[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3295-3300]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57131; File No. SR-MSRB-2007-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Rule G-8, Books and
Records, Rule G-9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP
Numbers and New Issue Requirements, To Improve Transaction Reporting of
New Issues

January 11, 2008.
    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 November 27, 2007, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of an amendment of its Rule G-8, Books and Records, Rule G-
9, Preservation of Records, and Rule G-34, CUSIP Numbers and New Issue
Requirements. The proposed rule change is designed to improve
transaction reporting of new issues and would accelerate the timing for
CUSIP number assignment and, with the exception of new issues of short-
term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity,
require underwriters to:
    (i) Submit certain information about a new issue of municipal
securities to Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation's New Issue
Information Dissemination System within set timeframes; and (ii) set
and disseminate a ``Time of First Execution'' that allows time for
market participants to access necessary information in preparation for
trade reporting prior to beginning trade executions in the issue. The
MSRB proposes an effective date for the proposed rule change of June
30, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
MSRB's Web site (http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal office,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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. The MSRB 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
    MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, requires all brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') to report all
transactions in municipal securities to the MSRB Real-Time Transaction
Reporting System (``RTRS'') within fifteen minutes of the time of trade
execution, with limited exceptions. One exception listed in Rule G-14
RTRS Procedures, paragraph (a)(ii) is a ``three-hour exception'' that
allows a dealer three hours to report a transaction in a when, as and
if issued (``when-issued'') security if all of the following conditions
apply: (i) The CUSIP number and indicative data of the issue traded are
not in the securities

master file used by the dealer to process trades for confirmations,
clearance and settlement; (ii) the dealer has not traded the issue in
the previous year; and (iii) the dealer is not a syndicate manager or
syndicate member for the issue.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Another exception is an end-of-day deadline for reporting
trades in short-term instruments under nine months in effective
maturity, including variable rate instruments, auction rate
products, and commercial paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three-hour exception was designed to give a dealer time to add
a security to its ``securities master file'' so that a trade can be
reported through the dealer's automated trade processing systems. A
securities master file contains the information about a municipal
security issue that is necessary for a dealer to be able to process
transactions in the issue. It includes such items as the interest rate,
dated date, interest payment cycle, and put and call schedules. The
dealer's securities master file often contains information only for
securities held in custody for customers and for securities that have
been recently traded. If a dealer trades a security that is not in its
securities master file, the relevant securities information must be
obtained by the dealer from an information vendor before the trade can
be processed and reported.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Many dealers use service bureaus for various trade
processing functions, including the maintenance of securities master
files. Securities master file update procedures for service bureaus
are the same as those described for dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new issue transactions, a dealer's access to necessary
securities information depends not only on its link with an information
vendor but also on whether that vendor itself has the information on
the new issue. Vendors currently obtain much of their new issue
information through voluntary cooperation from underwriters. This
process does not always result in all the vendors having the necessary
securities information by the time trade executions begin. Dealers
trading a new issue for the first time need the three-hour exception
from the fifteen-minute trade reporting requirement for their first
trades in a new issue because the securities information is not always
available at the time the trade is executed.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the new issue market, information vendors seek to collect
information on each issue and deliver it to customers in time for
trade reporting in the new issue. There are several challenges for
vendors and dealers to meet the reporting deadlines. For example,
there are approximately 15,000 new municipal issues that must be set
up in databases each month. Another problem for the industry is the
fact that approximately 85 different information fields for each
issue must be successfully gathered, which in large part depends on
the timely cooperation of the underwriters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address inefficiencies in the collection of new information
securities data, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA''), industry members, securities information vendors, and
other service providers in the municipal securities market have worked
extensively with The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
(``DTCC'') to develop a centralized system for collecting and
communicating new issue securities information. The system, called the
``New Issue Information Dissemination System'' (``NIIDS''), will be
operated by DTCC and will act as a central collection point for
standardized electronic files of new issue information provided by
underwriters which will be disseminated in real-time to information
vendors.
    Although the amount of securities information needed for trade
reporting under Rule G-14 is limited,\6\ many of the automated trade
processing systems used to report trades currently need more extensive
securities information (essentially the information necessary to
produce a trade confirmation) before a trade can be reported. The
industry initiative on NIIDS has resulted in a relatively comprehensive
list of new issue securities data that will be collected and
disseminated by NIIDS, including Time of Formal Award and Time of First
Execution, discussed below. DTCC plans to implement NIIDS in early
2008.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RTRS only requires dealers to include limited information on
trade reports in when-issued securities, such as the CUSIP number of
the security traded, the par value of the transaction, and the
transaction price expressed as either yield or dollar price.
    \7\ In addition to providing an improved mechanism for
disseminating the new issue information necessary for trade
processing, the system also would use the information for purposes
of establishing depository eligibility for new issues. DTCC plans to
require use of the New Underwriting System (``NUWS''), of which
NIIDS is a component, beginning in April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to improve new issue
transaction reporting through requiring underwriter participation with
NIIDS. The proposed rule change prescribes timetables for submission of
data to NIIDS and other underwriter procedures that are intended to
ensure that all dealers have timely access to the new issue information
that is needed for compliance with trade reporting requirements. The
MSRB proposes a June 30, 2008 effective date for the proposed rule
change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NIIDS, in conjunction with MSRB rules, should make it
possible for dealers to report new issue trades earlier and thus
eliminate the need for the three-hour exception for when-issued
trade reports. Accordingly, the MSRB has filed with the SEC a
proposed rule change to sunset the ``three-hour exception'' on June
30, 2008, to coincide with the effective date of the proposed rule
change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57002 (December 20,
2007), 72 FR 73939 (December 28, 2007) (SR-MSRB-2007-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Rule G-34
    Currently, Rule G-34 requires underwriters \9\ to apply for CUSIP
numbers within specific deadlines and to transmit a limited amount of
information about a new issue such as the coupons, maturities and issue
closing date to DTCC. The rule also contains a requirement for Time of
Formal Award to be disseminated to market participants that may trade
the new issue. The proposed rule change would accelerate the timing for
CUSIP number assignment and, with the exception of new issues of short-
term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity,
require underwriters to: (i) Submit certain information about a new
issue of municipal securities to DTCC's NIIDS System within set
timeframes; and (ii) set and disseminate a ``Time of First Execution''
that allows time for market participants to access necessary
information in preparation for trade reporting prior to beginning trade
executions in the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule G-34 defines ``underwriter'' very broadly to include a
dealer acting as a placement agent as well as any dealer purchasing
new issue securities from the issuer as principal. If there is an
underwriting syndicate, the lead manager is considered to be the
``underwriter'' for purposes of Rule G-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of CUSIP Number Assignment
    CUSIP numbers are a required data element for automated trade
processing and trade reporting systems and will be a prerequisite for
entry of new issue information into NIIDS. Timely processing of new
issue transactions requires that CUSIP numbers be assigned as early as
possible in the underwriting process. Rule G-34 contains various
requirements for underwriters, and for dealers acting as financial
advisors on competitive sales, to apply to the CUSIP Service Bureau for
CUSIP number assignment. The current deadlines are based on: The time
the bond purchase agreement is executed (for underwriters in negotiated
sales); the time of the issuer's award (for dealers acting as financial
advisors in competitive sales); and the time of the first execution of
a trade in the issue (for underwriters in competitive sales). The
proposed rule change would set new deadlines designed to ensure CUSIP
number assignment occurs as soon as possible in the underwriting
process, allowing for the timely submission of new issue information to
NIIDS.

