[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87412-87417]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0215; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-132-AD;
Amendment 39-18665; AD 2016-19-16]
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 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series
airplanes; and certain Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a cam latch
on the main cargo door (MCD) broke during flight. This AD requires
various inspections and related investigative and corrective actions,
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 9, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 9,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0215.

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-2013-
0215; 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 address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5344; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes; and certain
Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18922) (``the NPRM'').
The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that a cam latch on the
MCD broke during flight. The NPRM proposed to require performing
repetitive inspections of the MCD cam latches; replacing cam latches,
certain bolts, and door hinge fittings; performing related
investigative and corrective actions, if necessary; and rigging the
MCD. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the
cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts, which could reduce
the structural integrity of the MCD, and result in potential loss of
the cargo door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service
Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-
300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes); and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model
727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes). (We referred to Boeing
707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, dated February 6, 2012; and Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, dated January 30, 2012; as the
appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the
actions specified in the NPRM.)
    Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated
September 16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015; clarify the inspection conditions
and the corrective actions for certain conditions. Certain inspections
of the cam latches and latch pins were changed from detailed
inspections to general visual inspections. Also, a detailed inspection
of mating parts and immediately adjacent cam latches and latch pins for
any cracks or any gouges in critical areas was added to certain
corrective actions specified in the service information.
    Also, the corrective actions for latch pin extensions that are
between 0.84 and 0.89 inch or between 0.91 and 0.94 inch were changed.
Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September
16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1,
dated November 5, 2015; specify replacement of any discrepant latch pin
and a detailed inspection of the mating cam latch for any cracks or
gouges in lieu of the repetitive detailed inspections described in
Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, dated February 6, 2012; and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, dated January 30, 2012.

Explanation of Certain Changes to This AD

    In light of the issuance of the revised service information
discussed previously, we have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of
this AD to refer to Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision
1, dated September 16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015. We have also added new
paragraph (l) of this AD to give credit for doing actions before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin
A3536, dated February 6, 2012; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
52A0150, dated January 30, 2012. In addition, we have removed the
Optional Terminating Action, which was paragraph (m) in the proposed
AD, and moved that information into paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to
align with the revised service information. We have redesignated
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    In addition, since certain inspections and conditions were revised
in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September
16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1,
dated November 5, 2015; we have revised the description of the actions
required by this AD to correspond with the terminology used in Boeing
707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015;
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated
November 5, 2015. As a result, certain paragraphs in the proposed AD
have been rearranged, and the corresponding paragraph identifiers have
been redesignated in this AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
            Action in the NPRM                         this AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (g).............................  paragraph (g)(1).
paragraph (h).............................  paragraph (g)(2).
paragraph (i).............................  paragraph (h).
paragraph (j).............................  paragraph (h).
paragraph (k).............................  paragraph (k).
paragraph (l).............................  paragraph (i).
paragraph (m).............................  paragraph (g)(2).
paragraph (n).............................  paragraph (j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section in this final
rule to reflect the number of work-hours specified in Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015; and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November
5, 2015. We have also included the costs for the repetitive inspections
required before the MCD rigging check as well as replacement of the
alloy cross bolts; these costs were inadvertently omitted from the
NPRM. In addition, we have included the costs for the concurrent
actions in Boeing

707/720 Service Bulletin 3477, Revision 2, dated April 15, 1993; and
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52-0142, Revision 2, dated April 15, 1993.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.
    FedEx Express had no objection to the NPRM.

Request for Clarification of Requirements

    Boeing stated that it was difficult to align the requirements
proposed in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (l) of the proposed AD
with the actions described in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536,
dated February 6, 2012; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
dated January 30, 2012. Boeing commented that it is not clear which
requirements in the proposed AD go with which section of table 1 and
table 2 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-52A0150, dated January 30, 2012. Boeing expressed concern
that the proposed AD does not include all of the items in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
dated January 30, 2012. Boeing suggested that the proposed AD be
rewritten so operators are not confused with unclear compliance
requirements, which might cause situations of non-compliance.
    Boeing also requested that paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3)(i),
and (h)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD be rewritten to improve clarity
because words were omitted that might lead to confusion or
misinterpretation of the requirements in the proposed AD.
    We agree that the description of the parts to be inspected and the
required tasks should be consistent throughout this final rule and
should match what is described in the Boeing service information. With
the exception of paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, we are requiring only
actions that are described in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536,
Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015. We have revised
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD accordingly.
    For clarity we have moved the ``Concurrent Actions'' paragraph of
the proposed AD (paragraph (l) of the proposed AD) before the
``Exceptions to Service Information Specifications'' paragraph
(paragraph (k) of the proposed AD). In this AD, the ``Concurrent
Actions'' paragraph is redesignated as paragraph (i) of this AD.

