[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11960]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0081]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in
the Annual Cesar Chavez March. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on March
26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0081 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0081 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower
Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other
times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is
given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on March 26, 2011 to allow the community to
participate in the Annual Cesar Chavez March. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. There are no scheduled river
boat cruises or anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation
period. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time. In the event of
an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 15 minutes advance notice.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 17, 2011.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-4853 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68602-68603]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0053; Notice 2]

BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, Inc. (BMW) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2015 MINI Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S
hardtop 4 door passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraph
S4.2.3(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226,
Ejection Mitigation. BMW has filed an appropriate report dated May 20,
2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Karen
Nuschler, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), BMW submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 1, 2015 in the Federal Register (80
FR 52845). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0053.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 4,208 MY 2015
MINI Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S hardtop 4 door
passenger cars manufactured from February 25, 2015 to April 24, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: BMW explains that written information
describing the ejection mitigation countermeasure installed in the
vehicles was not provided to the vehicle consumers as required by
paragraph S4.2.3(a) of FMVSS No. 226.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2.3 of FMVSS No. 226 requires in
pertinent part:

    S4.2.3 Written information.
    (a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation countermeasure that
deploys in the event of a rollover must be described as such in the
vehicle's owner manual or in other written information provided by
the vehicle manufacturer to the consumer. . . .

    V. Summary of BMW's Arguments: BMW stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. A summary of its reasoning is provided as
follows. Detailed explanations of its reasoning are included in its
petition:
    1. The vehicles are equipped with a countermeasure that meets the
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 226.
    2. The owner's manuals contain a description of the ejection
mitigation countermeasure in the context of side impact.
    3. The owner's manuals contain precautions related to the [ejection
mitigation] system even though not required by FMVSS No. 226.
    4. The [ejection mitigation] system uses the FMVSS No. 208 required
readiness indicator, as allowed by FMVSS No. 226.
    5. BMW has not received any customer complaints due to this issue.
    6. BMW is not aware of any accidents or injuries due to this issue.
    7. NHTSA may have granted similar manufacturer petitions re owner's
manuals.
    8. BMW has corrected the noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 226.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA believes that while written information was
not provided to vehicle owners describing the installed head air bags
(side curtain) as vehicle occupant ejection mitigation countermeasures
that deploy in the event of a rollover, the owner's manuals for the
affected vehicles otherwise effectively describe, and illustrate the
location of, the head air bags. NHTSA also believes that the status of
the head air bags is monitored by the vehicle's air bag readiness
indicator intended to show operational readiness of the entire airbag
system. Therefore, drivers should be alerted to a malfunction of the
head air bags that are intended to provide ejection countermeasures in
the event of a rollover event, and occupant protection in the event of
a significant side impact event.
    BMW has also reported that they have not received any complaints
from vehicle owners regarding the subject noncompliance and that
vehicle production was corrected so that the noncompliance did not
occur in subsequent vehicles. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the
foregoing, NHTSA has decided that BMW has met its burden of persuasion
that the subject FMVSS No. 226 noncompliance in the affected vehicles
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, BMW's petition
is hereby granted and BMW is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
Granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-28130 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40523-40525]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16075]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69892]

Order Exempting Market Makers Participating in NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC's Market Quality Program From Section 11(d)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 11d1-2 Thereunder

June 28, 2013.
    On March 13, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') approved a proposed rule change of the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NASDAQ'') to add new