    For negotiated issues, the proposed rule change would require that
an application must be made no later than the time that the pricing
information for the issue is determined. For a dealer acting as a
financial advisor on a competitive deal, the proposed rule change would
require an application for CUSIP number assignment to be made within
one business day of dissemination of a notice of sale. The proposed
rule change also states a general requirement that the underwriter on a
negotiated underwriting and a dealer acting as a financial advisor on a
competitive deal would be required to ensure that final CUSIP number
assignment occurs prior to the formal award of the new issue.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Under existing provisions of Rule G-34, dealers frequently
apply for CUSIP numbers before interest rates are determined. In
these cases, the dealer must provide the final interest rate
information as soon as it becomes available. The proposed rule
change would clarify that a dealer must update any of the required
information that changes after an initial application as soon as the
new information becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule G-34 currently requires the underwriter in a competitive sale
to apply for CUSIP numbers if an application has not already been made
by the issuer or the issuer's representative. The MSRB understands that
CUSIP numbers for competitively sold issues generally are assigned by
the date of sale, but that on occasion this is not done.\11\ Dealers
have noted that, in these situations, automated trade processing and
real-time trade reporting for the issue may be delayed because of the
time necessary for the underwriter to obtain CUSIP numbers after the
formal award. The proposed rule change would clarify the underwriter's
existing responsibility in such situations to apply for CUSIP numbers
immediately after receiving the award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As noted above, in competitive sales where a dealer serves
as financial advisor, Rule G-34 requires the dealer to apply for
CUSIP numbers. However, in competitive sales where there is no
dealer financial advisor, there is no other dealer associated with
the issue prior to the date of sale that can be charged under MSRB
rules with the responsibility to make a pre-sale application for
CUSIP numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Underwriter Requirement To Provide Information to NIIDS Within Certain
Deadlines
    The proposed rule change would require underwriters to transmit new
issue information to NIIDS within deadlines that are intended to ensure
that the information reaches information vendors and is further re-
disseminated for use in automated trade processing systems by the time
that trade executions begin in a new issue. The specific items of
information required to be submitted are those generally considered
necessary for automated trade processing in an issue and are designated
in the NIIDS system as items necessary for ``Trade Eligibility.''
    Underwriters would be required to submit this information
electronically in accordance with the methods and formats stated for
NIIDS system users. The information could be provided through computer-
to-computer links or through a web interface allowing manual input of
data. Although the underwriter would be ultimately responsible for
timely, comprehensive and accurate data submission, the proposed rule
change would allow for use of an intermediary to accomplish this
function.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Several industry vendors that provide ``bookrunning''
services to underwriters on new issues have indicated that they plan
to offer a service to transmit information about a new issue to
NIIDS on behalf of the underwriter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NIIDS is designed so that, once CUSIP numbers are assigned to a new
issue, information about the issue can be submitted as it becomes
available. The proposed rule change would require underwriters to
provide information specified by NIIDS as required for Trade
Eligibility as soon as it is available, with a final deadline for all
such information to be provided no later than two hours after the Time
of Formal Award, which would be redefined as discussed below. The
proposed rule change also states that only the hours between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Eastern on an RTRS Business Day are counted for purposes of the
timetables listed in the draft amendments. For example, if the Time of
Formal Award occurs at 6 p.m. Eastern, the timetables listed in the
proposed rule change would not commence until 9 a.m. Eastern on the
next RTRS Business Day.
Revised Definition of ``Time of Formal Award''
    The Time of Formal Award represents the earliest time that a dealer
can execute transactions in a new issue and is used currently in Rule
G-34 and in the proposed rule change to set certain deadlines. The
proposed rule change includes a minor change to the current definition
of ``Time of Formal Award'' for purposes of Rule G-34 timetables. The
MSRB understands that underwriters are not always present at the time
the issuer executes a bond purchase agreement or formally confirms an
award of a competitive issue. Some time may elapse between this time
and the time at which the underwriter becomes aware of the issuer's
action and this delay may not be under the control of the underwriter.
To address this issue, the proposed rule change states that for
purposes of Rule G-34, ``Time of Formal Award'' is defined as:
     For competitive issues, the later of the time the issuer
formally awards the issue or the time the issuer notifies the
underwriter of the award; and,
     for negotiated issues, the later of the time the contract
to purchase the securities from the issuer is executed or the time the
issuer notifies the underwriter of its execution of the agreement.
    The Time of Formal Award is one of the required information items
to be submitted to NIIDS. Therefore, it would be subject to the general
requirement to be submitted as soon as it is available as well as the
ultimate deadline for submission of all required data, which is two
hours after the Time of Formal Award. These requirements should ensure
that all information necessary for trade reporting is available through
NIIDS no later than two hours after the Time of Formal Award.
``Time of First Execution'' and Advance Notification Requirement
    The second major component of the amendments to Rule G-34 is an
advance notification requirement that would ensure that all dealers
have advance notification of the underwriter's planned time for first
trade executions and can be prepared to process trade executions by
that time. The MSRB understands that under current industry practices,
underwriters do not always disseminate the time that they intend to
begin trade executions. Consequently, dealers that are not in the
underwriting group sometimes do not know when their own transactions in
the issue should begin and this may negatively affect the ability of
those dealers to report their initial transactions in a timely and
accurate manner or to coordinate their reported time of trade execution
on inter-dealer transactions with members of the underwriting group.
    To address this concern, the proposed rule change would require the
underwriter of a new issue to disseminate the ``Time of First
Execution,'' which is the underwriter's anticipated time for beginning
trade executions in a new issue. Once an underwriter has completed the
submission of all required information to NIIDS, the information then
will need to be re-disseminated to other dealers that may have trades
in the issue and these dealers (and service bureaus) will need to ``set
up'' automated trade processing systems with the new issue information.
To allow time for this