Request To Revise Intervals for Repetitive Inspections

    The United States Air Force Joint STARS (Joint STARS) program
stated that its concern is that the NPRM addresses only airplanes that
are frequently used to haul cargo. For operators that do not haul cargo
and typically only open the MCD for C-check inspections, the general
visual inspections required every 330 flight cycles or 150 days is
excessive. This commenter stated that these repetitive inspections do
not fit into the current Joint STARS maintenance program and would
result in airplane downtime and additional cost. This commenter noted
that detailed inspections every 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months, and
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections every 6,000 flight
cycles or 48 months, would fit into its current maintenance schedule
and not cause a significant impact.
    We agree that the required intervals for repetitive inspections may
not be appropriate for some operators because they infrequently use the
cargo door. However, we disagree with revising the intervals for the
repetitive inspections required by this AD. We need to evaluate the
requests for different inspection intervals on a case-by-case basis,
based on the operator and its use of the MCD. Operators may request a
change in the intervals for the repetitive inspections by following the
procedures in paragraph (m) of this AD and requesting approval of an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also note that the FAA has limited oversight of public aircraft
operations (PAO). The government entity conducting the PAO is
responsible for oversight of the operations, including aircraft
airworthiness.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1,
dated September 16, 2015; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015. This service information
describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection for broken
or missing cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts;
torqueing the cross bolts in the latch pins; measuring the extension of
the latch pins; replacing all alloy steel cross bolts through the latch
pins with CRES cross bolts; doing a general visual inspection of all
cam latches for lip deformation; doing a HFEC or magnetic particle
inspection of cam latch 1 and cam latch 2 for cracks and replacing all
cracked or broken parts; checking the rig of the MCD and re-rigging as
applicable; and doing related investigative and corrective actions.
This service information also describes procedures for doing repetitive
inspections for certain conditions specified in the service
information, which terminate after the MCD rigging is done as specified
in this service information. This service information also describes
procedures for doing MCD post-rigging inspections and corrective
actions. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to
different airplane models.
    We also reviewed Boeing 707/720 Service Bulletin 3477, Revision 2,
dated April 15, 1993; and Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52-0142, Revision
2, dated April 15, 1993. This service information describes procedures
for doing general a general visual inspection of the hinge fittings and
the cam latches on the MCD, and related investigative and corrective
actions. These service bulletins are distinct because they apply to
different airplane models.
    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 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost per
            Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost         product      Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection/torque/measurement  4 work-hours x $85     $0..............  $340...........  $6,120.
                                per hour = $340.
Repetitive inspections pre-    Up to 3 work-hours x   $0..............  Up to $255 per   Up to $4,590 per
 MCD rigging.                   $85 per hour = $255                      inspection       inspection cycle.
                                per inspection cycle.                    cycle.
MCD rigging/adjustment.......  48 work-hours x $85    Up to $8,821 \1\  Up to $12,901..  Up to $232,218.
                                per hour = $4,080.
Replacement of alloy cross     1 work-hour x $85 per  $0..............  $85............  $1,530.
 bolts.                         hour = $85.
Repetitive inspections post-   3 work-hours x $85 =   $0..............  $255 per         $4,590 per inspection
 MCD rigging.                   $255 per inspection                      inspection       cycle.
                                cycle.                                   cycle.
Concurrent \2\ inspection....  8 work-hours x $85     $0..............  $680...........  $12,240.
                                per hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Special tooling is available from the airplane manufacturer; $8,821 is the purchase price and $180 per day
  is the rental rate.
\2\ The concurrent inspection is required by AD 91-22-04, Amendment 39-8064 (56 FR 55223, October 25, 1991).

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related
investigative actions and certain replacements that will be required
based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining
the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost           Cost per  product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related investigative actions......  Up to 3 work-hours x $85                 $0  Up to $255.
                                      per hour = $255.
Replacement of broken/missing parts  1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0  $85 per latch/pin.
                                      = $85 per latch/pin.
Concurrent replacement \1\.........  26 work-hours x $85 =               $15,324  $17,534.
                                      $2,210.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The concurrent replacement of parts is required by AD 91-22-04, Amendment 39-8064 (56 FR 55223, October 25,
  1991).

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

    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):

2016-19-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18665; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0215; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-132-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 9, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1,
dated September 16, 2015.
    (2) Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1,
dated November 5, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a cam latch on the main
cargo door (MCD) broke during flight. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct discrepancies of the cam latches, latch pins, and
latch pin cross bolts. Such discrepancies could reduce the
structural integrity of the MCD, and result in potential loss of the
cargo door and rapid decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) MCD Pre-Rig Inspections, Bolt Torque, Latch Pin Measurement, Cross
Bolt Replacement, and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (1) Except as provided by paragraph (k)(l) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision
1, dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-
300C series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-
100C, and 727-200F series airplanes): Do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this AD in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service
Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-
300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes); or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015
(for Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes).
    (i) A general visual inspection of the MCD for broken or missing
cam latches, latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts.
    (ii) Torque the cross bolts in the latch pins.
    (iii) Measure the extension of the latch pins.
    (iv) Perform a general visual inspection of all cam latches for
lip deformation.
    (2) Except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, after
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iv) of this AD: Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, replace all alloy steel cross bolts through the
latch pins with corrosion resistant steel (CRES) cross bolts, repeat
the applicable inspections, and do the check of the MCD rig and the
latch mechanism adjustment test, at the applicable times and
intervals specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707
Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015
(for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes); or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated
November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series
airplanes). Accomplishment of the check of the MCD rig terminates
the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

(h) MCD Post-Rigging Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (1) Except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015 (for
Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes); or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5,
2015 (for Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes): Do
general visual inspections for any broken or missing cam latches,
latch pins, and latch pin cross bolts; a detailed inspection of the
cam latches and latch pins for any cracks, or any gouges in critical
areas; and an HFEC or magnetic particle inspection of cam latch 1
and cam latch 2 for cracks in critical areas; and do all applicable
corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1,
dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C
series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-100C, and
727-200F series airplanes). Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight.
    (2) Repeat the inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD at the applicable times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision
1, dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-
300C series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-
100C, and 727-200F series airplanes).