NASDAQ Rule 5950 (``New Rule 5950'') to establish the Market Quality
Program (``MQP'' or ``Program'').\1\ In connection with the Program, on
a voluntary pilot basis, an MQP Company \2\ may list an eligible MQP
Security \3\ on NASDAQ and in addition to the standard (non-MQP) NASDAQ
listing fee, a sponsor may pay a fee (``MQP Fee'') \4\ that will be
used for the purpose of incentivizing one or more market makers
participating in the MQP (``MQP Market Makers'') to enhance the market
quality of an MQP Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69195, (Mar. 20, 2013)
(``Approval Order''). The Approval Order contains a detailed
description of the MQP. On December 7, 2012, NASDAQ filed with the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') and Rule 19b-4
thereunder, a proposed rule change to establish the MQP. The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 31, 2012.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68515 (Dec. 21, 2012), 77 FR
77141 (Dec. 31, 2012) (``Notice''). On February 7, 2013, NASDAQ
submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. On February
8, 2013 NASDAQ withdrew Amendment No. 2 due to a technical error in
that amendment and submitted Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule
change. As noted in the Approval Order, Amendment No. 3 provided
clarification to the proposed rule change and did not require notice
and comment. On February 14, 2013, the Commission designated a
longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule
change. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68925 (Feb. 14, 2013),
78 FR 12116 (Feb. 21, 2013). The Approval Order grants approval of
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 3.
    \2\ The term ``MQP Company'' means the trust or company housing
the exchange traded fund (``ETF'') or, if the ETF is not a series of
a trust or company, then the ETF itself. New Rule 5950(e)(5).
    \3\ The term ``MQP Security'' means an ETF security issued by an
MQP Company that meets all of the requirements to be listed on
NASDAQ pursuant to Rule 5705. New Rule 5950(e)(1).
    \4\ The MQP Fee, as described more fully in New Rule 5950(b)(2),
consists of an annual basic MQP Fee, and may include an additional
annual supplemental fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 11(d)(1) of the Exchange Act \5\ generally prohibits a
broker-dealer from extending or maintaining credit, or arranging for
the extension or maintenance of credit, on shares of new issue
securities, if the broker-dealer participated in the distribution of
the new issue securities within the preceding 30 days. The Commission's
view is that shares of open-end investment companies and unit
investment trusts registered under the 1940 Act, such as ETF shares,
are distributed in a continuous manner, and broker-dealers that sell
such securities are therefore participating in the ``distribution'' of
a new issue for purposes of Section 11(d)(1).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(d)(1).
    \6\ See, e.g., Exchange Act Release Nos. 6726 (Feb. 8, 1962), 27
FR 1415 (Feb. 15, 1962) and 21577 (Dec. 18, 1984), 49 FR 50174 (Dec.
27, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Division of Trading and Markets, acting under delegated
authority, granted an exemption from Section 11(d)(1) and Rule 11d1-2
thereunder for broker-dealers that have entered into an agreement with
an ETF's distributor to place orders with the distributor to purchase
or redeem the ETF's shares (``Broker-Dealer APs'').\7\ The SIA
Exemption allows a Broker-Dealer AP to extend or maintain credit, or
arrange for the extension or maintenance of credit, to or for customers
on the shares of qualifying ETFs subject to the condition that neither
the Broker-Dealer AP, nor any natural person associated with the
Broker-Dealer AP, directly or indirectly (including through any
affiliate of the Broker-Dealer AP), receives from the fund complex any
payment, compensation, or other economic incentive to promote or sell
the shares of the ETF to persons outside the fund complex, other than
non-cash compensation permitted under NASD Rule 2830(l)(5)(A), (B), or
(C). This condition is intended to eliminate special incentives that
Broker-Dealer APs and their associated persons might otherwise have to
``push'' ETF shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Letter from Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Division
of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission to
Securities Industry Association (Nov. 21, 2005) (``SIA Exemption'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MQP will permit certain ETFs to voluntarily incur increased