process to occur, the underwriter would be required to provide a Time
of First Execution that is at least two hours after the time that all
required information is provided to NIIDS.
    The proposed rule change would accommodate several situations that
may occur in the underwriting of new issues of municipal securities.
For example, the underwriter would be allowed to submit an anticipated
Time of Formal Award rather than wait for the actual Time of Formal
Award if the underwriter and issuer have agreed in advance on a Time of
Formal Award. This may be the case if the formal award is a scheduled
pro forma requirement by an issuer's governing body and all details
necessary for the formal award have been finalized and submitted to
NIIDS in advance. The underwriter could in this case complete its
submission to NIIDS using the anticipated Time of Formal Award. By
doing this, the underwriter could schedule its Time of First Execution
to occur immediately after the formal award, rather than waiting two
hours. Any changes to these times would require correction in NIIDS as
soon as known. As long as the two-hour notification period has been met
once, however, it would not be necessary to start a new notification
period as a result of minor adjustments to the Time of Formal Award or
Time of First Execution.
Amendments to Rules G-8 and G-9
    The proposed rule change includes amendments to the MSRB's
recordkeeping rules that would require an underwriter to retain for
three years a record of the Time of Formal Award, a copy of the
notification from DTCC indicating that a new issue received Trade
Eligibility status in NIIDS and the Time of First Execution. This would
provide a record showing whether the underwriter provided information
necessary for Trade Eligibility no later than two hours after the Time
of Formal Award and whether the underwriter provided at least two hours
advance notification of the Time of First Execution.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\13\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

    Be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to
produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it would apply equally
to all brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers.

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

    On March 5, 2007, the MSRB published for comment an exposure draft
of the proposed rule change \14\ (the ``March 2007 draft
amendments'').\15\ While the MSRB did not request comment on the
amendments to Rule G-8 and G-9, these amendments were included in the
proposed rule change to provide enforcement agencies with information
necessary to gauge compliance with the amendments to Rule G-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See MSRB Notice 2007-10 (March 5, 2007).
    \15\ The March 2007 draft amendments also included amendments to
Rule G-14 that would create a new Conditional Trading Commitment
(CTC) special condition indicator. The CTC indicator is not included
in the proposed rule change as it is still under consideration by
the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB received comments on the March 2007 draft amendments from
the following commentators:

--Bear Stearns and Co., Inc.
--Standard and Poor's CUSIP Service Bureau (``CUSIP'').
--First Southwest Company (``First Southwest'').
--J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, Inc. (``Hilliard Lyons'').
--Joe Jolly and Co., Inc.
--Lehman Brothers (``Lehman'').
--Roosevelt and Cross, Inc. (``Roosevelt and Cross'').
--Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'').
--Wiley Bros.