(i) Concurrent Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service
Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015: Before or
concurrently with accomplishment of the general visual inspections
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(iv) of this AD, do a
general visual inspection of the hinge fittings and the cam latches
on the MCD, and perform related investigative and corrective actions
as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing 707/720 Service Bulletin 3477, Revision 2, dated April 15,
1993.
    (2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015: Before or
concurrently with accomplishment of the general visual inspections
specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(iv) of this AD, do a
general visual inspection of the hinge fittings and the cam latches
on the MCD, and perform related investigative and corrective actions
as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52-0142, Revision 2, dated April 15,
1993.

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
alloy steel bolt as a cross bolt through any latch pin fitting
assembly in the lower sill of the MCD on any airplane.

(k) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    The following exceptions apply to this AD.
    (1) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1,
dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C
series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-100C, and
727-200F series airplanes); specifies a compliance time relative to
the issue date of that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1,
dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C
series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150,
Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C, 727-100C, and
727-200F series airplanes); specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: At the applicable time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536,
Revision 1, dated September 16, 2015 (for Model 707-300, 707-300B,
and 707-300C series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-52A0150, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2015 (for Model 727C,
727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes); repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were
done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3536, dated February 6, 2012 (for Model 707-300,
707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-52A0150, dated January 30, 2012 (for Model 727C, 727-
100C, and 727-200F series airplanes).

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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, Los Angeles ACO, 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.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Patrick Farina,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles
ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5344; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.

(o) 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 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3536, Revision 1, dated
September 16, 2015.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0150, Revision 1,
dated November 5, 2015.
    (iii) Boeing 707/720 Service Bulletin 3477, Revision 2, dated
April 15, 1993.
    (iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52-0142, Revision 2, dated
April 15, 1993.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28337 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Protocol EMD 003 Protocol EMD 003 Tick Repellency Tick Repellency Kevin Sweeney Clara Fuentes John Carley Roger Gardner 2 Laboratory Evaluation Laboratory Evaluation

Laboratory assay with human subjects to evaluate the efficacy against ticks of three skin applied formulations of the insect repellent IR 3535

The protocol is similar in many aspects to the draft EPA Guideline for tick testing, especially to the 2000 version 3 IR IR 3535 3535

Registered in the USA for six years

Used in Europe for over 20 years

Skin applied repellent

Amino acid derivative

Very low toxicity 4 Overview of Testing Overview of Testing

Three test formulations: 20% lotion, 20%

aerosol and a 10% pump spray liquid.

Formulations delivered by pipette to the limb of the test subject as a liquid.

Dose   1 gram of formulation per 600 cm 2 of skin surface.

Tick   Ixodes scapularis pacificus, the Western black legged tick, Lyme disease vector in western USA. 5 Method Method  1 Five treatments:

 IR3535 10% Pump Spray formulation ( 6 subjects)

 IR3535 20% Lotion formulation ( 6 subjects)

 IR3535 20% Aerosol formulation ( 6 subjects)

 DEET positive control ( 1 subject)

 Untreated negative control ( 1 subject) 6 Method Method  2

Line is drawn across wrist of each subject

A tick is placed on the hand, oriented toward the wrist

A tick is observed for 3 minutes. If it crosses the line toward the elbow it is " not repelled"

A fresh tick is used every 15 minutes 7 Method Method  3

Subject selection of ticks may introduce variation

Only one species of tick is tested.

Guideline recommends three species,

each from a different genus.

Cycle repeated every 15 minutes.

Guideline recommends every hour. 8 Method Method  4

Protocol uses liquid formulations applied by pipette. Guideline calls for testing formulations as they are to be registered

Why are untreated control subjects used?

Qualification of ticks before use, handling of ticks after qualification, and disposition of ticks after use are inadequately specified 9 Determination of % Repellency Determination of % Repellency For each subject:

Repellency = 100 * Number of ticks repelled Total number of ticks Analysis yields a subject mean, a grand mean,

and a SD of the means.

