[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62112]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1257-006; ER10-1258-006; ER11-3117-002.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., Wabash Valley
Energy Marketing, Inc., Lively Grove Energy Partners, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 18, 2016 Notice of Change of Status
of Wabash Valley Power Association, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5321.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1777-009; ER15-718-004.
    Applicants: Sundevil Power Holdings, LLC, West Valley Power, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Wayzata
Entities, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5320.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1499-003.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: City of Independence Stated Rate
Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5275.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1830-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: TCC-Rio Grande EC TSA Deficiency
Response to be effective 5/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5309.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1831-001.
    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: TNC-Rio Grande EC TSA Concurrence
Deficiency Response to be effective 5/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5305.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2185-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment, Cost-Based Tariff Filing
to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5312.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2372-002.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Second Errata to Master Joint Use
Agreement to be effective 10/4/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2506-000.
    Applicants: Oliver Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Oliver Wind III, LLC
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5311.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2507-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 243 10th Rev--NITSA
with CHS Inc. to be effective 8/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/29/16.
    Accession Number: 20160829-5313.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2508-000.
    Applicants: H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: HQUS MBR Tariff Update
Filing to be effective 8/31/2016.
    Filed Date: 8/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160830-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 30, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21529 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70964-70966]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0797; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00218-R;
Amendment 39-21838; AD 2021-24-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2,
EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters.
This AD was prompted by reduced life limits being established for
certain part-numbered tail rotor (TR) blades. This AD requires
determining the total hours time-in-service (TIS) of certain part-
numbered TR blades, establishing a life limit for certain part-numbered
TR blades, removing from service any TR blade that has reached or
exceeded its life limit, creating a component history card, re-
identifying certain part-numbered TR blades, and removing any TR blade
from service before reaching its retirement life. This AD also
prohibits installing certain TR blades on certain model helicopters.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 18, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of January 18,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0797.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0797; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1,
EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters, with TR blade part number
L642A2002101, L642A2002103, L642A2002104, L642A2002111, or L642A2002112
installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 23,
2021 (86 FR 52856). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require within 350
hours TIS, determining the total hours TIS of certain part-numbered TR
blades and removing from service certain part-numbered TR blades that
have accumulated or exceeded 6,800 total hours TIS. The NPRM also
proposed to require for certain part-numbered TR blades with less than
6,800 total hours TIS, creating a component history card or equivalent
record to establish a life limit of 6,800 total hours TIS, and removing
these TR blades from service before accumulating 6,800 total hours TIS.
The NPRM proposed to require for certain model helicopters re-
identifying certain part-numbered TR blades with new part numbers and
removing those newly re-identified TR blades from service before
exceeding 6,800 total hours TIS.
    Additionally, the NPRM proposed to require for certain model
helicopters with certain part-numbered TR blades installed that have
been previously installed on certain model helicopters determining the
total hours TIS of the TR blade in accordance with a method approved by
the FAA or EASA. Finally, for certain model helicopters the NPRM
proposed to prohibit installing certain part-numbered TR blades and for
certain model helicopters the NPRM proposed to prohibit installing
certain part-numbered TR blades that have exceeded or accumulated 500
total hours TIS while previously installed on certain model
helicopters.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2021-0050, dated February 23, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0050), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for
the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition
for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH, Eurocopter Espa[ntilde]a S.A., Model EC135 P1, EC135
P2, EC135 P2+, EC135 P3, EC135 T1, EC135 T2, EC135 T2+, EC135 T3, EC635
P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3 helicopters, all
variants, and all serial numbers. EASA advises that a reduced life
limit has been established for certain part-numbered TR blades due to
higher loads experienced in service. This condition, if not addressed,
could result in fatigue and failure of a TR blade and loss of control
of the helicopter.
    Accordingly, EASA AD 2021-0050 requires determining the total hours
TIS for certain part-numbered TR blades, recalculating the TIS for
affected parts, and implementing a reduced life limit. EASA AD 2021-
0050 also prohibits installing certain part-numbered TR blades and TR
head assemblies and provides conditions for re-installation of certain
TR blades.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the

FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed
the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial
changes, including removing Model EC635T2+ from paragraph (g)(5) of the
Required Actions, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NRPM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB
EC135H-04A-002 and Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB EC135-
04A-014, both Revision 1, and both dated December 21, 2020. This
service information specifies procedures to determine the total hours
TIS of certain TR blades and provides instructions to re-identify
certain part-numbered TR blades.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and EASA AD 2021-0050

