series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17451).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0075, dated March 20, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A310-
203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; Model A300
B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and
B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model
A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus aeroplanes are
currently published in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
documents.
    The mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations
applicable to the Aging Systems Maintenance (ASM) are specified in
Airbus A310 or A300-600 ALS Part 4 documents, which are approved by
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA AD 2007-0092
[http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0092.pdf/AD_2007-0092,
which corresponds to FAA AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR
12228, March 24, 2009)] was issued to require compliance to the
requirements as specified in these documents.
    The revision 02 of Airbus A310 and Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4
documents introduces more restrictive maintenance requirements and/
or airworthiness limitations. Failure to comply with the
instructions of ALS Part 4 could result in an unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this new AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0092, which is superseded, and requires
the implementation of the new or more restrictive maintenance
requirements and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus
A310 ALS Part 4, Revision 02, or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4,
Revision 02, as applicable to aeroplane type/model.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (74 FR
12228, March 24, 2009), and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Include Variation to Service Information

    FedEx asked that Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated
August 24, 2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems
Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012, be included with the
service information referenced for accomplishing the actions specified
in the NPRM (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009). FedEx stated that this
variation provides additional trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator
(THSA) part numbers and is approved by EASA.
    We agree with the commenter's request. The referenced variation
added some dash numbers that were not previously listed in the
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), but all airplanes affected by the
NPRM (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009) have this basic part number. We have
revised paragraph (j) of this AD to refer to Airbus A300-600 Variation
0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24, 2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--
Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in this AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or
misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/
operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of
deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The
Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other
information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by

identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that
are ``Required for Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with
manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine
that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be
approved as an alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 17451, March 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 17451, March 28, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information

    Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part
4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated November 30, 2012;
and A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated
April 18, 2012. The service information describes procedures for
revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. You can find
this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0173.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 156 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The ALS revision required by AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74
FR 12228, March 24, 2009), and retained in this AD takes about 1 work-
hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required
by AD 2009-06-06 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,260, or $85 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

2015-02-16 Airbus: Amendment 39-18083. Docket No. FAA-2014-0173;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-069-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228,
March 24, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes;
Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls; Code 32, Landing Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural
integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure
of system components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) To
Incorporate Limitations and Maintenance Tasks for Aging Systems
Maintenance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD
2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009). Within
3 months after April 28, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-06-06),
revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)
to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006 (for Model A310 series
airplanes); or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems
Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006 (for Model A300-
600 series airplanes). For all tasks identified in Airbus A310 ALS
Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December 21,
2006; and Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006; do the tasks at the later of
the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. The
repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the
interval specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems
Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006; or Airbus A300-
600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated
December 21, 2006; as applicable.
    (1) At the initial compliance times (thresholds) specified in
Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 01,
dated December 21, 2006; or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing
Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006; as
applicable; with the compliance times starting from the later of the
times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) Since the applicable part was new or refurbished if the
part's life (in flight hours, flight cycles, landings, or calendar
time, as applicable) can be conclusively determined.
    (2) Within 3 months after doing the revision of the ALS of the
ICA required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: For additional guidance on
the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators (THSA) life limits,
refer to Airbus Operators Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0074/05/BB,
dated August 3, 2005.
    Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD: For additional guidance on
the THSA life limits and calculation method for unknown history of
parts, refer to Airbus OIT SE 999.0008/07/LB, dated January 16,
2007; and Airbus Service Information Letter 05-008, Revision 01,
dated February 21, 2007.

(h) Retained Revision of ALS To Incorporate Certain Other Limitations
and Maintenance Tasks for Aging Systems Maintenance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD
2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009), with
revised affected airplane language. For airplanes on which any life
limitation/maintenance task has been complied with in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (f), (g), (k), (l), or (m) of AD
2009-06-06: The last accomplishment of each limitation/task must be
retained as a starting point for the accomplishment of each
corresponding limitation/task interval now introduced Airbus A310
ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December
21, 2006; and Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems
Maintenance, Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006; as applicable.