listing fees payable to the Exchange. In turn, the Exchange will use
the fees to make incentive payments to market makers that improve the
liquidity of participating issuers' securities, and thus enhance the
market quality for the participating issuers. Incentives payments will
be accrued for, among other things, executing purchases and sales on
the Exchange. Receipt of the incentive payments by certain broker-
dealers will implicate the condition of the SIA Exemption from the new
issue lending restriction in Section 11(d)(1) of the Exchange Act
discussed above. The Commission's view is that the incentive payments
market makers will receive under the proposal are indirect payments
from the fund complex to the market maker and that those payments are
compensation to promote or sell the shares of the ETF. Therefore, in
the absence of an exemption from Section 11(d)(1) and rule 11d1-2
thereunder, an MQP Market Maker that is also a Broker-Dealer AP for an
ETF (or an associated person or an affiliate of a Broker-Dealer AP)
that receives the incentives will not be able to rely on the SIA
Exemption from Section 11(d)(1).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Approval Order, supra note 1, at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ has requested, on behalf of itself and those MQP Market
Makers who are broker-dealers (or any associated person or affiliate of
such broker-dealers), exemptive, interpretive or no-action relief from
the requirements of Section 11(d)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 11d1-
2 thereunder, in connection with certain payments from the Exchange to
certain Market Makers participating in the MQP, as discussed in its
letter.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Letter from David M. Lynn, Morrison & Foerster LLP to David
Blass, Chief Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities
and Exchange Commission (June 27, 2013) (``Request Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the MQP Credit should not disqualify a Broker-
Dealer AP or Non-AP Broker-Dealer from relying on the SIA exemption.
Among other things, NASDAQ notes that the MQP Credit is provided only
to MQP Market Makers that meet or exceed MQP market quality standards
and that it will not act as an incentive for Broker-Dealer APs or Non-
AP Broker-Dealers to ``push'' the MQP Securities. In addition, many
features of the MQP seek to improve the quality of the market for MQP
Securities, enhance liquidity in participating MQP Securities, and
reduce spreads and decrease the effective cost of investing in MQP
Securities. NASDAQ notes that the MQP Credit attributable to sales of
MQP Securities by an MQP Market Maker is modest at approximately 25% of
the total MQP Credit, with the remainder attributable to purchases by
the MQP Market Maker and quotes. The Exchange also notes the ``the
unprecedented transparency of the MQP through a dedicated MQP Web page,
will enable investors to understand the MQP and the roles of MQP
Companies, MQP Market Makers and the Exchange within the Program.''
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Request Letter at 14. Several Exchange Rules are designed
to provide comprehensive and accessible disclosure to investors
about the MQP Program through the Exchange's Web site or product-
specific Web sites. New Rules 5950(a)(1)(C) and 5950(c)(3) require
the Exchange to provide notification on its Web site regarding: (i)
the acceptance of an MQP Company (on behalf of an MQP Security) and
an MQP Market Maker into the MQP; (ii) the total number of MQP
Securities that any one MQP Company may have in the MQP; (iii) the
names of MQP Securities and the MQP Market Maker(s) in each MQP
Security, and the dates that an MQP Company, on behalf of an MQP
Security, commenced participation in and withdrew or was terminated
from the MQP; and (iv) any limit on the number of MQP Market Makers
permitted to register in an MQP Security. New Rule 5950(a)(2)(D)
requires the Exchange to provide notification on its Web site when
it receives notification that an MQP Company (on behalf of an MQP
Security) or an MQP Market Maker intends to withdraw from the MQP,
including the date of actual withdrawal or termination from the MQP.
Rule 5950(b)(1) requires the MQP Company to disclose on a product-
specific Web site for each product, that the MQP Security is in the
MQP and to provide a link to the Exchange's MQP Web site. The
Exchange will also post monthly reports concerning the efficacy of
the MQP program to its Web site.