Application of Chi square?   the % repellency calculated is significant or not at   = 0.05 10 Ethics Review: EMD Ethics Review: EMD 003 003

Lab test of tick repellency

18 treated subjects recruited as described in C L 001 and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups

Controls, one positive and one untreated,

chosen from among investigators 11 EMD EMD 003 Framework 003 Framework  1 1. Value  Purpose is poorly described in protocol  Intention is to gather information to support development of personal repellents for future commercial marketing  There is potential societal benefit in developing additional safe and effective personal repellents 2. Scientific Validity: Defer to others 12 EMD EMD 003 Framework 003 Framework  2 3. Subject Selection  Recruiting methods are well described in C L 001  No indication that subjects would be subject to any coercion or undue influence, or be recruited or enrolled for reasons inconsistent with the goals of the research  Exclusion factors ensure exclusion of children and pregnant or lactating women, and students of investigators 13 EMD EMD 003 Framework 003 Framework  3 4. Risk Benefit Ratio  Materials tested for acute toxicity  Candidates phobic to ticks are excluded  Ticks are removed before biting  Captive bred disease free ticks used  No discussion of risk/ benefit assessment 14 EMD EMD 003 Framework 003 Framework  4 5. Independent Ethics Review  Unanimously approved by Independent Investigational Review Board, Inc., of Plantation FL  IIRB is registered with OHRP, and is independent of the investigators 15 EMD EMD 003 Framework 003 Framework  5 6. Informed Consent  Written consent from all subjects promised  Procedures for consent adequate  Deficiencies in content of consent materials should be corrected 7. Respect for Subjects  Subject privacy would not be compromised  Subjects would be free to withdraw 16 Applicable Standards Applicable Standards

This is a 3 rd  party intentional exposure study intended for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws. The applicable standards are:

 40 CFR 26, Subparts K and L  FIFRA § 12( a)( 2)( P)

 California Code of Regulations Title 3, Section 6710 17 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  1

IC materials tell subjects they will be randomly assigned to treated or control groups. C L 001 states that only investigators will serve as controls.

Conflict should be reconciled; it may require separate consent documents for treated and control subjects. 18 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  2

Test procedures are inadequately described to subjects in IC materials:

   The ticks are then applied . . . and you will record any crossings or repulsions  in IC materials.

Should be clear:

 pick up a tick with an artist s paint brush  place it on their wrist and orient it toward their elbow  monitor its behavior for 3 minutes  dispose of the tick  record its behavior  and repeat the process every 15 minutes for several hours 19 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  3

Vague language in IC "" Measures will be implemented to make sure that ticks are removed before they have an opportunity to bury in the skin" should be clarified

Suggest " You will be taught how to remove ticks from your arm before they have an opportunity to bury in the skin or bite you.

Although it is unlikely, because it takes a tick about 10 minutes to bury before biting, you may be bitten by a tick. The ticks used in this test are captive bred and free of disease." 20 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  4

The word " NOT" is missing from the IC discussion of " Pregnancy Risks" which should read ". . . it is important that you do NOT participate in this study if you are, or think you may be pregnant." 21 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  5

IC promises to cover costs of " treatment required for injury resulting from being in the study," but then excludes injuries " resulting from normal work activities", and then further excludes compensation for " such things as lost wages, disability, or discomfort due to injury." This is unacceptably exculpatory. 22 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  6

The IC materials inappropriately discuss compensation to the subjects as a benefit, but are silent about expected societal benefits and how they were weighed against risks to subjects

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation should be added to the list of parties to whom personal information may be disclosed 23 Deficiencies Noted Deficiencies Noted  7

Protocol should acknowledge the applicable standards of ethical conduct,

and the obligation of the investigators to inform both the cognizant IRB and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation of any amendments to or deviations from the approved protocol 24 Charge Questions Charge Questions

Is this proposed research likely to generate scientifically reliable data,

useful for assessing the efficacy of the repellent( s)?

Does this proposed research appear to comport with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51152-51153]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20286]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2010-0757; FRL-9914-38-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for
Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Confidential Financial
Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal
Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2260.05, OMB Control No. 2090-0029), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through August 31, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (79 FR 35751) on June 24, 2014 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the

ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OA-2010-0757, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk
Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Moreau, Office of Diversity,
Advisory Committee Management and Outreach, Office of Administration
and Resources Management, Mail Code 1601M, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection request is to
assist the EPA in selecting federal advisory committee members who will
be appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs), mostly to the
EPA's scientific and technical committees. To select SGE members as
efficiently and cost effectively as possible, the Agency needs to
evaluate potential conflicts of interest before a candidate is hired as
an SGE and appointed as a member to a committee by the EPA's
Administrator or Deputy Administrator. Agency officials developed the
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government
Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,'' also referred to as Form 3110-48,
for greater inclusion of information to discover any potential
conflicts of interest as recommended by the Government Accountability
Office.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 3110-48.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required in order to serve as a
SGE on an EPA federal advisory committee (5 CFR 2634.903).
    Estimated number of respondents: 250 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 250 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $22,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 50 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This change is due to a decrease in the estimated
number of respondents from 300 to 250.

Spencer Clark,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-20286 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15582-15585]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77390; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Proposed Amendments to Rule A-3, on Membership on the Board