    While many of the commentators made specific suggestions on details
of the March 2007 draft amendments, commentators were generally
supportive. SIFMA ``supports * * * efforts by the MSRB to improve the
efficiency of new issue information to the market necessary for dealers
to comply with price reporting requirements.'' Hilliard Lyons stated
``the centralization of an electronic system for new issue trade
processing is a change that the industry has been eager for
implementation * * * [and the MSRB's] proposal would alleviate the
duplication of information that is sent to numerous vendors and would
cut down on the time needed to process new issues.'' Roosevelt and
Cross agreed ``with the philosophy of a central issue facility, which
would make more information available on a timely basis and would
increase transparency in the municipal marketplace.''

Timing of CUSIP Number Assignment

    CUSIP numbers are a required data element for automated trade
processing and reporting systems and are a prerequisite for entry of
new issue information into NIIDS. Rule G-34 currently requires that
CUSIP numbers be assigned prior to the Time of Formal Award for
underwriters of negotiated issues and for dealer financial advisors on
competitive issues. The March 2007 draft amendments included new
deadlines designed to ensure that CUSIP number assignment occurs as
soon as possible in the underwriting so that information submission to
NIIDS could occur as early as possible. The March 2007 draft amendments
stated the following requirements:
     Managing underwriter of negotiated issue--apply for CUSIP
number assignment within one business day of dissemination of a
Preliminary Official Statement (POS); for issues sold without a POS,
apply no later than the time pricing information is finalized.
     Dealer financial advisor on competitive issue--apply for
CUSIP number assignment within one business day of dissemination of a
POS; for issues sold without a POS, apply within one business day of a
notice of sale.
     Managing underwriter of competitive issue with no pre-
assigned CUSIP numbers--apply immediately after receiving notification
of award and ensure that CUSIP numbers are assigned prior to
transmitting Time of First Execution to NIIDS.
    While CUSIP stated that it ``has always encouraged industry
participants to apply for CUSIP numbers as early as possible'' and
supports the proposed changes to Rule G-34 that would advance the
timing of CUSIP number assignment, several commentators opposed a
requirement to apply for

CUSIP numbers earlier in an underwriting. SIFMA and First Southwest
recommended that the existing requirements for CUSIP number assignment
remain unchanged because information about a new issue is not always
final at the time of the dissemination of a POS. SIFMA stated that
``the maturity schedule in a POS is tentative and very likely to change
requiring underwriters to revise the application'' and noted that
``while CUSIP numbers can be revised, the revisions result in numbers
being out of sequence, and out of sequence numbers raise questions by
investors and traders, as well as complicating operations.'' SIFMA
noted that underwriters that want to set an early Time of First
Execution would be required to apply for CUSIP numbers earlier than is
currently required under Rule G-34; however, while this may occur in
some instances, the MSRB believes that many underwriters will continue
to postpone making an application for CUSIP number assignment until
shortly before the Time of Formal Award.
    If a POS is not disseminated on a new issue, the March 2007 draft
amendments included an alternative deadline for making a CUSIP number
application. For a negotiated issue, the March 2007 draft amendments
proposed requiring an underwriter to apply for CUSIP numbers at the
time that pricing information is determined. For a dealer financial
advisor on a competitive issue, the March 2007 draft amendments
proposed requiring the dealer financial advisor to apply for CUSIP
numbers within one business day of a notice of sale. The MSRB decided
to use these alternative deadlines in the proposed rule change as they
occur later in an underwriting than the time that a POS would typically
be disseminated, but in advance of the Time of Formal Award, and should
have the desired effect of advancing the timing of CUSIP number
assignment.

Definition of ``Time of Formal Award''

