[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 30222]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12248]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Angel Acquisition Corp. n/k/a Biogeron, Inc.;Order of Suspension
of Trading

May 22, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Angel Acquisition, Corp. n/k/a BioGeron, Inc. (``BioGeron'') because it
has not filed a periodic report since it filed its Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2011, filed on November 14, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of BioGeron. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section
12(k) of the Exchange Act, that trading in the securities of BioGeron
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. E.D.T. on May 22, 2014,
through 11:59 p.m. E.D.T. on June 5, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12248 Filed 5-22-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12378-12379]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80104; File No. SR-BX-2017-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter
VII, Section 6 of the Options Rules Relating to Market Maker Quotations

February 24, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 14, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter VII, Section 6 of the
Options Rules relating to Market Maker Quotations.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to amend Chapter VII, Section 6 of the Options
Rules relating to Market Maker Quotations to amend the quote spread
parameters for in-the-money series where the market for the underlying
security is wider than $5. Currently, Chapter VII, Section 6 states
that options on equities (including Exchange-Traded Fund Shares), and
index options must be quoted with a difference not to exceed $5 between
the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid, including before
and during the opening. However, respecting in-the-money series where
the market for the underlying security is wider than $5, the bid/ask
differential may be as wide as the quotation for the underlying
security on the primary market. BX proposes to change this provision so
that, for in-the-money series where the market for the underlying
security is wider than $5, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as
the spread between the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in the
underlying security.
    BX is proposing this change so that Chapter VII, Section 6 will be
consistent with Rule 803(b)(4)(i) of the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') in this regard.\3\ Pursuant to the

acquisition of the indirect parent company of ISE by Nasdaq, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''),\4\ Nasdaq is migrating ISE platforms to Nasdaq platforms,
and proposing consistent rules where appropriate. In addition to making
the BX and ISE rules consistent with one another in this regard, BX
believes that measuring the permissible width of a market maker's quote
against the NBBO more accurately reflects the current trading
environment where multiple trading venues contribute to the prevailing
market price of a security underlying an options series traded on
BX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ISE Rule 803(b)(4)(i) rule provides that (i) the bid/offer
differentials stated in subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall not
apply to in-the-money options series where the underlying securities
market is wider than the differentials set forth above. For these
series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the spread
between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78119 (June 21,
2016), 81 FR 41611 (June 27, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-11).
    \5\ For example, if the primary market for ABC has a quote of
$65 (bid)-$73 (offer), BX market makers currently may quote in-the-
money option series on that security with a bid/offer differential
of $8, even if other exchanges that trade ABC may collectively have
a higher bid of $66 and a lower offer of $72. Under the proposed
rule, BX market makers would be required to quote in-the-money
option series on ABC with a bid/offer differential of no more than
$6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed change adopts a bid/ask differential for market makers for
in-the-money series where the market for the underlying security is
wider than $5 that is consistent with ISE Rule 803(b)(4)(i). BX also
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because measuring
the permissible width of a market maker's quote against the NBBO more
accurately reflects the current trading environment where multiple
trading venues contribute to the prevailing market price of a security
underlying an options series traded on BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change will adopt
the same requirement as ISE Rule 803(b)(4)(i), and will apply the same
standard to all Market Makers for in-the-money series where the market
for the underlying security is wider than $5.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-011 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-011. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-011, and should be
submitted on or before March 23, 2017.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-04032 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71865-71867]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29909]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 224 / Monday, November 21, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1280; Special Conditions No. 25-452-SC]

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Model GVI
Airplane; Windshield Coating in Lieu of Wipers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This special condition is issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace
Corporation Model GVI airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature(s) associated with the use of a hydrophobic
windshield coating, rather than windshield wipers, as the means to
maintain a clear portion of the windshield during precipitation
conditions, as required by the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is November 14,
2011. We must receive your comments by January 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-1280
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Bernado, Airplane and Flight Crew
Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and
after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in
person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.
    If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these
special conditions, include with your comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which you have written the docket number. We will
stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