March 17, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On January 15, 2016, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of proposed
amendments to the MSRB Rule A-3, on membership on the Board (the
``proposed rule change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 4, 2016.\3\ The Commission received two comment
letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76999 (Jan. 29, 2016),
81 FR 6088 (Feb. 4, 2016) (the ``Proposing Release'').
    \4\ See Letters from Lisa S. Good, Executive Director, National
Federation of Municipal Analysts (``NFMA''), dated February 25, 2016
(``NFMA Letter''); and Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer,
Bond Dealers of America (``BDA''), dated February 25, 2016 (``BDA
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Board is comprised of 21 members \5\ who, collectively, govern
the MSRB to carry out its mission primarily by regulating dealers and
municipal advisors, providing market transparency through its
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) Web site, and conducting
market leadership, outreach and education. Many general and some more
detailed aspects of the Board's composition are set forth in the
Act.\6\ It categorizes the members of the Board into two broad groups:
Individuals who must be associated with a broker, dealer or municipal
securities dealer (``dealer'') or municipal advisor (collectively,
``Regulated Representatives''), and individuals who must be independent
of any dealer or municipal advisor (``Public Representatives'').\7\ The
Act then specifies that the number of Public Representatives must at
all times exceed the number of Regulated Representatives,\8\ and sets
minimum requirements for certain types of individuals to serve in the
two groups.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See MSRB Rule A-3(a).
    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(1). MSRB Rule A-3 further establishes
the Board's composition.
    \7\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(1); MSRB Rule A-3(a)(i)-(ii).
    \8\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(B)(i).
    \9\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(1); MSRB Rule A-3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress also delegated authority to the MSRB to determine many
aspects of Board composition by rule, including the size of the Board
and the length of the term of Board member service.\10\ Currently, the
Board is divided into three seven-member classes that serve staggered,
three-year terms.\11\ The MSRB stated that under this framework, total

Board tenure typically is no more than three years because Board
members may only serve consecutive terms under two limited scenarios:
(1) By invitation from, and due to special circumstances as determined
by, the Board; or (2) having filled a vacancy and, therefore, having
served only a partial term.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Act provides that ``[t]he members of the Board shall
serve as members for a term of 3 years or for such other terms as
specified by rules of the Board,'' and that the rules of the Board
``specify the length or lengths of terms members shall serve.'' 15
U.S.C. 78o-4 (b)(1), (b)(2)(B)(ii).
    \11\ See MSRB Rule A-3(b)(i).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change would lengthen the
term of Board member service from three years to four years, and
facilitate the new, longer term length by increasing the number of
Board classes and adjusting their sizes.\13\ Additionally, the MSRB has
stated that the proposed rule change would limit the number of
consecutive terms a Board member can serve to two, and eliminate the
requirement that there be at least one non-dealer municipal advisor per
Board class.\14\ Finally, the MSRB has stated that the proposed
amendments would delete an obsolete provision from the rule and provide
a technical update to the name of a Board committee.\15\ The MSRB
believes that the proposed rule change would ensure greater continuity
and institutional knowledge from year to year, particularly through the
rulemaking process, and increase overall efficiency, while maintaining
the benefits of having a significant number of new Board members join
the organization each year.\16\ A full description of the proposed rule
change is contained in the Proposing Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 3.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lengthening the Term of Board Member Service and Increasing the
Number of Board Classes

    The MSRB has proposed increasing both the Board member term length
from three years to four years and the number of Board classes from
three to four.\17\ The MSRB has proposed that one class would be
comprised of six members and three classes comprised of five
members.\18\ The MSRB has stated that it believes that having members
serve on the Board for a fourth year would improve the continuity and
institutional knowledge of the Board from year to year which is
important for the MSRB rulemaking process which can often span multiple
years from conception to full implementation.\19\ The MSRB has further
stated that the proposed changes would ensure that the MSRB nominates
and elects new members every year, maintains classes that are as evenly
distributed in size as possible, and has a Board composition that
always satisfies the statutorily-required position allocations.\20\
According to the MSRB, such changes would result in a consistent and
manageable turnover from year to year.\21\ The MSRB has further
represented that the classes would continue to be as evenly divided in
number as possible between Public Representatives and Regulated
Representatives, while also remaining majority public as is required by
the Act and Rule A-3(a) and (b)(i).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Establishing a Limit on Consecutive Terms

    The MSRB has proposed that a Board member could serve no more than
two consecutive terms, eight years in total, which could only occur
under the a special circumstances exception.\23\ The MSRB has stated
that this added provision would ensure that the special circumstances
exception is not overused, mitigate some commenters' concerns of Board
members becoming too dominant and unduly influential, assure
appropriate turnover of Board membership, and help maintain a robust
pool of applicants for Board service.\24\ The MSRB believes this
modification reflects good corporate governance practices as applied to
the particular characteristics of the MSRB.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Rule A-3(b)(i).
    \24\ See supra note 3.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Eliminating Requirement of One Non-Dealer Municipal Advisor