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

    NASDAQ also believes that the potential market quality improvements
of the MQP will be reduced if Broker-Dealers APs and non-AP Broker-
Dealers do not receive the requested exemption. NASDAQ asserts that the
MQP incentives are designed to encourage market markers to participate
in the Program and that it is desirable for as many market participants
as possible to participate in the Program. The Commission recognizes
that broker-dealers that have to choose between participating in the
MQP and having the ability to rely on the SIA Exemption may determine
for business reasons that they would prefer to benefit from the SIA
Exemption and thus would decline to participate in the MQP.\11\
Therefore, we understand how the absence of an exemption from Section
11(d)(1) could serve to reduce the number of MQP Market Makers in the
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NASDAQ reports that Broker-Dealer APs and Non-AP Broker-
Dealers believe that participating in the MQP in the absence of
requested relief may ``present an unacceptable level of risk that
may keep some market participants out of the Program.'' Request
Letter, note 82. We choose not to speculate about the risk that
these broker-dealers perceive, but we note that, even in the absence
of exemption granted herein, a broker-dealer that receives MQP
credits derived from sales of MQP Securities but that does not
extend or maintain credit, or arrange for the extension or
maintenance of credit, on shares of new issue MQP Securities for
which the broker-dealer participated in the distribution within the
preceding 30 days would not violate Exchange Act Section 11(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest,
and is consistent with the protection of investors, to grant a limited
exemption from Section 11(d)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 11d1-2
thereunder to Broker-Dealer APs and Non-AP Broker-Dealers who
participate in the MQP. The Program is intended to improve market
quality by promoting enhanced liquidity, reduced spreads, and reduced
cost of investing in MQP Securities. The Commission believes that
granting the exemption will encourage a larger number of MQP Market
Makers to participate in the program and that a larger number of MQP
Market Makers should create greater potential for the market quality
improvements the Program aims for. The Exchange determines to pay an
MQP Credit only if an MQP Market Maker maintains a quality market in an
MQP Security meeting certain spread and liquidity standards and that
MQP payments are not intended to promote the sale of MQP Securities.
The Commission believes that the portion of the MQP Credit attributable
to sales of MQP Securities--approximately 25% of the MQP Credit, with
the remainder attributable to purchases and quotations--may create a
modest incentive for MQP Market Makers to promote the sale of MQP
Securities, while creating an overall incentive for MQP Market Makers
to enhance market quality. The Commission does not believe that this
combination of incentives will provide the kind of ``share-pushing''
incentive with which Congress was concerned when it enacted Section
11(d). The required Web site disclosures \12\ will also help Market
Makers' customers understand the Program's effect on MQP Market Makers'
incentives and thus will help investors to make informed decisions
despite the potential additional sales pressure Market Makers may
assert as a result of the MQP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, that Broker-Dealer APs and Non-AP Broker-
Dealers who participate in the MQP, may rely on the SIA Exemption
pertaining to Section 11(d)(1) and Rule 11d1-2 thereunder,\13\ subject
to the conditions provided in that exemption, notwithstanding that
Broker-Dealer APs and Non-AP Broker-Dealers may receive MQP Credits
derived in part from the sale of MQP Securities as described in your
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See note 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This exemption expires when the Program terminates, and is subject
to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines
that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. This order does not represent Commission
views with respect to any other question that the proposed activities
may raise or the applicability of other federal or state laws and rules
to the proposed activities.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16075 Filed 7-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 4)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1055-1058]
[DOCID:fr07ja08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0412; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-290-AD;
Amendment 39-15327; AD 90-25-05 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. That AD
currently requires the implementation of a corrosion prevention and
control program. We issued that AD to prevent degradation of the
structural capabilities of the affected airplanes. This new AD
clarifies the applicability of the existing AD by specifying which
Boeing Model 747 airplanes are affected by this AD because we have
determined that certain new variants that have not yet been certified
will not be subject to the requirements of this AD. This AD results
from reports of incidents involving corrosion and cracking in transport
category airplanes, which have jeopardized the airworthiness of the
affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent degradation of
the structural capabilities of all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