Background

    On March 29, 2005, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (GAC) applied
for an FAA type certificate for its new Model GVI passenger airplane
(hereafter referred to as ``the GVI'' airplane). On September 28, 2006,
GAC re-applied for the GVI type certificate in order to adhere to the
application effectivity established by Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(c), and on July 31, 2011, GAC requested an
extension of application in accordance with Sec.  21.17(d)(2). The FAA
concurred with this request and established a new effective application
date of September 18, 2007. The GVI airplane will be an all-new, two-
engine jet transport airplane. The maximum takeoff weight will be
99,600 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 19 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, GAC must show that the GVI
meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by
Amendments 25-1 through 25-120, 25-122, 25-124, and 25-132 thereto. If
the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for the GVI because of a novel or unusual design feature,
special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.
    In addition to complying with the applicable airworthiness
regulations and special conditions, the GVI must comply with the fuel
vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must also issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law
92-574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The GVI flightdeck design incorporates a hydrophobic windshield
coating to provide adequate pilot compartment view in the presence of
precipitation. Sole reliance on such a coating, without windshield
wipers or a windshield blower, constitutes a novel or unusual design
feature for which the applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards. Therefore, special
conditions are required that provide the level of safety equivalent to
that established by the regulations.

Discussion

    Section 25.773(b)(1) of 14 CFR requires a means to maintain a clear
portion of the windshield for both pilots to have a sufficiently
extensive view along the flight path during precipitation conditions.
The regulations require this means to maintain such an area during
precipitation in heavy rain at speeds up to 1.5 VSR1. The
existing regulations cover technologies that primarily account for
increased airflow and precipitation rates as limiting conditions. For
example, as airflow and precipitation rates increase, the effectiveness
of windshield wipers to maintain an area of clear vision normally
degrades as airflow and precipitation rates increase. It is assumed
that because high speeds and high precipitation rates represent
limiting conditions for windshield wipers, they will also be effective
at lower speeds and precipitation levels. Accordingly, Sec.
25.773(b)(1)(i) does not require maintenance of a clear area of forward
vision at lower speeds or lower precipitation rates. A forced air
stream blown over the windshield has also been used to maintain an area
of clear vision in precipitation. The limiting conditions for this
technology are comparable to those for windshield wipers. Accordingly,
introduction of this technology did not require special conditions to
maintain the level of safety embodied in the existing regulations.
    However, the heavy rain and high-speed conditions specified in the
current rule do not necessarily represent the limiting conditions for
hydrophobic windshield coatings, which may depend to some degree on
airflow over the windscreen to maintain a clear vision area. For
example, in low-speed flight or during surface operations, airflow over
the windshield may not be adequate to maintain a sufficiently clear
area of the windshield. Additionally, during such critical times as
during final approach where the airplane is at a higher-than-normal
pitch attitude, airflow over the windshield may be disturbed. In these
cases, areas of airflow disturbance or separation on the windshield
could cause failure to maintain a clear vision area on the windshield.
    In addition to airflow, the effectiveness of hydrophobic coatings
may also be affected by the size of precipitation. In some cases, the
properties of the coating may not be sufficient to provide a clear area
of vision during precipitation in the form of light mist.
    The heavy rain and high-speed conditions specified in the current
rule do not necessarily represent the limiting condition for this new
technology. For example, airflow over the windshield, which may be
necessary to remove moisture from the windshield, may not be adequate
to maintain a sufficiently clear area of the windshield in low-speed
flight or during surface operations. Alternatively, airflow over the
windshield may be disturbed during such critical times as the approach
to land, where the airplane is at a higher-than-normal pitch attitude.
In these cases, areas of airflow disturbance or separation on the
windshield could cause failure to maintain a clear-vision area on the
windshield.
    In summary, the current regulations identify speed and
precipitation rate requirements that represent limiting conditions for
windshield wipers and blowers, but not for hydrophobic coatings, so it
is necessary to issue special conditions to maintain the level of
safety represented by the current regulations.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
GVI. Should GAC apply at a later date for a change to the type
certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the GVI. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments
to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for GAC GVI airplanes.