    EASA AD 2021-0050 requires compliance using calendar time, whereas
this AD requires compliance using hours TIS instead. EASA AD 2021-0050
applies to Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3
helicopters, which are not certificated by the FAA and are not included
on the U.S. type certificate data sheet, except where the U.S. type
certificate data sheet explains that the Model EC635 T2+ helicopter
having serial number 0858 was converted from Model EC635 T2+ to Model
EC135 T2+. This AD, therefore, does not include Model EC635 P2+, EC635
P3, EC635 T1, EC635 T2+, and EC635 T3 helicopters in the applicability.
EASA AD 2021-0050 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
GmbH to determine the total hours TIS accumulated by certain TR blades
whereas this AD requires determining the total hours TIS accumulated by
the TR blade in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or EASA.
EASA AD 2021-0050 prohibits installing certain part-numbered TR head
assemblies as defined in its AD, whereas this AD does not contain this
prohibition.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 341 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Determining the total hours TIS of each TR blade, updating the
helicopter records and re-identifying each TR blade takes about 10
work-hours for each TR blade, for an estimated cost of $850 per TR
blade.
    Replacing each TR blade takes about 10 work-hours and parts cost
about $4,400 for an estimated cost of $5,250 per TR blade replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-24-17 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-21838;
Docket No. FAA-2021-0797; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00218-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 18, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and
EC135T3 helicopters, certificated in any category, with tail rotor
(TR) blade part number (P/N) L642A2002101, L642A2002103,
L642A2002104, L642A2002111, or L642A2002112 installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail rotor
blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a notification of certain parts needing
a reduced life limit when installed on certain model helicopters.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent certain part-numbered TR
blades from remaining in service beyond their fatigue life. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fatigue and
failure of a TR blade and loss of helicopter control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For all model helicopters identified in paragraph (c) of
this AD, within 350 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD, determine the total hours TIS of each TR blade P/N
L642A2002101 or P/N L642A2002111 in accordance with paragraph 3.B.2
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Helicopters Alert
Service Bulletin ASB EC135H-04A-002, Revision 1, dated December 21,
2020 (ASB EC135H-04A-002) or paragraph 3.B.2 (version A) or 3.B.4
(version B) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Helicopters
Alert Service Bulletin ASB EC135-04A-014, Revision 1, dated December
21, 2020 (ASB EC135-04A-014) as applicable to your model helicopter.
Remove from service any TR

blade that has accumulated or exceeded 6,800 total hours TIS. For
each TR blade that has accumulated less than 6,800 total hours TIS
do the following:
    (i) Create a component history card or equivalent record to
establish a life limit of 6,800 total hours TIS.
    (ii) Re-identify each TR blade P/N L642A2002101 as P/N
L642A2002104 and re-identify each T/R blade P/N L642A2002111 as P/N
L642A2002112 by following paragraph 3.B.5 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of ASB EC135H-04A-002, or paragraph 3.B.7 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of ASB EC135-04A-014 as applicable to
your model helicopter.
    (iii) Thereafter, remove from service any TR blade P/N
L642A2002104 or P/N L642A2002112 before it accumulates 6,800 total
hours TIS.
    (2) For Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and
EC135T2+ helicopters with TR blade P/N L642A2002103 that has
previously been installed on Model EC135P3 or EC135T3 helicopters,
within 350 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, determine
the total hours TIS of the TR blade in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) For Model EC135P3 and EC135T3 helicopters within 350 hours
TIS after the effective date of this AD, remove from service any TR
blade P/N L642A2002103 before exceeding 6,800 total hours TIS.
    (4) For Model EC135P3 and EC135T3 helicopters, as of the
effective date of this AD, do not install any TR blade P/N
L642A2002101, P/N L642A2002103, or P/N L642A2002111 on any
helicopter.
    (5) For Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and
EC135T2+ helicopters, as of the effective date of this AD, do not
install any TR blade P/N L642A2002101 or L642A2002111 that has
accumulated or exceeded 500 total hours TIS while installed on a
Model EC135P3 or EC135T3 helicopter.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD, is available at
the contact information specified in paragraphs (j)(3) and (4) of
this AD.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0050, dated February 23, 2021.
You may view the EASA AD at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FAA-2021-0797.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB EC135H-04A-
002, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2020.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB EC135-04A-
014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2020.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 17, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26975 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85116-85118]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5044; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-166-AD;
Amendment 39-18718; AD 2016-24-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; and Model
DHC-8-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report
of heat damage found on a nacelle firewall after an unsuccessful engine
ground start and several events of heat damage found on direct current
starter/generator terminal block assemblies. This AD requires an
inspection to detect damage on the nacelle firewalls and the terminal
block assemblies and to make sure the insulating sleeves are installed
and have no damage, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 30,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.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>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-5044.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5044; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY

11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; and Model DHC-8-200 and -300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
12, 2016 (81 FR 21495) (``the NPRM'').
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-03R1, dated July 24, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103,
and -106 airplanes; and Model DHC-8-200 and -300 series airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    There has been one in-service report of heat damage on a nacelle
firewall found after an unsuccessful engine ground start. There have
also been several reports of heat damage found on Direct Current
Starter/Generator terminal block assemblies, part number (P/N)
82450075-001.
    The investigation determined that in all cases, the heat damage
was caused by arcing between the firewall and terminal blocks with
missing insulating sleeves on the conductive bushings. The
insulating sleeves may have been inadvertently omitted during the
incorporation of Modsum 8/1926, or during the installation of
terminal blocks P/N 82450075-001.
    Arcing with the firewall becomes an ignition source, creating a
potential fire hazard when combined with a fuel or hydraulic fluid
leak.
    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the [detailed
visual] inspection [for damage to the nacelle firewalls and to make
sure the insulating sleeves are installed and have no damage] and
rectification [corrective actions such as installing or replacing
insulating sleeves, or replacing a terminal block], as required, of
the nacelle firewall and terminal block assembly P/N 82450075-001
installed with Modsum 8/1926.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to revise the
Applicability to ensure that the terminal blocks have the insulating
sleeves installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5044.