DATES: Effective January 22, 2008.
    On December 31, 1990 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990), the Director
of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Boeing Document Number D6-36022, ``Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program, Model 747,'' Revision A, dated July 28, 1989.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On November 5, 1990, we issued AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55
FR 49268, November 27, 1990). AD 90-25-05 applies to all Boeing Model
747 series airplanes. That AD requires the implementation of a
corrosion prevention and control program. That AD resulted from reports
of incidents involving corrosion and cracking in transport category
airplanes, which have jeopardized the airworthiness of the affected
airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent degradation of the structural
capabilities of the affected airplanes.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 90-25-05, Boeing has announced the production of
additional Model 747 variants. Although they have not yet been
certified, the new variants (Model 747-8 and -8F series airplanes) have
a certification basis that will alleviate the safety issues addressed
by AD 90-25-05. All of the inspections required by AD 90-25-05 will be
included in the Boeing Model 747-8/8F Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR) Document and the corresponding Boeing Model 747-8/8F Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document.
    Because AD 90-25-05 currently applies to ``all Boeing Model 747
series airplanes,'' these additional Model 747 variants will be
required to do the actions mandated by that AD, once they are
certified. Therefore, we must clarify the applicability to specify only
the airplanes that are affected by this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we
are issuing this AD to revise AD 90-25-05. This new AD retains the
requirements of the existing AD. This AD also clarifies the
applicability of the existing AD.

Change to Existing AD

    Since we issued AD 90-25-05, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the
following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Corresponding  requirement
        Requirement in  AD 90-25-05              in  AD 90-25-05 R1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph A...............................  paragraph (f).
paragraph B.1.............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph B.2.............................  paragraph (h).
paragraph B.3.............................  paragraph (i).
paragraph C...............................  paragraph (j).
paragraph D...............................  paragraph (k).
paragraph E...............................  paragraph (l).
paragraph F...............................  paragraph (m).
paragraph G...............................  paragraph (n).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also changed this AD to include numbers on each of the
notes in the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 165 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The requirements of this AD add no additional economic
burden. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience
of affected operators, as follows:
    We estimate that the actions required by AD 90-25-05 and retained
in this AD take about 4,720 work-hours per product. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to U.S. operators to be $62,304,000 or $377,600 per product.
    The number of work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if
the accomplishment of the actions required by AD 90-25-05 and retained
in this AD are to be conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in
actual practice, these actions for the most part will be accomplished
coincidentally or in combination with normally scheduled airplane
inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual
number of necessary additional work hours will be minimal in many
instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane
scheduling will be minimal.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    No airplane variant that we had previously excluded from the
applicability of this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore,
providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary
before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less
than 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0412; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-290-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-6790 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990), and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

90-25-05 R1 Boeing: Amendment 39-15327. Docket No. FAA-2008-0412;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-290-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective January 22, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 90-25-05.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of incidents involving
corrosion and cracking in transport category airplanes, which have
jeopardized the airworthiness of the affected airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to prevent degradation of the structural
capabilities of all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

Compliance

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

    Note 1: This AD references Boeing Document Number D6-36022,
``Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, Model
747,'' Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, for inspection procedures,
compliance times, and reporting requirements. In addition, this AD
specifies inspection and reporting requirements beyond those
included in the Document. Where there are differences between the AD
and the Document, the AD prevails.

Requirements of AD 90-25-05

Maintenance Program Revision

    (f) Within one year after December 31, 1990 (the effective date
of AD 90-25-05), revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to
include the corrosion control program specified in Boeing Document
Number D6-36022, ``Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program, Model 747,'' Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, (hereinafter
referred to as ``the Document'').

    Note 2: All structure found corroded or cracked as a result of
an inspection conducted in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD
must be addressed in accordance with FAR Part 43.

    Note 3: Where non-destructive inspection (NDI) methods are
employed, in accordance with Section 4.1 of the Document, the
standards and procedures used must be acceptable to the
Administrator in accordance with FAR 43.13.

    Note 4: Procedures identified in the Document as ``optional''
are not required to be accomplished by this AD.

Actions if Corrosion is Found

    (g) If, as a result of any inspection conducted in accordance
with the program required by paragraph (f) of this AD, Level 3
corrosion is determined to exist in any area, accomplish paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD within 7 days after such determination.
    (1) Submit a report of any findings of Level 3 corrosion to the
Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and
inspect the affected area on all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes in the operator's
fleet.
    (2) Submit for approval to the Manager of the Seattle ACO the
proposal or data in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Proposed adjustments to the schedule for performing the
tasks in that area on remaining airplanes in the operator's fleet,
which are adequate to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is
detected in a timely manner, along with substantiating data for
those adjustments.
    (ii) Data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion found is an
isolated occurrence and that no such adjustments are necessary.