    The March 2007 draft amendments revised the definition of ``Time of
Formal Award'' to take into consideration that time may elapse between
the time of the issuer's action and the time the underwriter becomes
aware of the issuer's action. Although commentators were supportive of
the revised definition of Time of Formal Award, SIFMA clarified that
for a competitive transaction they ``interpret time of formal award not
to occur before there is a set quantity and price,'' a definition with
which the MSRB agrees.
New Issue Information Necessary for Trade Reporting
    To ensure that all information necessary for transaction reporting
is made available to market participants as quickly as possible, the
March 2007 draft amendments would require underwriters to transmit to
NIIDS all new issue information designated in the NIIDS system as
necessary for ``Trade Eligibility'' no later than two hours of the Time
of Formal Award and include the Time of Formal Award (or the planned
Time of Formal Award) as part of the information transmitted to NIIDS.
The MSRB requested comment on whether the two-hour period after the
Time of Formal Award for completing the information submission to NIIDS
would be sufficient and whether the time period should be different for
negotiated and competitive underwritings.
    Commentators were supportive of the two-hour timeframe for
completing the communication to NIIDS of new issue information
designated as necessary for ``Trade Eligibility'' for negotiated
issues. However, Lehman proposed a longer period of three hours for
competitive issues, citing inefficient communication with issuers who
do not retain professional financial services. Wiley Bros. suggested
revisiting the issue after the system has been implemented for a six-
month period to determine whether the two hour period should be
shortened or lengthened. The MSRB notes that it will review the
deadlines in the proposed rule change once NIIDS is implemented and
dealers gain system experience.
Time of First Execution and Advance Notification Requirements
    To ensure that dealers that are not part of the underwriting group
for the new issue are apprised of the time that the underwriter will
initiate trade executions in the new issue and to ensure that those
dealers will be prepared to process and report their own transactions
in a timely manner, the March 2007 draft amendments included a
requirement for underwriters to disseminate the Time of First Execution
through NIIDS and provide a Time of First Execution that is no earlier
than two hours after all required new issue information has been
provided to NIIDS.
    The MSRB noted that, while electronically formatted information can
be retransmitted immediately, it believes that the two-hour advance
notification period prior to the Time of First Execution would be
sufficient for vendors, dealers, and service bureaus to receive and
enter information disseminated from NIIDS into their own systems. While
all comments received on the two-hour advance notification period prior
to the Time of First Execution indicate support, First Southwest noted
that this timeframe should ``be reviewed as the industry gains
experience with the NIIDS submission process.'' Similarly, SIFMA
commented that ``it may be useful for the MSRB to have the flexibility
to make adjustments in response to circumstances'' that may arise after
continued use of the NIIDS system. The MSRB notes that it will review
the two hour advance notification period once NIIDS is implemented and
dealers gain system experience.
Timely Trade Reporting and Underwriter Flexibility
    For the various requirements for submitting information to NIIDS
and setting a Time of First Execution, the March 2007 draft amendments
state that only the hours between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time on an
RTRS Business Day are counted. A major implication of this is that an
underwriter that does not obtain and transmit all required data
elements to NIIDS by 3 p.m. Eastern Time would not be able to set a
Time of First Execution on that day.
    The MSRB noted that this may present difficulties for West Coast
underwriters, and requested suggestions for alternative approaches to
help address time zone issues. Lehman and Wiley Bros. agreed that the 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. hours are sufficient, adding only that ``a provision
should be included for `early closes.' ''
Proposed Effective Dates of the Draft Amendments
    The MSRB requested comment on how much lead time would be necessary
for underwriters to implement the changes required to use the NIIDS
system and for dealers to implement the CTC indicator. Most
commentators noted that it is difficult to commit to a time frame until
NIIDS has been implemented and experience with the system has been
gained. Lehman noted that ``as this a major change in the way of doing
business, a long lead time would be warranted.'' First Southwest and
SIFMA both noted that at least six months should be allowed after NIIDS
is implemented for dealers to program the changes required.
    Roosevelt and Cross suggested a tiered approach for requiring the
submission of NIIDS data requirements, citing potential ``unfair
processing burdens on managing underwriters.'' Roosevelt and Cross
proposed splitting the required

data elements into two components, requiring only data elements
essential to completing the transaction to be inputted at the time of
sale and the remaining elements within 24 hours. The MSRB notes that a
SIFMA/DTCC task force identified the data elements about a new issue as
necessary for automated trade processing of when-issued trades. This
information is designated in NIIDS as information necessary for ``Trade
Eligibility.'' While the MSRB recognizes that the proposed rule change
would represent a significant change for underwriters, one of the
objectives is to ensure that all dealers have access to information
necessary to process and report trades in new issues in real-time.
Short-Term Instruments with Less than Nine Months in Effective Maturity
    The MSRB also requested comment on whether certain types of new
issues of municipal securities have special characteristics or use
different ``bookrunning'' services that would present difficulties for
underwriters to comply with the draft amendments to Rule G-34. SIFMA
stated that short-term instruments with less than nine months in
effective maturity, such as variable rate instruments, auction rate
products and commercial paper, ``each have operational issues that
present problems distinct from long-term fixed-rate securities'' that
would make complying with the NIIDS data dissemination requirement
difficult. SIFMA noted that ``intermediaries may not be available to
process the fields for Trade Eligibility with the result that
underwriters may themselves be required to populate the fields and have
systems in place to enter the data in the two hour period allowed by
the proposed rule.''
    The MSRB notes that trades in short-term instruments with less than
nine months in effective maturity qualify for an end-of-day exception
from real-time transaction reporting. Therefore, one of the primary
purposes of the March 2007 draft amendments, to improve timely real-
time transaction reporting of new issues, does not necessarily apply.
While underwriters would be able to manually input information about a
new issue to NIIDS through a web interface, the MSRB believes that the
burden of complying with the requirement in the March 2007 draft
amendments to transmit to NIIDS all new issue information designated as
necessary for ``Trade Eligibility'' no later than two hours of the Time
of Formal Award for short term instruments with less than nine months
in effective maturity would not be warranted given the marginal benefit
to price transparency that would be achieved. The MSRB decided that the
NIIDS data dissemination requirement for new issues that have an
effective maturity of nine months or less should be phased in at a
later time once intermediaries or dealer systems are able to submit
information about such securities to NIIDS electronically.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The MSRB notes that Trade Eligibility information on short
term instruments with less than nine months in effective maturity
would still be required to be submitted to DTCC in connection with
an underwriter's requirement to apply for depository eligibility
under Rule G-34(a)(ii)(A), but would not be subject to the
requirement to communicate such information not later than two hours
after the Time of Formal Award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-MSRB-2007-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2007-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2007-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 7, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-732 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


DATE: 	July 11, 2012

SUBJECT: 	Questions Concerning Performance Tests Conducted at Southwire
Corporation in 				Hawesville, KY, in 2007

FROM:	Mark Bahner, RTI International

TO: 		Rochelle Boyd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The purpose of this memorandum is to document technical questions
related to testing that was conducted at Southwire Corporation in
Hawesville, KY, in 2007. All tables are located at the end of the
memorandum. All questions are numbered and in italics.