Comments

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

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International requested that, due
to the nature of the AD, the proposed 14-month compliance time be
reduced to 10 months.
    We do not agree to reduce the compliance time. The 14-month
compliance time was developed by TCCA in coordination with Bombardier,
Inc., and we concur that it is an appropriate compliance time. However,
if we receive data to justify a shorter compliance time, we may
consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated
April 11, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an
inspection to detect damage on the nacelle firewalls and the terminal
block assemblies and to make sure the insulating sleeves are installed
and have no damage, and corrective action. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours 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 $12,750, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $551, for a cost of
$636 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these actions.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-24-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18718; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5044; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-166-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category, serial numbers 003 through 672 inclusive, on which
terminal block part number 82450075-001 is installed.
    (1) Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes.
    (2) Model DHC-8-201 and -202 airplanes.
    (3) Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of heat damage found on a
nacelle firewall after an unsuccessful engine ground start and
several events of heat damage found on direct current starter/
generator terminal block assemblies. We are issuing this AD to
prevent arcing between the firewall and terminal blocks that are
missing insulating sleeves on the conductive bushings, which could,
in combination with a fuel or hydraulic fluid leak, be an ignition
source for a fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 2,500 flight cycles or 14 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a detailed visual
inspection of the right-hand side and left-hand side nacelle
firewalls and terminal block assemblies, as defined in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014.
    (1) If the inspection finds no damage on the engine firewalls
and the terminal blocks, and that undamaged insulating sleeves are
installed on both terminal blocks, no further action is required by
this AD.
    (2) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed, or the existing sleeves are damaged, and there is no
damage to the nacelle firewall and terminal block, before further
flight, install the replacement insulating sleeves, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
8-24-92, Revision A, dated April 11, 2014.
    (3) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed, or any existing sleeve is damaged, and there is no damage
to the nacelle firewall, but there is damage to the terminal block,
before further flight, replace the terminal block assembly (which
includes insulating sleeves), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A,
dated April 11, 2014.
    (4) If the inspection finds that no insulating sleeves are
installed and there is damage to the nacelle firewall and the
terminal block, repair the damage using a method approved by the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, dated
September 25, 2013.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-03R1, dated July 24,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5044.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-24-92, Revision A, dated April
11, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) 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.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 10, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2016-28054 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 Supporting Statement for Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request for Confidentiality Rules 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request for Confidentiality Rules; EPA ICR No. 1665.03, OMB CONTROL No 2020 0003.

1( b) Short Characterization The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) promulgated the regulations described in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, in 1976 in order to protect confidential business information ( CBI) while also respecting the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA, 5 U. S. C. § 552).

This request for the renewal of an existing information collection request ( ICR) covers the existing provisions in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B. These provisions describe

the procedures industry must follow in asserting and justifying confidentiality claims;

the procedures EPA must follow in reviewing information claimed as confidential, notifying and providing affected businesses with an opportunity to comment, reviewing industry substantiations, and making final confidentiality determinations; and

the requirement for the signing and maintenance of confidentiality agreements by all contractor/ subcontractor employees who are given access to confidential information in the course of performing work for EPA.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection EPA administers a variety of environmental protection statutes, which require it to collect a wide range of data, such as data on toxic chemicals, waste streams, industrial processes, and regulatory compliance. In many instances, companies consider the information they submit to EPA to be vital to their competitive position and they claim it as CBI.

In accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, when EPA receives a request under FOIA for information that is claimed as confidential, or when the Agency needs to determine the confidentiality of information for other purposes ( e. g., rulemaking or litigation), it notifies the affected business and provides it with an opportunity to comment. Industry 2 comments which explain why the release of the information could be competitively damaging are very helpful to EPA in making final confidentiality determinations. Under EPA's current regulations, substantiations themselves are automatically protected from disclosure if they are marked as confidential in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203( b) and not otherwise possessed by EPA, unless their disclosure is ordered by a Federal court.

When EPA utilizes contractor/ subcontractor services for activities involving CBI, the subcontractor/ subcontractor must ensure that all its employees who will be given access to CBI have signed confidentiality agreements. These agreements state that employees shall use the confidential information only for the work in the contract/ subcontract, shall refrain from disclosing the information, and shall return all of the copies of the information to EPA upon request or the completion of the project. The contractor/ subcontractor company must also maintain a file of these confidentiality agreements.

The procedures laid out in 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, derive their authority from FOIA, the Trade Secrets Act, and the confidentiality provisions of environmental statutes administered by EPA, as follows: ° Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. 301, 552 ( as amended), and 553 ° § § 114, 206, 208, 301, and 307, Clean Air Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 7414, 7525, 7542, 7601, 7607) ° § § 308, 501, and 509( a), Clean Water Act, as amended ( 33 U. S. C. 1318, 1361, 1369( a)) ° § 13, Noise Control Act of 1972 ( 42 U. S. C. 4912) ° § § 1445 and 1450, Safe Drinking Water Act ( 42 U. S. C. 300j 4, 300j 9) ° § § 2002, 3007, and 9005, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 6912, 6927, 6991d) ° § § 8( c), 11, 12( b), and 14, Toxic Substances Control Act,( 15 U. S. C. 2607( c), 2610, 2611( b), 2613) ° § § 10, 12, and 25, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, ( 7 U. S. C. 136h, 136j, 136w) ° § 408( f), Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended ( 21 U. S. C. 346( f)) ° § § 104( f) and 108, Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, ( 33 U. S. C. 1414( f), 1418) ° § § 104 and 115, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 9604, 9615) ° § 505, Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended ( 15 U. S. C. 2005)

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data EPA will use the information received from industry to help determine whether particular information has been claimed as confidential, whether the Agency needs to make a formal confidentiality determination, and whether the information in question is indeed entitled to confidential treatment under exemption 4 of FOIA. 3 3. Non Duplication, Consultations and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non Duplication This information is not elsewhere collected from businesses.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA published a notice of the renewal of the existing information collection request for confidentiality rules in the Federal Register on April 12, 2000 ( 65 FR 19750) and invited public comments. EPA received comments from one organization, Edison Electric Institute ( EEI), which encouraged EPA to minimize the reporting burden on companies by reducing the need for companies to have to file substantiations. Specifically, EEI encouraged EPA to provide categorical confidential treatment under FOIA ( 5 U. S. C. § 552 ( b)( 4)) for classes of commercially sensitive business information submitted to EPA. EPA is currently reviewing its general CBI regulations ( 40 CFR part 2, subpart B) and plans to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPRM) in the summer of 2000. EEI's comments will be considered in the course of examining and revising EPA's general CBI regulations.