    Note 5: Notwithstanding the provision of Section 1.1. of the
Document that would permit corrosion that otherwise meets the
definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is determined to be a
potentially urgent airworthiness concern requiring expeditious
action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator finds that it ``can
be attributed to an event not typical of the operator's usage of
other airplanes in the same fleet,'' paragraph (g)(2) of this AD
requires that data substantiating any such finding be submitted to
the FAA for approval.

    Note 6: As used throughout this AD, where documents are to be
submitted to the Manager of the Seattle ACO, the document should be
submitted directly to the Manager, Seattle ACO, and a copy sent to
the cognizant FAA Principal Inspector (PI). The PI will then forward
comments or concurrence to the Seattle ACO. The Seattle ACO will not
respond to the operator without the PI's comments or concurrence.

    (h) The FAA may impose adjustments other than those proposed,
upon a finding that such adjustments are necessary to ensure that
any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner.
    (i) Prior to the compliance time specified for the first task
required in the adjusted schedule approved under paragraph (g) or
(h) of this AD, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to
include those adjustments.

    Note 7: The reporting requirements of paragraphs (g) and (k) of
this AD do not relieve operators from reporting corrosion as
required by FAR Section 121.703.

Acceptable Extension to Repeat Inspection Interval

    (j) To accommodate unanticipated scheduling requirements, it is
acceptable for a repeat inspection interval to be increased by up to
10% but not to exceed 6 months. The cognizant FAA Principal
Inspector (PI) must be informed, in writing, of any extension.

    Note 8: Except as provided paragraph (j) of this AD,
notwithstanding Section 3.1., paragraph 4, of the Document, all
extensions to any compliance time must be approved by the Manager of
the Seattle ACO.

Report of Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion

    (k) Report forms for Level 2 corrosion and a follow-up report
for Level 3 corrosion must be submitted at least quarterly in
accordance with Section 5.0 of the Document.

Approval for Increasing Existing Corrosion Inspection/Task
Intervals

    (l) If the repeat inspection or task intervals of an operator's
existing corrosion inspection program are shorter than the
corresponding intervals in Section 4.3 of the Document, they may not
be increased without specific approval of the Manager of the Seattle
ACO.

Addition of an Airplane to Operations Specifications

    (m) Before any airplane that is subject to this AD can be added
to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for the
accomplishment of tasks required by this AD must be established in
accordance with paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have previously been operated under an
FAA-approved maintenance program, the initial task on each area to
be accomplished by the new operator must be accomplished in
accordance with the previous operator's schedule or with the new
operator's schedule, whichever would result in the earlier
accomplishment date for that task. After each task has been
performed once, each subsequent task must be performed in accordance
with the new operator's schedule.

    (2) For airplanes that have not previously been operated under
an FAA-approved maintenance program, each initial task required by
this AD must be accomplished either prior to the airplane's being
added to the air carrier's operations specifications, or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Actions for Corrosion That Exceeds Level 1

    (n) If corrosion is found to exceed Level 1 on any inspection
after the initial inspection, the corrosion control program for the
affected area must be reviewed and means implemented to reduce
corrosion to Level 1 or better.
    (1) Within 60 days after such a finding, if corrective action is
necessary to reduce future findings of corrosion to Level 1 or
better, such proposed corrective action must be submitted for
approval to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
    (2) Within 30 days after the corrective action is approved,
revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to include the approved
corrective action.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 90-25-05,
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use Boeing Document Number D6-36022, ``Aging
Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, Model 747,''
Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, to perform the actions that are
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Document Number D6-
36022, ``Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program,
Model 747,'' Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, was approved
previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of December
31, 1990 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990).
    (2) Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You
may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25616 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US

03/04/2008 03:52 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alison Davis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen
Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bryan
Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cynthia
Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David
Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Elizabeth Kopits/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet
Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Ketcham-Colwill/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John
Silvasi/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken
Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Davidson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin
Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian
Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Corrales/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie
Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Norm
Possiel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Pat Dolwick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rachel
Douglass/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Mason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rob
Brenner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron
Shadbegian/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rudolph
Kapichak/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Terry/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Serpil
Kayin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom
Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

materials for tomorrow's 2:00 meeting with OMB on social costs

Please let me know if you have any trouble with the file....