Pilot Compartment View--Hydrophobic Coatings in Lieu of Windshield
Wipers

    The airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the
windshield, during precipitation conditions, enough for both pilots to
have a sufficiently extensive view along the ground or flight path in
normal taxi and flight attitudes of the airplane. This means must be
designed to function, without continuous attention on the part of the
crew, in conditions from light misting precipitation to heavy rain at
speeds from fully stopped in still air, to 1.5 VSR1 with
lift and drag devices retracted.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-29909 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27290-27294]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11355]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0255-201050; FRL-9303-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Kentucky; Ohio; Huntington-Ashland Nonattainment Area;
Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two determinations regarding the tri-
state Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) nonattainment Area (hereafter referred to as
``the Huntington-Ashland Area'' or ``Area''). First, EPA is proposing
to determine that the Area has attained the 1997 annual average
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
proposed determination of attainment is based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009
period showing that the Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and data available to date for 2010 in EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) database that show the area continues to
attain. If EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment, the
requirements for the Area to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the
standard shall be suspended for so long as the Area continues to attain
the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA is also proposing to
determine, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for
the 2007-2009 monitoring period, that the Area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments regarding the tri-state Huntington-
Ashland Area, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0255, by one
of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0255, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0255. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Region 3, Ellen Wentworth, Office
of Air Program Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2023. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Wentworth can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region 4, Joel Huey
or Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Huey's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Huey can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson
may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region 5, John Summerhays, Air Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604-3507. Mr. Summerhays' telephone number is (312) 886-
6067. Mr. Summerhays can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What actions is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. Has the Huntington-Ashland area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard?
    A. Criteria
    B. Huntington-Ashland Area Air Quality
    C. How did EPA address air quality in Lawrence County?
    D. Has the Huntington-Ashland area met the 1997 annual
PM2.5 air quality standard?
IV. What is the effect of these actions?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is EPA taking?

    In accordance with Section 179(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42
U.S.C. 7509(c)(1), and 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to determine
that the Huntington-Ashland Area (which consists of portions in West
Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio) has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposal is based upon quality-assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 monitoring
period that show that the Area has monitored attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and data available to date for 2010 that
show the Area continues to attain. EPA is also proposing to determine,
in accordance with EPA's PM2.5 Implementation Rule of April
25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment
date of April 5, 2010.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (hereafter referred to as ``the annual PM2.5
NAAQS'' or ``the annual standard''). At that time, EPA also established
a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (the ``1997 24-hour standard'').
See 40 CFR 50.7. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published its air
quality designations and classifications for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for
calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became effective on April
5, 2005. The Huntington-Ashland Area was designated nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS during this designations process. See
40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia), 40 CFR 81.318 (Kentucky), and 40 CFR
81.336 (Ohio). The Huntington-Ashland Area is composed of Cabell and
Wayne Counties in their entireties and a portion of Mason County
(Graham Tax District) in West Virginia; Boyd County in its entirety and
a portion of Lawrence County in Kentucky; and a portion of Adams, a
portion of Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties in Ohio.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-hour
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations (the ``2006 24-hour standard'').
On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the Huntington-Ashland Area as
attainment for the 2006 24-hour standard (74 FR 58688). In that action,
EPA also clarified the designations for the NAAQS promulgated in 1997,
stating that the Huntington-Ashland Area was designated as
nonattainment for the annual standard but attainment for the 1997 24-
hour standard. Thus, today's action does not address attainment of
either the 1997 or the 2006 24-hour standard.
    In response to legal challenges of the annual standard promulgated
in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(DC Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA for further consideration.
See American

Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v.
EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, given that the 1997 and 2006
annual standards are essentially identical, attainment of the 1997
annual standard would also indicate attainment of the remanded 2006
annual standard.
    On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA promulgated its
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and Tribal
plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 standard. This rule, at 40
CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory consequences of
attaining the standard, as discussed below.

III. Has the Huntington-Ashland area attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard?

A. Criteria

    Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether (1) the Huntington-
Ashland Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based
on the most recent three years of quality-assured data, and (2) whether
the Area attained that NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April
5, 2010.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 1997 annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area.