    The MSRB has proposed eliminating the requirement that there be at
least one non-dealer municipal advisor per class.\26\ The MSRB has
stated that it is proposing this change because the proposed amendments
would result in the creation of four classes which would create an
obligation that the Board always includes four non-dealer municipal
advisors, which could potentially diminish representation of other
regulated entities.\27\ The MSRB has represented that the proposed rule
change would not affect the existing requirement in Rule A-3(a)(ii)(3)
that for the Board as a whole ``at least one, and not less than 30
percent of the total number of [R]egulated [R]epresentatives, shall be
associated with and representative of municipal advisors and shall not
be associated with a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer.''
\28\ The MSRB has stated that nothing in this proposed change would
reduce the minimum required representation of municipal advisors and
such proposed change would not prohibit the MSRB from deciding to
include more than three non-dealer municipal advisors on the Board.\29\
The MSRB has represented that all other provisions in Rule A-3(b)(i)
would remain unchanged.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarifying and Technical Amendments
    The MSRB has proposed two amendments to delete an obsolete
provision and make a technical update. The MSRB believes that these
changes will improve the clarity and readability of MSRB Rule A-3.
    The MSRB has stated that MSRB Rule A-3(h) currently describes the
transition process the MSRB used to increase its Board size from 15 to
21 members during its fiscal years 2013 and 2014.\31\ The MSRB has
stated that the proposed rule change would delete this provision from
MSRB Rule A-3 because that process has been completed and the provision
is therefore obsolete.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, MSRB Rule A-3(g)(ii) makes reference to the
``Nominating Committee,'' which is now called the ``Nominating and
Governance Committee.'' \33\ The MSRB has stated that the proposed rule
change would provide a technical update to the reference of the current
name of the committee which would promote the accuracy of the rule.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transition Plan
    In order to effectuate the changes in term length and the number
and size of classes, the MSRB has proposed a transition plan (the
``Transition Plan''), under which each Board member, who was elected
prior to, and whose term ends on or after the end of, the MSRB's fiscal
year 2016,\35\ could be considered for a term extension not exceeding
one year.\36\ The MSRB has represented that this process would occur
over fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and that the transition would
proceed as follows: (1) For fiscal year 2017, one Public Representative
from the Board class of 2016 (i.e., members who began a three-year term
on October 1, 2013) would

receive a one-year extension and six new members would join the Board;
(2) for fiscal year 2018, one Public and two Regulated Representatives
from the Board class of 2017 (i.e., members who began a three-year term
on October 1, 2014) each would receive a one-year extension and five
new members would join the Board; and (3) for fiscal year 2019, three
Public and two Regulated Representatives from the Board class of 2018
(i.e., members who began a three-year term on October 1, 2015) each
would receive a one-year extension and five new members would join the
Board.\37\ The MSRB has stated that the full Board would vote by ballot
on all members eligible for term extensions to determine who receives
them.\38\ Further, the MSRB has noted that the selection of Board
members whose terms would be extended would be in compliance with the
statutorily-required compositional requirements of the Board, and the
Board would continue to consist of 21 members with a majority of Public
Representatives.\39\ The MSRB has represented that in fiscal year 2020,
no further extensions would be required and five new members would join
the Board, completing the transition to four classes and from that
point forward, the Board would repeatedly nominate and elect classes in
the sequence of six, five, five, and five members.\40\ The MSRB has
further stated that while there are numerous possible combinations of
the number of Board classes and the number of members in each class,
they believe this specific combination would achieve the transition
expeditiously and efficiently while minimizing any disruption from the
changes.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The MSRB's fiscal year commences on October 1 of a given
year and ends on September 30 of the following year.
    \36\ See supra note 3.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ See supra notes 3, 5 and 7-9.
    \40\ See supra note 3.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received

    As noted previously, the Commission received two comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\42\ The NFMA Letter expressed general support
and agreement with the proposed rule change.\43\ The BDA Letter also
expressed general support and agreement with the proposed rule change,
but noted interest in seeing the MSRB continue to strengthen its
training of future Board members and to continue to reevaluate its
training program to ensure it reflects changes in market practices and
new regulations.\44\ BDA made a substantially similar comment \45\ in
response to the MSRB's Request for Comment,\46\, and the MSRB responded
to such comment in the Proposing Release.\47\ Full descriptions of the
comments are contained in the comment letters.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra note 4.
    \43\ See NFMA Letter.
    \44\ See BDA Letter.
    \45\ See Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer,
BDA, dated November 19, 2015.
    \46\ Request for Comment on Draft Amendments to MSRB Rule A-3 to
Lengthen the Term of Board Member Service, MSRB Notice 2015-18 (Oct.
5, 2015) (``MSRB Request for Comment'').
    \47\ See supra note 3.
    \48\ See supra notes 4 and 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in Term Length--Training
    The MSRB noted that this comment by BDA addresses internal MSRB
matters and does not suggest any revision to the language of the
amendments in the proposed rule change.\49\ The MSRB further stated
that the MSRB already allocates significant resources to educating new
Board members as part of a robust and dedicated orientation process
that begins prior to the commencement of their terms and focuses on
organizational and other substantive matters, including, but not
limited to, rulemaking and other large initiatives.\50\ Finally, the
MSRB represented that it already routinely revises and improves this
process with the benefit of each successive experience orienting new
Board members.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change as
well as the comments received. The Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the Commission finds that the rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which provides that
the MSRB's rules shall:

establish fair procedures for the nomination and election of members
of the Board and assure fair representation in such nominations and
elections of [P]ublic [R]epresentatives, broker dealer
representatives, bank representatives, and advisor representatives.
Such rules--
    (i) shall provide that the number of [P]ublic [R]epresentatives
of the Board shall at all times exceed the total number of
[R]egulated [R]epresentatives and that the membership shall at all
times be as evenly divided in number as possible between [P]ublic
[R]epresentatives and [R]egulated [R]epresentatives;
    (ii) shall specify the length or lengths of terms members shall
serve;
    (iii) may increase the number of members which shall constitute
the whole Board, provided that such number is an odd number; and
    (iv) shall establish requirements regarding the independence of
public representatives.