A. 	Background

Tests were conducted on uncontrolled furnaces at Southwire Corporation
in Hawesville, KY. Testing was also conducted on an in-line fluxer, but
the questions in the memorandum concern the testing conducted on the
furnaces.

Testing was performed for PM, HCl and PCDD/PCDF from April 30 – May
02, 2007 at Furnace #5 in Mill 3, and reported on June 26, 2007. Testing
was performed for PM, HCl and PCDD/PCDF from July 17 – 19, 2007 at a
Group 1 furnace located in Rod Mill 1 and reported on September 5, 2007.
Testing was performed on a furnace stack and also on a temporary canopy
hood, which was installed for the test, to capture emissions not
directed through the furnace stack.

A summary of the results of the testing is presented in four tables in
Appendix A to this memorandum. The four tables are:

Table A1: This table presents data from the June 26, 2007 report. The
data included pollutant emissions in pounds per hour and test sampling
time. These are converted into total mass measured, so that the total
emissions from the furnace stack can be compared to the total emissions
in the canopy hood stack.

Table A2: This table presents data from the June 26, 2007 report. The
data are exclusively in pounds and the table includes a calculation of
the percentage of pollutants emitted through the canopy hood stack
versus the total mass of pollutants emitted through both the canopy hood
stack and the furnace stack.

Table A3: This table presents data from the September 5, 2007 report.
The data included pollutant emissions in pounds per hour and test
sampling time. These are converted into total mass measured, so that the
total emissions from the furnace stack can be compared to the total
emissions in the canopy hood stack.

Table A4: This table presents data from the September 5, 2007 report.
The data are exclusively in pounds and the table includes a calculation
of the percentage of pollutants emitted through the canopy hood stack
versus the total mass of pollutants emitted through both the canopy hood
stack and the furnace stack.

B.	Furnace and Canopy Hood Sampling Times

One aspect of this testing, regarding sampling time at the canopy hoods
versus the furnace stacks, potentially affects the results. In the
testing reported on June 26, 2007, sampling at the furnace stack was
performed from 7.7 to 8 hours per run, whereas sampling at the canopy
hood was performed for 3.0 to 3.33 hours per run. This is consistent
with the concept that emissions captured by the canopy hood would only
occur during furnace charging, whereas emissions through the furnace
stack would occur throughout the cycle (charging, melting, and tapping)
which presumably lasted 7.7 to 8.0 hours. However, in the testing
reported on September 5, 2007, testing at the furnace stack was
performed for 3.2 hours per run, whereas testing at the canopy hood was
performed for 3.0 hours per run. This could mean that the complete
furnace cycle was only 0.2 hours longer than the charging period, or it
could be a mistake in the testing reported on September 5, 2007, such
that the testing at the furnace stack did not occur throughout the
entire furnace cycle. If the testing reported on September 5th did
indeed not sample from the furnace stack throughout the furnace cycle,
then the ratio of emissions in the canopy hood stack  to total emissions
would be biased high. The testing of the furnace stack on September 5,
2007 apparently was conducted for an average of 3.2 hours per run.

Questions:

1a)	Was the 3.2 hours of sampling at the furnace stack (in the September
5 report) the entire 	furnace cycle?

2a)	If not, how long was the furnace cycle?

1b)	Was the 7.8 hours of sampling at the furnace stack (in the June 26
report) the entire furnace 	cycle?

2b)	If not, how long was the furnace cycle?

C.	Potential Dilution Air in the Stack

Average temperatures and flow rates during the stack testing were as
shown in Table 1. The flow rates from the furnaces seem somewhat large
(10210 dscfm and 6197 dscfm, for the June 26, 2007 and September 5, 2007
reports, respectively) and the temperatures seem somewhat low (307 (F
and 379 (F, for the June 26, 2007 and September 5, 2007 reports,
respectively).

Question:

3)	Was there any dilution air in the furnace stacks for either the
testing reported on June 26, 2007 or the testing reported on September
5, 2007? (“Dilution air” means air that is not drawn through the
furnace, but instead is introduced into a duct downstream of the
furnace, to dilute/cool the furnace exhaust gas.)

D.	Potential for Emissions from the Furnace to be Drawn into the Canopy
Hoods

The canopy hoods were installed for the purposes of testing. The flow
rate to the canopy hoods was larger than the flow rate to the furnace
stacks. This raises the possibility that emissions that would normally
be drawn into the furnace might actually be drawn into the canopy hood
stacks.

Question:

4)	Does anyone who witnessed the testing have a memory of furnace
emissions that would normally be drawn into the furnace instead being
drawn into the canopy hoods? (It is understandable if no one who
witnessed the testing in 2007 can remember such a detail five years
later.)

E.	Results in the Form of the Emission Standards

The test reports do not have data reported in the form of the emission
standards, which are production-based (i.e., the standards for hydrogen
chloride and particulate are in pounds per ton of charge, and the
dioxin/furan standard is in terms of micrograms per megagram of charge).

Question:

5)	Is there information available that puts the test results reported on
June 26, 2007 and September 5, 2007 into the form of the standards, so
that it can be determined how the results compare with the standards?