(i) Retained No Alternative Inspections/Limitations

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD
2009-06-06, Amendment 39-15842 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009). Except
as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD: After accomplishing the
actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no
alternative inspection, inspection intervals, or limitations may be
used, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) New Requirements of This AD: Maintenance/Inspection Program
Revision

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02,
dated November 30, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes); or Airbus
A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated
April 18, 2012, and Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated
August 24, 2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems
Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012 (for Model A300-600
series airplanes). For all limitation/replacement/inspection tasks
identified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 02, dated November 30, 2012; or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part
4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012,
and Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24,
2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012; the initial compliance times for
the tasks are at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Doing any limitation/
replacement/inspection task required by this paragraph terminates
the corresponding task required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) At the initial compliance times (thresholds) specified in
Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02,
dated November 30, 2012; or Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing
Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012, and Airbus
A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24, 2012, to Airbus
A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance, Revision 02, dated
April 18, 2012; as applicable; with the compliance times starting
from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and
(j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Since first flight of the airplane.
    (ii) Since the applicable part was new or refurbished if the
part's life (in flight hours, flight cycles, landings, or calendar
time, as applicable) can be conclusively determined.
    (2) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.

(k) New Limitation: No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (j)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals,
may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, 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: Dan Rodina,
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) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0075, dated March 20, 2013,
for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0173-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses
specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 6, 2015.
    (i) Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012.

    (ii) Airbus A300-600 Variation 0CVLG120001/C0S, dated August 24,
2012, to Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 02, dated April 18, 2012.
    (iii) Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 02, dated November 30, 2012.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 28, 2009 (74 FR 12228, March 24, 2009).
    (i) Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006.
    (ii) Airbus A310 ALS Part 4--Ageing Systems Maintenance,
Revision 01, dated December 21, 2006.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this 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
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 13, 2015.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-01182 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9865-9866]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1136; Notice No. 12-07]
RIN 2120-AJ33

Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for an NPRM that was
published November 13, 2012. In that rulemaking, the FAA proposed to
amend the maintenance regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental
operations, and commuter and on-demand operations for aircraft type
certificated with a passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more
(excluding any pilot seat). It would require these operators to develop
policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for performing contract
maintenance that are acceptable to the FAA and to include them in their
maintenance manuals. It would also require the operators to provide a
list to the FAA of all persons with whom they contract their
maintenance. At the behest of several of their FAA-certificated air
carrier members, Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA)
requested that the FAA extend the comment period closing date to allow
time to adequately analyze the NPRM and prepare comments.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on November 13, 2012
(77 FR 67584), was scheduled to close on February 11, 2013, and is
extended until March 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-
1136 using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    2. Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    3. Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    4. Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains related information about the docket. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

Background

    On November 13, 2012, the FAA issued Notice No. 12-07, entitled
``Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements'' (77 FR 67584).
Comments to that document were to be received on or before February 11,
2013.
    By letter dated January 13, 2013, the Regional Air Cargo Carriers
Association (RACCA) requested a 48-day extension of the comment period,
to March 31, 2013. The petitioner requested this extension to allow
time to adequately assess the impact of the requirements proposed in
the NPRM, prepare comments, and develop proposed alternatives. If
enacted in its currently-proposed form, RACCA believes the proposed
rulemaking would result in significant unintended consequences,
including greater operator cost and manpower requirements than those
estimated in the NPRM, loss of efficiency, unbudgeted loss of aircraft
availability, and a substantial additional workload for the FAA that
would result in a diversion of FAA resources from more safety-critical
tasks. It further believes that the rulemaking would add complication
to the contract maintenance process without a quantifiable improvement
in safety, and therefore it would not serve the public's interest.
    While the FAA concurs with the petitioner's request for an
extension of the comment period on Notice No. 12-07, it does not
support a 48-day extension. The FAA finds that an additional 30 days is
sufficient for the petitioner to analyze the NPRM and provide
meaningful comment to Notice No. 12-07.
    Absent unusual circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any
further extension of the comment period for this rulemaking.

Extension of Comment Period

    In accordance with Sec.  11.47(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the petition made by RACCA for
extension of the comment period to Notice No. 12-07. This petitioner
has shown a substantive interest in the proposed rule and good cause
for the extension. The FAA has determined that extension of the comment
period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause
exists for taking this action.
    Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 12-07 is extended
until March 13, 2013.

Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 6, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-03178 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P