Thanks,

Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58507-58509]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9468-6]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; Request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
settlement agreement to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Sierra Club
v. Jackson, No. 1:11-0100 (D.D.C.). On January 13, 2011, Plaintiff
filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary
duties under the CAA as to whether six areas: Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria (TX), Baltimore (MD), New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, Springfield (Western Massachusetts), Greater Connecticut, and
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (MA-NH) which are designated as nonattainment
for ozone attained the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (``1-Hour ozone standard'') by the applicable attainment date.
The proposed settlement agreement establishes

deadlines for EPA to make these determinations.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by October 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2011-0765, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kendra Sagoff, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve a lawsuit seeking
to compel the Administrator to take various actions related to whether
six areas: (1) Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, (2) Baltimore, (3) New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, (4) Springfield (Western
Massachusetts), (5) Greater Connecticut, and (6) Boston-Lawrence-
Worcester, which are designated as nonattainment for ozone, attained
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
    The proposed settlement agreement provides various dates by which
EPA must propose a determination and make a final determination as to
whether each area previously listed has attained the 1-hour ozone
standard by its 1-hour ozone attainment date. No later than 15 business
days following signature on each notice related to a proposed or final
determination specified in the proposed settlement agreement, EPA is
required to send the notice to the Office of the Federal Register for
review and publication in the Federal Register. After EPA fulfills all
of its obligations under the agreement Sierra Club and EPA agree to
file a joint motion for dismissal, with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-0765) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: September 13, 2011.
Kevin McLean,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-24276 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50420-50421]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0924]

Determination That LIDEX (fluocinonide) Cream and LIDEX-E
(fluocinonide) Cream and Nine Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn
From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that the
drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA
will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will
allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products as
long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Geanacopoulos, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6206, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6925.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to

publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part
of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence
Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the ``Orange Book.'' Under
FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the Agency
withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of
safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR
314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved; (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved; and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if
FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or
effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could
result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the
listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in
this document are no longer being marketed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application No.                             Drug                                Applicant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 016908.........................  LIDEX (fluocinonide) Cream; Topical,   Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 7720
                                      0.05%,.                                North Dobson Rd., Scottsdale, AZ
                                                                             85256.
Do.................................  LIDEX-E (fluocinonide) Cream;          Do.
                                      Topical, 0.05%.
NDA 018181.........................  MYCELEX (clotrimazole) Solution;       Bayer Health Care, 100 Bayer Rd.,
                                      Topical, 1%.                           Pittsburgh, PA 15205.
NDA 018713.........................  MYCELEX (clotrimazole) Lozenge; Oral,  Do.
                                      10 milligrans (mg).
NDA 019510.........................  PEPCID (famotidine) Injection, 10 mg/  Merck Research Laboratories, Inc.,
                                      milliliter (mL).                       770 Sumneytown Pike, West Point, PA
                                                                             19486.
Do.................................  PEPCID PRESERVATIVE FREE (famotidine)  Do.
                                      Injection, 10 mg/mL.
NDA 020249.........................  PEPCID PRESERVATIVE FREE IN PLASTIC    Do.
                                      CONTAINER (famotidine) Injection,
                                      0.4 mg/mL.
NDA 021065.........................  FEMHRT (ethinyl estradiol;             Warner Chilcott LLC, 1 Grand Canal
                                      norethindrone acetate) Tablet; Oral,   Sq., Docklands, Dublin 2, Ireland.
                                      0.005 mg/1 mg.
NDA 050763.........................  MITOZYTREX (mitomycin) Injection, 5    SuperGen, Inc., 4140 Dublin Blvd.,
                                      mg/vial.                               Suite 200, Dublin, CA 94568.
ANDA 086031........................  ISOSORBIDE DINITRATE (isosorbide       Watson Laboratories, 577 Chipeta
                                      dinitrate) Tablet; Sublingual, 5 mg.   Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.
ANDA 086033........................  ISOSORBIDE DINITRATE (isosorbide       Do.
                                      dinitrate) Tablet; Sublingual, 2.5
                                      mg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug products listed in this document were not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed
in this document in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' identifies,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed in this
document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products
subject to those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these
products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with
relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that
labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current
standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such
labeling.