3( c) Consultations EPA contacted a sample of nine businesses to evaluate the industry burden associated with preparing a substantiation. Four of these nine businesses responded, providing a range of burden estimates. Based on these responses, the total time it takes to prepare a substantiation varies from 6 to 18 hours. The hourly wages for the employees involved in the substantiation process ranged from $ 50/ hour to $ 140/ hour. These industry burden estimates are reflected in Exhibits 1 and 2.

In addition, EPA requested burden estimates from EPA program and regional offices. Their responses provided the basis for the Agency burden estimates shown in Exhibits 1 and 3.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Not applicable.

3( e) General Guidelines Not applicable. To the best of EPA's knowledge, this collection does not exceed any of 4 the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

3( f) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions 1. Confidentiality Under EPA's current CBI regulations ( 40 CFR 202.5( c)), respondents may claim substantiations submitted to EPA as confidential and be assured that those substantiations will be protected from public disclosure: " If information submitted to EPA by a business as part of its comments . . . pertains to the business's claim, is not otherwise possessed by EPA, and is marked when received in accordance with 40 CFR § 2.203( b), it will be regarded by EPA as entitled to confidential treatment and will not be disclosed by EPA without the business's consent, unless its disclosure is duly ordered by a Federal court, notwithstanding other provisions of this subpart to the contrary."

2. Sensitive Questions Not applicable. This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents could potentially include any business submitting a document to EPA that it claims as CBI. EPA receives such information from both the manufacturing ( SIC codes 20 39) and non manufacturing sectors ( no SIC codes identified).

4( b) Information Requested A. Substantiation of confidentiality claim Whenever EPA finds it necessary to determine the confidentiality of information that has been claimed as CBI ( e. g., in response to a FOIA request or in connection with rulemaking or litigation) ( 40 CFR 2.204 ( c) and ( d)), it must notify affected businesses orally and in writing and provide them with an opportunity to comment ( 40 CFR 2.204( e)).

1. Data Items The written notice from EPA ( 40 CFR 2.204( e)( 1)) invites the business's comments on the following: 5 ( i) The portions of the information which are alleged to be entitled to confidential treatment; ( ii) The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired by the business ( e. g., until a certain date, until the occurrence of a specified event, or permanently); ( iii) The purpose for which the information was furnished to EPA and the approximate date of submission, if known; ( iv) Whether a business confidentiality claim accompanied the information when it was received by EPA; ( v) Measures taken by the business to guard against undesired disclosure of the information to others; ( vi) The extent to which the information has been disclosed to others, and the precautions taken in connection therewith; ( vii) Pertinent confidentiality determinations, if any, by EPA or other Federal agencies; and a copy of any such determination, or reference to it, if available; ( viii) Whether the business asserts that disclosure of the information would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects on the business's competitive position, and if so, what those harmful effects would be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an explanation of the causal relationship between disclosure and such harmful effects; and ( ix) Whether the business asserts that the information is voluntarily submitted information as defined in 40 CFR § 2.201( i), and if so, whether and why disclosure of the information would tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future.

2. Respondent Activities To complete the collection, the respondent must a. Read EPA's request for comments; b. Review the information claimed as confidential; c. Prepare and submit a substantiation to EPA.

B. Designation by Business of Addressee for Notices and Inquiries Pursuant to 40 CFR 2.213, a business may elect to designate an official contact for inquiries and notices concerning confidentiality claims. 1. Data Items Name and address of the business making the designation, and the name and address of the designated person or office.

2. Respondent Activities To identify and submit the information to EPA.

C. Confidentiality agreements 6 Pursuant to 40 CFR 2.301( h)( 2)( ii), contractors/ subcontractors must obtain a signed confidentiality agreement from each employee who is to be given access to CBI which states that the employee will honor the terms of the contract/ subcontract which requires protection of CBI. 1. Data Items Signed confidentiality agreements. 2. Respondent activities The contractor must a. require each employee given access to CBI to read and sign a confidentiality agreement, and b. maintain a file of such agreements.

In addition to the information collections discussed above, when EPA intends to disclose CBI to contractors/ subcontractors, other government agencies ( Federal, State, or local), or members of Congress, EPA notifies all affected businesses. During a specified period of time prior to disclosure, businesses may submit comments. Industry has rarely submitted comments to EPA under these circumstances.