    The Commission believes the increase of the term length from three
to four years, the change in the number and size of Board classes from
three classes of seven members to one class of six and three classes of
five, and the elimination of the requirement that there be one non-
dealer municipal advisor per class are consistent with the Act in that
the composition of the Board would continue to satisfy the requirements
of the Act. Further, the Commission believes the limitation of
consecutive terms to two, totaling a maximum of eight years of
consecutive service, is consistent with the Act in that it specifies
the length of term that Board members can serve when the MSRB invokes
the special circumstances exception.
    Further, the Commission finds that the proposed deletion of the
transition process described in MSRB Rule A-3(h) is consistent with the
Act because removing the obsolete provision improves the clarity and
readability of the rule. The Commission also believes the proposed
update to the reference to the ``Nominating and Governance Committee''
in MSRB Rule A-3(g)(ii) is consistent with the Act because it enhances
the accuracy of the rule in regard to a reference to a component of the
Board's governance structure.
    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has also
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\52\ The Commission believes that
the effect of the proposed rule is beneficial and the proposed changes
will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board by providing
the Board with increased continuity and institutional knowledge
particularly in connection with the rulemaking process. The Commission
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
MSRB Execution of the Transition Plan
    In evaluating the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the Transition Plan to effectuate the changes in term length
and the number

and size of Board classes proposed by the MSRB in the Proposing
Release.\53\ The Commission's approval of the proposed rule change is
premised on the MSRB executing the Transition Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\54\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2016-01) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06452 Filed 3-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57768-57769]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4349-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4349-DR), dated November 16,
2017, and related determinations.

DATE: The declaration was issued November 16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated

November 16, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alabama resulting from Hurricane Nate during the period of
October 6-10, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Alabama.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Warren J. Riley, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Mobile, and Washington Counties for
all categories of Public Assistance.
    Autauga, Dallas, and Macon Counties for emergency protective
measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program.
    All areas within the State of Alabama are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-26338 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22596-22597]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14233; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398;
FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
38 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
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective May 7, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before May 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-
2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14233; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-22727;
FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0321;
FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008, 73 FR 3316.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<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:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers

of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 38 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 38 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Rex A. Botsford (MI)
Benny J. Burke (AL)
Curtis F. Caddy, III (CA)
William D. Cardiff (IL)
Roger C. Carson (IN)
Dan B. Clark (OH)
Gregory L. Cooper (PA)
Kenneth D. Craig (VA)
Terry J. Dare (IN)
Vincent C. Durazzo, Jr. (CT)
Jerald O. Edwards (ID)
Breck L. Falcon (LA)
Kenneth Flack, Jr. (AL)
Maylin E. Frickey (OR)
David R. Gross (PA)
Larry M. Hawkins (AZ)
Wesley J. Jenkins (IL)
Francisco J. Jimenez (TX)
Christopher J. Kane (VT)
Kenneth C. Keil (CA)
Melvin A. Kleman (OH)
Michael Lafferty (ID)
Roosevelt Lawson (AL)
Eugene R. Lydick (VA)
Emanuel N. Malone (VA)
Roberto E. Martinez (WA)
Thomas E. Moore (PA)
Travis W. Neiwert (ID)
Bernard J. Phillips (WA)
Duane L. Riendeau (ND)
James A. Smith (WA)
Clarence L. Swann, Jr. (AL)
Michael G. Trueblood (IL)
Donald A. Uplinger, II (OH)
Kerry W. VanStory (TX)
Steven M. Vujicic (IL)
Joseph Watkins (MI)
James H. Williams, Jr. (WI)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded 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(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 38 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (57 FR 57266; 63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR
78256; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 10301;
68 FR 13360; 68 FR 15037; 68 FR 19596; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR
62741; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16886; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 2701;
70 FR 2705; 70 FR 7543; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 62147; 72 FR
184; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 18726; 72
FR 25831; 73 FR 6246; 73 FR 20245; 73 FR 75806; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 8842;
74 11988; 74 FR 11991; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR
21796; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9856; 76
FR 15361; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796). Each of these 38 applicants has
requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 16, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 38 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: April 3, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-08878 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71812]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3351-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of New York (FEMA-3351-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29261 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 19042]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-20-002.
    Applicants: Atmos Pipeline-Texas.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Atmos Pipeline-
Texas Further Revisions to Statement of Operating Con--Clone to be
effective 4/11/2017; Filing Type: 1000.
    Filed Date: 4/11/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>48.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-651-000.
    Applicants: ARP Production Company, LLC, Tenaska Marketing
Ventures.
    Description: Joint Petition of ARP Production Company, LLC and
Tenaska Marketing Ventures for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Tariff Provision.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170412-5195.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-652-000
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Update Filing to be effective 5/12/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170412-5249.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-653-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2017 Clean-Up to be effective 5/13/2017.
    Filed Date: 04/12/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170412-5275.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2017.