F.	Amount of Time Furnace Doors were Open for Furnace Charging

The amount of time furnace doors are open for furnace charging
potentially affects the distribution of emissions in the canopy hood
stacks versus the furnace stacks.

Question:

6)	Is there any information regarding the amount of time the furnace
doors were open for charging during the 2007 tests? (It may be that
there typical times are known for present operations, even if specific
times are not available for the 2007 testing.)

List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \t "Table Title,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc315445237"  Table 1.
    Southwire Temperature and Flow Rate Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc315445237
\h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc315445240"  Table A1.  Southwire Testing Reported
June 26, 2007: Complete Test Results	  PAGEREF _Toc315445240 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc315445241"  Table A2.  Southwire Testing Reported on
June 26, 2007: Results in Pounds	  PAGEREF _Toc315445241 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc315445242"  Table A3.  Southwire Testing Reported
September 5, 2007: Complete Test Results	  PAGEREF _Toc315445242 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc315445243"  Table A4.  Southwire Testing Reported on
September 5, 2007: Results in Pounds	  PAGEREF _Toc315445243 \h  10

Table 1. Southwire Temperature and Flow Rate Summary

Test Report Date	Sampling Location	Average Flow Rate (dscfm)	Average
Temperature ((F)

June 26, 2007	Rod Mill 1 – Furnace Stack	10,210	307

June 26, 2007	Rod Mill 1 – Canopy Hood Stack	23,157	130

September 5, 2007	Rod Mill 3 – Furnace 5 Stack
  (Dirty Charge Test)	6,197	379

September 5, 2007	Rod Mill 3 – Canopy Hood Stack
    (Dirty Charge Test)	27,813	113

Appendix A

Southwire Test Results

Table A1.  Southwire Testing Reported June 26, 2007: Complete Test
Results

* reported as 2378-TCDD equivalent

Table A2.  Southwire Testing Reported on June 26, 2007: Results in
Pounds

Table A3.  Southwire Testing Reported September 5, 2007: Complete Test
Results

Table A4.  Southwire Testing Reported on September 5, 2007: Results in
Pounds

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  6


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1422-1423]
[FR Doc No: 2011-198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

January 4, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-60-001.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.203: Miscellaneous Compliance Filing to be effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101220-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 7, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1283-002.
    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.
    Description: WestGas InterState, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.203: 20101222--Compliance Filing Re Baseline to be effective 9/8/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101222-5264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 7, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1602-001.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP.
    Description: Northwest Pipeline GP submits tariff filing per
154.205(b): Northwest Pipeline GP--Misc. Filing Substitute Sheets to be
effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 7, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1623-001.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Errata to Negotiated Rate Filing to be
effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/21/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101221-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 7, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-198 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9486]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-
2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-27897]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on February 10, 2010 (75 FR 1451).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 13 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Donald J. Bierwirth, Jr., Ronald D. Boeve, Arthur
L. Bousema, Matthew W. Daggs, Donald R. Date, Jr., John E. Kimmet, Jr.,
Robert C. Leathers, Jason L. Light, Robert Mollicone, Kenneth R.
Murphy, Robert A. Sherry, Stephen G. Sniffin, and John R. Snyder.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: February 19, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-4251 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43214-43215]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18875]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2016-0680; FRL-9966-54-Region 6]

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and
Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) identified a variety of State-initiated changes
to Arkansas' hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA proposes to authorize the
State for the program changes. In addition, the EPA proposes to codify
in the regulations entitled ``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management
Programs'', Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will
incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that
the EPA will enforce under RCRA. The purpose of this Federal Register
document is to codify Arkansas' base hazardous waste management program
and its revisions to that program.

DATES: Send written comments by October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2016-0680 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, RCRA Permit Section (RPM), Multimedia Division, EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permit
Section (RPM), Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-
2016-0680. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The Federal
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. You can view and copy the documents that form the
basis for this authorization and codification and associated publicly
available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the
office at least two weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permit Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia
Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA has already provided notices and
opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to codify the
Arkansas program, and the EPA is not now reopening the decisions, nor
requesting comments, on the Arkansas authorization program. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
authorizing the State-initiated changes to the Arkansas

program, in addition to codifying and incorporating by reference the
State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule because we
believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments
that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this authorization
and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final
rule. Unless we receive written comments which oppose the authorization
in this codification document during the comment period, the direct
final rule will become effective 60 days after publication and we will
not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that
oppose the authorization, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it
will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a
later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another
opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you
must do so at this time.
    For additional information, please see the direct final rule
published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register.

    Authority:  This rule is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: July 27, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2017-18875 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16866-16867]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0524]

Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products; Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a revised final guidance for industry entitled
``Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.'' The revised guidance
document is intended to assist persons making tobacco product
ingredient submissions to FDA as required by the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act).