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities 1. Review and make a preliminary determination of whether business information may be entitled to confidential treatment. This review could be undertaken in response to a FOIA request ( 5 U. S. C. 552) or when EPA desires to determine the confidentiality of information within its possession for other purposes ( e. g., rulemaking or litigation). It could involve determining whether a business confidentiality claim exists or whether a Federal Court or EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to treatment as CBI. 2. Notify the affected business orally and in writing that the Agency is determining the confidentiality of the information and provide the business with an opportunity to comment. 3. Review the substantiation received ( if any) and make a final determination whether the business information in question is entitled to confidential treatment. This determination will be made by the appropriate EPA legal office as described in 40 CFR 2.205.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The types of information that are requested are described under 4( b) above. EPA notifies affected businesses orally and in writing that it is determining the confidentiality of information they have submitted and affords them the opportunity to comment. Affected businesses may submit comments by the date specified in the notice ( i. e., 7 postmarked or hand delivered no later than the specified date); or if a request for an extension of the comment period is made by the business and approved by the EPA legal office before the comments are due, the comment period may be extended ( 40 CFR 2.205( b)( 2)).

Confidential information that is submitted to EPA is protected in accordance with the policies and procedures discussed in ( 1) Chapter 8, " Information Security," of EPA's IRM Policy Manual, Directive 2100, revised December 20, 1999; ( 2) the EPA Information Security Manual, Directive 2195A1, December 20, 1999; and ( 3) information security procedures issued by EPA organizations with statutory authority for the information [ e. g., EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has developed specific procedures for protecting the confidentiality of information obtained under the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA)].

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA does not have the flexibility to waive the substantiation requirement for small entities for several reasons: ( 1) EPA is required to disclose information that is requested under FOIA, unless the information is specifically exempt; ( 2) if EPA discloses information that is entitled to confidential treatment, the Federal government could be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act and individual Federal employees could be subject to criminal liability under the Trade Secrets Act and other statutes, and ( 3) the submitter of the information is in the best position to explain why particular information should be entitled to confidential treatment.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection of substantiations occurs on a case by case basis as needed.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection See Table 1 for a summary of the burden on both EPA and respondents, Table 2 for the estimated burden on respondents, and Table 3 for the estimated burden on EPA.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost A. Substantiation of confidentiality claim EPA receives approximately 1384 FOIA requests for information that is claimed as CBI each year. In addition, there are approximately 617 other instances per year which require EPA to examine the confidentiality of business information. Yet formal confidentiality determinations are not always required. For example, after consulting 8 with an individual who requested information under FOIA, the Agency may be able to provide the information that is of most interest to the requester without disclosing any CBI. In other cases, EPA may find that a Federal Court or EPA legal office has previously determined that the information in question is entitled to confidential treatment, and further examination of the information may not necessarily be required.

EPA estimates that in approximately 543 cases per year, it notifies a business that the Agency is making a final confidentiality determination on information the business has previously claimed as CBI ( or which could be expected to be CBI.). The affected business then has an opportunity to submit comments explaining why the information should be protected ( i. e., a substantiation). EPA estimates that of the 543 businesses it notifies each year, approximately 443 businesses submit substantiations.

EPA estimates that it takes industry approximately 14 hours at a labor cost of $ 464.43 to review EPA's notification and prepare and submit each substantiation; or a total of 6,202 hours at a cost of $ 205,742.49 in labor for all 443 substantiations. For those 100 businesses that do not submit substantiations, they are still likely to spend about 1 hour at a cost of $ 32.04 in labor to review EPA's notice, examine the information in question, and make a decision not to respond; or a total of 100 hours at a cost of $ 3,204 for all those who choose not to respond. The total burden on industry to review and, if desired, respond to 543 EPA substantiation requests is 6,302 hours at a cost of $ 208,946.49 in labor.

B. Confidentiality agreements When EPA utilizes the services of contractors/ subcontractors in implementing 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, all contractor/ subcontractor employees who are given access to confidential information must sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract which requires the protection of CBI. In addition, the contractor/ subcontractor businesses must maintain a file of all such agreements. EPA estimates that there are approximately 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses who deal with CBI on behalf of the Agency. These 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses together have a total of approximately 658 employees who must sign confidentiality agreements each year. Each employee would need approximately 0.1 hour to review and sign an agreement, at a cost of $ 3.34 in labor; the review and signature of all employee agreements would require approximately 65.8 hours at a cost of $ 2197.72. In addition, each subcontractor/ contractor business would need approximately 0.5 hour at a cost of $ 8.07 in labor per year to maintain a file of employee confidentiality agreements; the 129 contractor/ subcontractor businesses together would require a total of 64.5 hours at a labor cost of $ 1041.03 to maintain a file of confidentiality agreements. The total burden for signing and maintaining confidentiality agreements would thus be 130.3 hours at a cost of $ 3238.75.

C. Overall Respondent Burden 9 The overall respondent burden for handling confidentiality claims   including the substantiation process and the signing/ maintaining of confidentiality agreements   would be 6,432.3 hours at a total labor cost of $ 212,185.24 per year. EPA estimates that no capital costs or operation and maintenance costs would be incurred as a result of this information collection.

6( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The burden on EPA involved in evaluating confidentiality claims, notifying affected businesses, and making final confidentiality determinations varies depending on the complexity of the case. In some cases, the information that industry claims as confidential is specific and easy to identify; yet in other cases, entire reports may be claimed as confidential. In the latter case, a significant amount of time may be required just to review the information in question. In other cases, EPA may be able to satisfy a FOIA request without going through the entire substantiation process, if after conferring with a requestor, the Agency is able to provide the information of interest without releasing CBI.