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

    Dated: April 13, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08269 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7941-7942]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59384; File No. SR-DTC-2008-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Eliminating the SRO
Requirement as a Condition of DTC-Eligibility for Securities That Are
Eligible for Resale Under Rule 144A Under the Securities Act of 1933

February 11, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On October 9, 2008, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ On December 17, 2008, the Commission published
notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register to solicit
comments from interested persons.\2\ The Commission received no comment
letters in response to the proposed rule change. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59088 (Dec. 11, 2008),
73 FR 76688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    Prior to this rule change, Rule 144A securities,\3\ other than
Investment Grade Securities, were eligible for DTC's deposit, book-
entry delivery, and other depository services provided, in part, that
such securities were included in an ``SRO Rule 144A System''
(frequently referred to as the ``SRO Requirement''), such as the NASD's
PORTAL Market System.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 144A, 17 CFR 230.144A, provides a safe-harbor from the
registration requirements of the Securities Act for resales to
qualified institutional buyers (``QIBs'') of certain restricted
securities that when issued were not of the same class as securities
listed on a national securities exchange registered under the Act.
Rule 144A(d)(2), 17 CFR 230.144A(d)(2), requires that the seller and
any person acting on its behalf take reasonable steps to ensure that
the purchaser is aware that the seller may rely on the safe-harbor
provided by Rule 144A.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Release No. 33327 (Dec. 13, 1993), 58 FR
67878 (Dec. 22, 1993) [File No. SR-DTC-90-06]. ``Investment Grade
Securities'' are defined in that Commission order as nonconvertible
debt securities and nonconvertible preferred stock which are in one
of the top four categories by a nationally recognized statistical
rating organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this rule change, DTC will eliminate the SRO Requirement
thereby resulting in a uniform procedure for making all Rule 144A
Securities DTC-eligible. Issuers and participants will continue to be
responsible for determining that their deposit of Rule 144A Securities
at DTC and their transactions in Rule 144A Securities through DTC's
facilities are in compliance with existing DTC rules and the federal
securities laws,\5\ such as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 1994, in an order clarifying certain language in the Rule
144A Approval Order, the Commission concurred in the position taken
by DTC that ``Rule 5 [of DTC's rules] does not require DTC to
determine whether securities, when deposited at DTC, may be
transferred lawfully by book-entry in light of the Federal
securities law.'' Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to a
Clarification of Rule 5, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33672,
56 SEC Docket 315 (Feb. 23, 1994) (``Rule 5 Clarification Order'').
DTC Rule 5 was amended to delete any implication that DTC was under
any statutory or contractual obligation to determine whether
securities deposited with DTC could be legally transferred by book-
entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Rule 2, Section 8, of DTC's rules: ``In connection with their
use of the Corporation's [DTC's] services, Participants and Pledgees
must comply with all applicable laws, including all applicable laws
relating to securities, taxation and money laundering.''
    (ii) DTC's ``Operational Arrangements (Necessary for an Issue to
Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services)'' relating to BEO issues
being made eligible for DTC services: ``Issuer recognizes that DTC does
not in any way undertake to, and shall not have any responsibility to,
monitor or ascertain the compliance of any transactions in the
Securities with the following, as amended from time to time: (1) Any
exemptions from registration under the Securities Act of 1933; (2) the
Investment Company Act of 1940; (3) the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974; (4) the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; (5) any
rules of any self-regulatory organizations (as defined under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934); or (6) any other local, state,
federal, or foreign laws or regulations there under.'' This and other
representations made by issuers to DTC pursuant to the DTC Operational
Arrangements are mirrored in the Letter of Representations that DTC
receives from issuers in connection with their deposits of BEO issues
with DTC.
    (iii) When a Rule 144A Security is made DTC eligible, the issuer
will continue to be required to execute a copy of the rider to the
Letter of Representation in the form it appeared prior to this rule
change except that the reference to the SRO Requirement will be
deleted.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder

applicable to DTC. In particular, the Commission believes the proposal
is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\6\ which requires
that the rules of a registered clearing agency are designed to, among
other things, remove impediments to the perfection of the mechanism of
a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When DTC established the SRO Requirement as a condition of
eligibility for Rule 144A Securities, DTC and the Commission envisioned
that an SRO Rule 144A System would provide comprehensive safeguards to
facilitate the SRO's ability to monitor compliance with Rule 144A.
However, the only SRO Rule 144A System that was developed was the
NASD's PORTAL Market System (``PORTAL''). Additionally, PORTAL neither
developed as anticipated nor included the safeguards contemplated by
the DTC requirement.\7\ Thus, the Commission agrees with DTC that the
SRO Requirement is no longer necessary or practical to achieve the
purpose for which it was added to DTC's rules. In addition, the
requirement appears to deter the development of alternative markets for
Rule 144A Securities that could avail traders in 144A Securities of
DTC's automated clearance, settlement, and risk management services.\8\
Accordingly, DTC's removal of the SRO Requirement should expand the
number of restricted securities that can become eligible for DTC's
clearance and settlement services thus helping to perfect the mechanism
of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, which is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Release No. 56172 (Jul. 31, 2007), 72 FR
44196 (Aug. 7, 2007) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-65].
    \8\ In a 2007 order approving Nasdaq's reestablishment of its
PORTAL market, the Commission acknowledged comments suggesting such
and encouraged DTC to review its SRO Requirement. Supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act \9\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2008-13) be and
hereby is approved.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3573 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 16935]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1338-000]

King Plains Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
King Plains Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 8, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06231 Filed 3-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P