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on April 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2009-D-0524 for ``Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed

except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure
law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public
dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information
at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the revised draft
guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Collins or Deirdre Jurand,
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a revised guidance for
industry entitled ``Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.'' The
revised guidance document is intended to assist persons making tobacco
product ingredient submissions to FDA as required by the Tobacco
Control Act.
    We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance
practices (GGP) regulation (Sec.  10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are
implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have
determined that prior public participation is not feasible or
appropriate given the requirement that ingredient listing submissions
be submitted by May 8, 2018 (Sec.  10.115(g)(2)). We made this
determination because FDA needs to timely communicate that the guidance
presents a less burdensome policy that is consistent with the public
health and clarifies ways in which tobacco product manufacturers and
importers can submit ingredient listing submissions as required by
section 904(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act) (21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(1)). Although this guidance document is
immediately effective, it remains subject to comment in accordance with
FDA's GGP regulation.
    The Tobacco Control Act, enacted on June 22, 2009, amends the FD&C
Act and provides FDA with the authority to regulate the manufacture,
marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public
health (Pub. L. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776). Among its many provisions, the
Tobacco Control Act added section 904 to the FD&C Act, establishing
requirements for tobacco product ingredient submissions.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This revised guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on listing of ingredients in tobacco
products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This revised guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The revised draft guidance
includes information and recommendations for how to provide ingredient
listing submissions for tobacco products. These collections of
information are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in section 904(a)(1) of the FD&C
Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0650.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic
version of the revised guidance at either https://www.regulations.gov
or https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm. Use the FDA website listed in the
previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: April 11, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-07973 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 37809]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15025]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0678; FRL-9533-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mineral Wool
Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2012-0678, to: 1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0678, which is available for either public
viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1799.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0362.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2013. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to either conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDD.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit an
initial notification report, performance tests, and periodic reports
and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records
of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which
the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually
at a minimum.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operator of mineral wool
production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6.
    Frequency of Response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,581. ``Burden'' is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3 (b).
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $157,566, which includes $153,066 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $4,500 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the respondent
labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to
two considerations: (1) The reporting requirements have not changed
over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the
next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low,
negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the
overall labor hours. However, there is an adjustment increase in the
respondent labor costs due to the use of updated labor rates.
    There is a decrease in Agency labor hours and costs due to a
mathematical correction. The previous ICR incorrectly calculated the
number of hours associated with review of excess emissions reports.
This ICR corrects the error, which results in a decrease of 55 hours
and an associated decrease in labor costs.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-15025 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16399-16400]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF11-158-000.
    Applicants: Alcor Energy Solutions, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Alcor Energy Solutions, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110228-5120.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    Docket Numbers: QF11-160-000.
    Applicants: Peak Oilfield Service Company.
    Description: Form 556 of Peak Oilfield Service Company under QF11-
160.
    Filed Date: 03/02/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110302-5058.
    Comment Date: None Applicable.

    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status

may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of
qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-
recertifications.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 14, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6766 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15041-15043]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1176; Product Identifier 2017-NM-123-AD; Amendment
39-19237; AD 2018-07-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after
landing rollout. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM) by adding an autobrake system limitation. This AD also requires
modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which terminates the
AFM limitation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 14, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 14,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1176.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1176; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, 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: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

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 The Boeing Company
Model 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 80). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of restricted movement of the right brake pedals after landing
rollout. The NPRM proposed to require revising the AFM by adding an
autobrake system limitation. The NPRM also proposed to require
modifying intercostal webs near a main entry door, which would
terminate the AFM limitation revision. We are issuing this AD to
prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect
stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This
restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral
runway excursion.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing stated
its support for the NPRM.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB,
dated September 6, 2017. This service information describes procedures
for modifying intercostal webs near main entry door 3 by drilling two
drain holes in the station-18 intercostal web at door stop 8 and
applying sealant at the fore-aft drain path of the upper main sill web
at station 16 near door 3R and door 3L. 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 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                         Labor cost             Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision......................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =              $0             $85            $170
                                     $85.
Modification......................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour           (\1\)             850           1,700
                                     = $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide parts cost estimates for the modification
  specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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):

2018-07-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19237; Docket No. FAA-
2017-1176; Product Identifier 2017-NM-123-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 14, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017,
except for airplanes having line numbers 1443, 1451, 1453, 1456,
1470, 1472, 1475, 1477, 1480, 1492, 1494, 1497, 1498, 1500, 1503,
1511, 1512, 1513, and 1514.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of restricted movement of the
brake pedals after landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to
prevent restricted motion of the brake pedals, which can affect
stopping performance and directional control of the airplane. This
restricted motion can lead to high speed runway excursion or lateral
runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating the limitation
specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09AP18.000

(h) Terminating Action for AFM Limitation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
747-32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017, except where the
requirements bulletin specifies applying sealant, the following type
of sealant must be used: BMS 5-142, TYPE 2; BMS 5-95; PR-1826; or
PR-1828. Doing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates
the AFM limitation revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
The AFM limitation required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be
removed from the AFM after accomplishing the actions specified in
this paragraph.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing
the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD can be found in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2525, dated September 6, 2017,
which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-
32A2525 RB, dated September 6, 2017.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed, except as provided by paragraph (j) of
this AD.

(j) Ferry Flight Limitations

    Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to the
autobrake system being inoperative may perform a one-time non-
revenue ferry flight to fly the airplane to a maintenance facility
to either fix the autobrake system or incorporate the terminating
action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. This ferry flight must
be performed without passengers, and with interior modifications to
allow heated cabin air to warm the brake control cables and pulleys
in the vicinity of door 3L and door 3R. These interior modifications
must include, at a minimum, temporarily removing the side panels and
insulation immediately aft of door 3L and door 3R.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, Seattle ACO
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-32A2525 RB, dated
September 6, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (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 Des Moines, Washington, on March 22, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-06710 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P