    Dated: August 13, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-20086 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18733-18735]
[DOCID:fr12ap06-53]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0022; FRL-7767-7]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Dithianon in or on Pome Fruits and Dried
Hops

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the republishing of the initial filing
of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for
residues of dithianon (5,10-dihydro-5,10-dioxonaphtho [2,3-b]-1,4-
dithiin-2,3-dicarbonitrile) in or on pome fruits and dried hops. The
initial filing was published on February 12, 1997 (62 FR 6521).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0022 and pesticide petition number (PP) 6E4781,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0022. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006--0022. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
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 CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going at
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm/.

     Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Kearns, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 703-
305-5611; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 6E4781. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528,
Research Triangle, Park, NC 27709-3528, proposes to establish
tolerances for residues of the dithianon (5,10-dihydro-5,10-
dioxonaphtho [2,3-b]-1,4-dithiin-2,3-dicarbonitrile) in or on food
commodities pome fruits (apples and pears) at 5.0 parts per million
(ppm); and dried hops at 100.0 ppm. The proposed analytical methods are
high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods with ultra-violet
(UV) detection for pome fruits (apples and pears) and with
electrochemical detection for quantitation for dried hops.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: March 30, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-5200 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27981]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14876-000]

Western Minnesota Municipal Power Authority; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On April 19, 2018, Western Minnesota Municipal Power Authority
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Gregory County Pumped Storage Project to be located on Lake Francis
Case on the Missouri River, near the township of Lucas, in Gregory,
Charles Mix, and Brule Counties, South Dakota. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
1,200-acre earthen embankment levee (upper reservoir) having a total
storage capacity of 50,000 acre-feet with an operating elevation level
of between 2,045 feet mean sea level (msl) and 2,087 feet msl; (2) a
new 550-foot-long by 120-foot-wide by 100-foot-high reinforced concrete
powerhouse containing eight new 150-megawatt (MW) turbine units for a
total plant rating of 1,200 MW; (3) thirty new 15-foot-wide by 20-foot-
deep reinforced concrete trashracks with an open bar spacing of 3.75
inches; (4) two new 6,000-foot-long, 32-foot-diameter reinforced
concrete penstocks; (5) two new 120-foot-high, 40-foot-diameter
reinforced concrete surge tanks connected to each penstock; (6) the
existing 102,000-acre Lake Francis Case (lower reservoir) with a
storage capacity of 5,494,000 acre-feet at normal maximum operation
elevation of 1,355 feet msl; (7) a new 6,000-foot-long, horse-shoe
configured tailrace tunnel that daylights to a 350-foot-long tailrace
channel (upstream of the trashrack) from the powerhouse to Lake Francis
Case; (8) a new 200-foot by 360-foot substation on top of the
powerhouse containing four step-up transformers; (9) a new 21-mile-
long, 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from the project
substation to the existing Lake Platte substation (the point of
interconnection); and (10) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the Gregory County Pumped Storage Project would be 3,500
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Raymond J. Wahle, Missouri River Energy
Services, 3724 W. Avera Drive, P.O. Box 88920, Sioux Falls, SD 57109;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone Williams; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14876-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14876) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12881 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P