Based on past experience, EPA estimates that on average, it takes approximately 7 hours ( 4 attorney hrs., 2 technical hrs., and 1 clerical hour) at a cost of $ 221.54 ($ 35.83/ attorney hr., GS 14, Step 5; $ 30.32/ technical hr., GS 13, Step 5; and $ 17.58/ clerical hr., GS 9, Step 5) to conduct an initial review of a confidentiality claim and prepare and request a substantiation from the submitter. Thus, in order to review the information in question and prepare approximately 543 substantiation requests per year, EPA would spend a total of 3801.0 hours in staff time at a total labor cost of $ 120,296.22.

In addition, after industry comments are received, it takes approximately 8 hours ( 6 attorney hrs. and 2 technical hrs.) at a cost of $ 275.62 to review the comments and determine whether the substantiation that is claimed as confidential is indeed entitled to confidential treatment. It would take EPA a total of 3544.0 hours at a total labor cost of $ 122,099.66 to review the approximately 443 substantiations that would be submitted by industry. ( Based on past experience, EPA expects that of the 543 industries to whom substantiations were sent, approximately 443 would decide to submit comments.)

The total burden to EPA to review the initial information submitted to EPA, make a preliminary determination of confidentiality, request comments from industry, review the substantiations received, and make final confidentiality determinations would be approximately 7345.0 hours at a total labor cost of $ 242,395.88 per year.

6( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost 1. Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims 10 For 443 Businesses Submitting Substantiations: Burden: 14 hrs. x 443 = 6,202 hrs. Costs: $ 464.43 x 443 = $ 205,742.49 For 100 Businesses Deciding Not To Respond: Burden: 1 hr. x 100 = 100 hrs. Costs: $ 32.04 x 100 = $ 3204.00 Totals: 6,202 + 100 = 6,302 hrs. $ 205,742.49 + $ 3204.00 = $ 208,946.49 2. Confidentiality agreements For 658 Contractor/ Subcontractor Employees To Review and Sign Confidentiality Agreements: Burden: 0.1 hours x 658 respondents/ year = 65.8 hrs. Costs: $ 3.34 x 658 = $ 2197.72 For 129 Contractor/ Subcontractor Businesses to Maintain and File Confidentiality Agreements: Burden: 0.5 hours x 129 respondents/ year = 64.5 hours Costs: $ 8.07 x 129 respondents/ year = $ 1041.03 Totals: 65.8 hrs. + 64.5 hrs. = 130.30 hrs. Costs: $ 2197.72 + $ 1041.03 = $ 3238.75 3. Total Burden and Costs for Respondents:

Burden: 6,202 hrs. + 130.30 = 6,432.3 hours Costs: $ 205,742.49 + $ 3238.75 = $ 212,185.24 4. The Agency Tally For Initial Review, Preliminary Determination, and Request for Substantiation: Burden: 7 hrs. x 543 = 3801 hrs. Costs: $ 221.54 x 543 = $ 120,296.22 For Review of Substantiations and Final Confidentiality Determination: Burden: 8 hrs. x 443 = 3544 hrs. 11 Costs: $ 275.62 x 443 = $ 122,099.66 Totals: Burden: 3801 hrs. + 3544 hrs. = 7345 hrs. Costs: $ 120,296.22 + 122,099.66 = $ 242,395.88 5. Variations in the Annual Bottom Line Variations in the annual burden on EPA and respondents could potentially occur due to changes in ° the number of FOIA requests that EPA receives for information that has been claimed as confidential; ° the number of times that EPA determines that a formal confidentiality determination is necessary and notifies affected businesses, providing them with an opportunity to comment; and ° the number of times that affected businesses decide to submit substantiations. At this time, EPA does not foresee any significant changes in the annual burdens outlined above.

6( d) Reasons for Change in Burden The number of respondents in the current estimate of the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden ( a total of 1330) includes the number of businesses who submit substantiations to EPA ( 443), the number of businesses who decide not to submit substantiations ( 100), the number of contractor/ subcontractor employees who must sign confidentiality agreements ( 658), and the number of contractors/ subcontractors who must maintain and file confidentiality agreements ( 129) each year. The previous estimate for the number of respondents ( 1008) included only the number of businesses that the Agency expected to submit substantiations, but not the additional recordkeeping burden associated with the signing and maintenance of confidentiality agreements.

EPA estimates that fewer businesses than previously estimated would be asked to submit substantiations ( 543), and of these, some would decide not to respond ( 100). The burden on industry to submit 443 substantiations is considerably less than the burden to submit 1008 substantiations, as previously estimated ( 6202 hrs. vs. 9475 hrs).

In addition, EPA believes that the previous estimate of 1125 contractor/ subcontractor employees who must sign confidentiality agreements may have been overly broad and may have included employees who do not need to handle CBI; based on consultations with EPA program offices, the Agency estimates that approximately 658 contractor/ subcontractor employees currently handle CBI for the Agency and must sign confidentiality agreements.

6( e) Burden Statement 12 The public reporting burden is estimated to average 4.8 hours per respondent per year ( 6432 hrs./ 1330 respondents = 4.8 hrs./ respondent. This includes the burden hours associated with industry substantiations of confidentiality claims, as well as the signing of confidentiality agreements by contractor/ subcontractor employees and their maintenance by their contractors/ subcontractors.)