B. Huntington-Ashland Area Air Quality

    EPA has determined that the PM2.5 monitoring network for
the Huntington-Ashland Area is adequate based on the following reasons.
First, the number of monitors in the Area meets the minimum regulatory
requirements given in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. Second, the monitoring is
in accordance with state monitoring plans that have been reviewed and
approved by the respective EPA regional offices.
    Table 1 shows the design values (i.e., the 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations) for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Huntington-Ashland Area monitors for the
years 2007-2009. All data considered have been quality-assured,
certified, and recorded in AQS. The highest 3-year average annual
concentration for 2007-2009 on this table was recorded in Cabell
County, West Virginia at the Huntington site--54-011-0006, recording a
3-year average annual concentration of 14.3 [mu]g/m\3\.
    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Huntington-Ashland
Area has met the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 and the
related discussion below and in the technical support document (TSD)
show that, based on EPA's analysis of data for 2007-2009, the Area
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by its attainment
date of April 5, 2010. In addition, Table 2 and the related discussion
below and in the TSD show that the Area continues to attain the
standard based on data available to date for 2010. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

                 Table 1--2007-2009 Annual Average Concentrations in the Huntington-Ashland Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average
                Site name                                County                   Site No.        concentration
                                                                                ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington...............................  Cabell...........................       54-011-0006          \1\ 14.3
Ashland Primary (FIVCO)..................  Boyd.............................       21-019-0017              12.4
Lawrence County Hospital (LCH)...........  Lawrence.........................       39-087-0010          \2\ 13.3
Ironton Department of Transportation       Lawrence.........................       39-087-0012              12.2
 (DOT) \3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How did EPA address the air quality in Lawrence County?

Monitoring Network
    The LCH site was demolished on February 12, 2008, and a new site in
the Lawrence County, Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area, known
as the Ironton DOT site, began operation on the same day. As a
consequence of the shutdown of the LCH site, the site was not able to
meet the data completeness requirements for 2007-2009 because it was
not operating for the entire 2007-2009 monitoring period. A year during
which monitoring data is collected meets EPA data completeness
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days
for each quarter have valid data. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
section 4.1(b). The use of less than complete data is subject to the
approval of EPA, which may consider factors such as monitoring site
closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in
determining whether to use such data (40 CFR part 50, Appendix N,
section 4.1(c)). The Ironton DOT site was a new site in 2008 and thus
did not collect data for 2007 and part of the first quarter of 2008;
however, the data are complete for the remainder of 2008 and 2009.
Because this was a new monitor during the 2007-2009 period, these data
are considered supplemental to the data provided from the other
monitors in the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ West Virginia has a collocated monitor in place at the same
site for quality assurance purposes. The primary monitor, and not
the collocated monitor, is used to determine compliance with the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Since the collocated monitor takes fewer
readings than the primary monitor, its average annual values may be
unrepresentatively high. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 3(d)(1).
    \2\ The Lawrence County Hospital Site was shut down in February
2008. The Ironton DOT site began operation on the same day the
Lawrence County Hospital Site ceased monitoring.
    \3\ The Ironton DOT site did not begin operation until February
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate air quality at the LCH site, EPA applied statistical
analysis using data from other sites in the Area. The approach,
summarized in this section and further described in the TSD, is
appropriate for this Area but may or may not be suitable for other
areas with less than complete data. EPA will evaluate the
appropriateness of this analytical approach on a case-by-case basis for
determinations regarding each area with less than complete data.
    The first step in the analysis was to assess the correlation of
concentrations at the LCH site with concentrations at other sites in
the Area. The monitor in the Area that had the highest correlation with
the LCH site was the Ashland Primary site; therefore, subsequent
analyses used data from this site. The second step was to develop a
regression equation expressing the relationship between concentrations
at the LCH and the Ashland Primary sites. This regression equation was
used to estimate values at the LCH site on days during quarters with
incomplete data when the LCH site did not measure concentrations
because the site was no longer operating. A 2007-2009 design value for
the LCH site was then calculated using these estimated values. Under
this method, the 2007-2009