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23542]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Application for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2012.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2012.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special permit
    Application No.      Docket No.         Applicant        Regulation(s) affected            thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15583-N...............  ...........  Northern Air Cargo,     49 CFR 172.101 Column   To authorize the
                                      Anchorage, AK.          (9B).                   transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain Class 1
                                                                                explosive materials which
                                                                                are forbidden for
                                                                                transportation by air, to
                                                                                be transported by cargo
                                                                                aircraft within the State
                                                                                of Alaska when other means
                                                                                of transportation are
                                                                                impracticable or not
                                                                                available. (mode 4)
15593-N...............  ...........  ITW Sexton, Decatur,    49 CFR 173.304a(d)(3),  To authorize the
                                      AL.                     178.33(a)(8).           manufacture, marking and
                                                                                sale of a non-DOT
                                                                                specification container to
                                                                                be used for the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of UN1075. (modes 1, 2, 3,
                                                                                4)
15598-N...............  ...........  Lockheed Martin Space   49 CFR, 49 CFR Sec.     To authorize the
                                      Systems Company,        172.101, 49 CFR         transportation in commerce
                                      Denver, CO.             173.301, 49 CFR         of hazardous materials
                                                              173.302a (a)(1) and     listed in table 6 in
                                                              49 CFR 173.304a         spacecraft as non-
                                                              (a)(2).                 specification packaging.
                                                                                (modes 1, 3, 4)
15603-N...............  ...........  EC Source Aviation,     49 CFR, 49 CFR parts    To authorize the
                                      LLC, Mesa, AZ.          172.101, Column (9b),   transportation in commerce
                                                              172.204(c)(3),          of certain hazardous
                                                              173.27(b)(2),           materials by cargo
                                                              175.30(a)(1),           aircraft including by
                                                              172.200, 172.300,       external load in remote
                                                              172.400.                areas and without being
                                                                                subject to hazard
                                                                                communication requirements
                                                                                and quantity limitations
                                                                                where no other means of
                                                                                transportation is
                                                                                available. (mode 4)
15615-N...............  ...........  American Promotional    49 CFR 171.8..........  To authorize the
                                      Events, Inc.--East d/                           transportation in commerce
                                      b/a TNT Fireworks,                              of UNO336 Fireworks in
                                      Florence, AL.                                   UN4G packaging with a
                                                                                capacity greater than 450
                                                                                liters. (mode 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-9191 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15449-15450]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No FAA-2012-22842]

Notice of Opportunity To Participate, Criteria Requirements and
Application Procedure for Participation in the Military Airport Program
(MAP)

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

ACTION: Notice of criteria and application procedures for designation
or redesignation, in the Military Airport Program (MAP), for the fiscal
year 2012.

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

SUMMARY: This notice supplements the Federal Register Notice of
September 22, 2011 and implements Military Airport Program (MAP)
changes in the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012, Public Law 112-91, February 14, 2012. This supplementary
notice announces the criteria, application procedures, and schedule to
be applied by the Secretary of Transportation in designating or
redesignating, and funding capital development annually for up to 3
current (joint-use) or former military general aviation airports
seeking designation or redesignation to participate in the MAP. Of the
15 current (joint-use) or former MAP slots the new legislation permits
up to 3 general aviation airports to be selected for the program.
Applicants who previously submitted applications based on the September
22, 2011 Federal Register notice do not need to reapply. Their
applications will be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 MAP along with any
applications received from additional general aviation airports as a
result of this supplemental notice.
    The MAP allows the Secretary to designate current (joint-use) or
former military airports to receive grants from the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP).
    The Secretary is authorized to designate an airport (other than an
airport designated before August 24, 1994) only if:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under the Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 (announcement of closures
of large Department of Defense installations after September 30, 1977),
or under Section 201 or 2905 of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Acts; or
    (2) the airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations.
    The Secretary shall consider for designation only those current or
former military airports, at least partly converted to civilian
airports as part of the national air transportation system, that will
reduce delays at airports with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays
in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings, or will enhance
airport and air traffic control system capacity in metropolitan areas,
or reduce current and projected flight delays (49 U.S.C. 47118(c)).

DATES: Applications must be received on or before April 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit an original and two copies of Standard Form (SF) 424,
``Application for Federal Assistance,'' prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-102, available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/media/aip_sf424_2010.pdf along with any
supporting and justifying documentation. Applicant should specifically
request to be considered for designation or redesignation as a general
aviation airport to participate in the fiscal year 2012 MAP. Submission
should be sent to the Regional FAA Airports Division or Airports
District Office that serves the airport. Applicants may find the proper
office on the FAA Web site http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/ or may contact the office below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kendall Ball
(Kendall.Ball@faa.gov), Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-
500), Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-7436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Description of the Program

    The MAP provides capital development assistance to civil airport
sponsors of designated current (joint-

use) military airfields or former military airports that are included
in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).
Airports designated to the MAP may obtain funds from a set-aside
(currently four percent) of AIP discretionary funds for airport
development, including certain projects not otherwise eligible for AIP
assistance. These airports are also eligible to receive grants from
other categories of AIP funding.
    Additional information required for application to the MAP may be
found in the original Federal Register Notice Vol. 76, No. 184/
Thursday, September 22, 2011/Notices Pg. 58861. The original notice may
also be found at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-22/html/2011-24350.htm.
    This notice is issued pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 47118.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 7, 2012.
Elliott Black,
Deputy Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2012-6350 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45270-45271]
[DOCID:fr01se09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-1999-6439, Notice No. 20]

Adjustment of Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Adjustment of Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Appendix D to Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 222, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings, FRA is updating the Nationwide Significant Risk
Threshold (NSRT). This action is needed to ensure that the public has
the proper threshold of permissible risk for calculating quiet zones
established in relationship to the NSRT. This is the third update to
the NSRT, which is being increased to 18,775 from 17,610.

DATES: The effective date is September 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Ries, Office of Railroad
Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail: Ronald.Ries@dot.gov); or Kathryn
Shelton, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
Kathryn.Shelton@dot.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NSRT is simply an average of the risk indexes for gated public
crossings, nationwide, where train horns are routinely sounded. FRA
developed this risk index to serve as one threshold of permissible risk
for quiet zones established under this rule across the Nation. Thus, a
community that is trying to establish and/or maintain its quiet zone
pursuant to 49 CFR part 222 can compare the Quiet Zone Risk Index
calculated for its specific crossing corridor to the NSRT to determine
whether sufficient measures have been taken to compensate for the
excess risk that results from prohibiting routine sounding of the
locomotive horn. (Alternatively, a community can establish its quiet
zone in comparison to the Risk Index With Horns, which is a corridor-
specific measure of risk to the motoring public, when locomotive horns
are routinely sounded at every public highway-rail grade crossing
within the quiet zone.)
    In 2006, when the final rule titled, ``Use of Locomotive Horns at
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,'' was amended, the NSRT was 17,030 (71 FR
47614, Aug. 17, 2006). In 2007, FRA recalculated the NSRT to be 19,047
(72 FR 14850, Mar. 29, 2007). In 2008, FRA recalculated the NSRT to be
17,610 (73 FR 30661, May 28, 2008).

New NSRT

    Using collision data from 2004 to 2008, FRA has recalculated the
NSRT based on formulas identified in Appendix D to 49 CFR part 222. In
making this recalculation, FRA noted that the total number of gated,
non-whistle-ban crossings was 39,065.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01SE09.000

    Applying the fatality rate and injury rate to the probable number
of fatalities and casualties predicted to occur at each of the 39,065
identified crossings and the predicted cost of the associated injuries
and fatalities, FRA calculates the NSRT to be 18,775.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2009.
Jo Strang,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-20966 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 43550-43551]
[DOCID:fr01au06-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54214; File No. SR-NASD-2006-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 22 Examination Program

July 26, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 14, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. NASD has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASD is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Representative--Direct Participation
Programs (Series 22) examination program.\5\ The proposed revisions
update the material to reflect changes to the laws, rules and
regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties
and responsibilities of a direct participation programs representative.
NASD is not proposing any textual changes to the By-Laws, Schedules to
the By-Laws, or Rules of NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASD also is proposing corresponding revisions to the Series
22 question bank, but based upon instruction from the Commission
staff, NASD is submitting SR-NASD-2006-082 for immediate
effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question bank for
Commission review. See letter to Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, from Belinda Blaine,
Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation (``Division''),
Commission, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is available for
Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised study outline is available on NASD's Web site (http://www.nasd.com
), at NASD, and at the Commission.\6\ The Series 22

selection specifications have been submitted to the Commission under
separate cover with a request for confidential treatment pursuant to
Rule 24b-2 under the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Telephone conversation between Mia Zur, Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, and Afshin Atabaki, Counsel, NASD, dated July
19, 2006.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

 1. Purpose
    Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act \8\ requires NASD to prescribe
standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with NASD members. In accordance with that provision, NASD
has developed examinations, and administers examinations developed by
other self-regulatory organizations, that are designed to establish
that persons associated with NASD members have attained specified
levels of competence and knowledge. NASD periodically reviews the
content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are
necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject
matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(c), an associated person of a member who
meets the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031 may register
with NASD as a Limited Representative--Direct Participation Programs
if: (1) The individual's activities in the investment banking and
securities business are limited solely to the solicitation, purchase,
and/or sale of equity interests in or debt of direct participation
programs as defined in NASD Rule 1022(e)(2) and (2) the individual
passes the Series 22 qualification examination.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with NASD staff,
recently undertook a review of the Series 22 examination program. As a
result of this review, NASD is proposing to make the following
revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules
and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the
duties and responsibilities of a direct participation programs
representative. NASD is proposing to add a section on SEC Form S-1
registration. NASD also is proposing to add a section on NASD Rule 2370
(Borrowing from or Lending to Customers) and a section on like-kind
exchanges.
    In addition, NASD is proposing to revise the study outline to
remove the sections on Section 4(3) (Transactions by a dealer) under
the Securities Act of 1933 \9\ and SEC Rule 174 (Delivery of prospectus
by dealers; exemptions under Section 4(3)).\10\ Further, NASD is
proposing to remove the sections on NASD Rules 1040 (Registration of
Assistant Representatives and Proctors) and 1110 (formerly Registration
of

Government Securities Principals and Representatives), as well as to
remove the section on NASD Certificate of Incorporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 77d(3).
    \10\ 17 CFR 230.174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD is proposing these changes to the entire content of the Series
22 examination, including the selection specifications and question
bank. The number of questions on each section of the Series 22
examination will remain the same. In addition, the number of questions
on the examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to
have 2\1/4\ hours (135 minutes) to complete the exam. Also, each
question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must
correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing
grade.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 22
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections
15A(b)(6) \11\ and 15A(g)(3) of the Act,\12\ which authorize NASD to
prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons
associated with NASD members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\14\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
NASD proposes to implement the revised Series 22 examination program on
August 15, 2006. NASD will announce the implementation date in a Notice
to Members to be published on the same date as this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File No. SR-NASD-2006-082 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-082. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD. 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-NASD-2006-082 and should be submitted on or before August 22, 2006.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-12320 Filed 7-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P