design value for the LCH site was estimated to be 13.3 [mu]g/m\3\.
    This estimated design value was then analyzed using a statistical
method that involved the use of regression residuals, referred to as
the bootstrap method. In this analysis, EPA repeated the regression
analysis 1,000 times with different values within the probability
distribution of LCH concentrations that could be associated with given
concentrations at the Ashland Primary site. From this analysis, as
described in detail in the TSD, EPA determined that the upper end of
the range of potential 2007-2009 design values obtained did not exceed
the NAAQS. No exceedances of the NAAQS resulted from application of the
statistical analysis. Therefore, EPA concluded that for 2007-2009, the
annual average concentrations of all of the monitors in the Huntington-
Ashland Area are below the NAAQS.
    Although the LCH monitor does not have complete data for the 2007-
2009 monitoring period, the historical certified data recorded at the
monitor provide additional support for EPA's proposed determination
that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The annual average design values for the two
years preceding the demolition of the site (2006 and 2007) were below
the NAAQS and the monitor met data completeness requirements. EPA is
also approving the use of these data for consideration in this
determination because it finds that West Virginia and Kentucky have
exercised diligence in monitoring in the Huntington-Ashland Area.
    Determinations of attainment are based on three years of complete,
quality-assured data. Nevertheless, any such assessment should consider
additional quality-assured data, to the extent that quality-assured
data exist. In accordance with Appendix N and standard EPA practice,
this review of data is based on the three most recent years of complete
data, generally 2007-2009. Quality-assured data are now available for
2010, which EPA used to compute preliminary design values. The
Huntington site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of 13.1 [mu]g/
m\3\, the Ashland site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design value of 11.4
[mu]g/m\3\, and the Ironton DOT site has a preliminary 2008-2010 design
value of 12.2 [mu]g/m\3\. On the basis of this review, EPA is proposing
to determine that the Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and is soliciting public comments on its
proposed determination.

                 Table 2--2008-2010 Annual Average Concentrations in the Huntington-Ashland Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual average
                Site name                                County                   Site No.        concentration
                                                                                ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington...............................  Cabell...........................       54-011-0006              13.1
Ashland Primary (FIVCO)..................  Boyd.............................       21-019-0017              11.4
Ironton DOT \4\..........................  Lawrence.........................       39-087-0012              12.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Has the Huntington-Ashland area met the 1997 annual PM2.5
air quality standard?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded the data in the EPA AQS database, for the
Huntington-Ashland Area from 2007 through the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Ironton DOT site began operation in February 2008 and
thus did collect 75 percent for the first quarter of 2008. However,
this was a new site and monitoring data did meet 75 percent
completeness for the remainder of the quarter and for the subsequent
quarters. As such, EPA does not consider the first quarter data to
be incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of that review, EPA proposes to determine that this
Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the quality-assured data for the 2007-
2009, which demonstrates attainment by April 5, 2010, and 2008-2010
monitoring periods. In addition, based on EPA's review of the data for
2007-2009, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA and
EPA's regulations, EPA proposes to determine that the Area attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of
April 5, 2010.

IV. What is the effect of these actions?

    If EPA's proposed determination of attainment, based on the most
recent three years of quality-assured data, is made final, the
requirements for the Huntington-Ashland Area to submit attainment
demonstrations and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures,
and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so long as the
Huntington-Ashland Area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1004(c). Notably, as described
below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the
redesignation of the Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this proposed determination of attainment is finalized and EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the Area has violated the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the specific
requirements would no longer exist for the Huntington-Ashland Area, and
the Area would thereafter have to address the applicable requirements.
See 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
    Finalizing this proposed action would not constitute a
redesignation of the Area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. Further,
finalizing this proposed action does not involve approving maintenance
plans for the Area as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor would
it find that the Area has met all other requirements for redesignation.
Even if EPA finalizes the proposed action, the designation status of
the Huntington-Ashland Area would remain nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the Area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and
takes action to redesignate the Huntington-Ashland Area.
    In addition, if EPA's separate and independent proposed
determination that the Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard by its applicable attainment date (April 5,
2010) is finalized, EPA will have met its requirement pursuant to
section 179(c)(1) of the CAA to make a determination based on the
Area's air quality data as of the attainment date whether the Area
attained the standard by that date.
    These two actions described above are proposed determinations
regarding the Huntington-Ashland Area's attainment only with respect to
the 1997 annual

PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's actions do not address the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions propose to make determinations of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, and it would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
these proposed 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS determinations for
the Huntington-Ashland Area do not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 13, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    Dated: April 26, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    Dated: April 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-11355 Filed 5-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11640-11641]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05890]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1010; Product Identifier 2018-NM-148-AD; Amendment
39-19596; AD 2019-05-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; removal of Airworthiness Directive (AD).

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

SUMMARY: We are removing AD 2012-02-18, which applied to all Dassault

Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2012-02-18 required
revising the maintenance program to include revised airworthiness
limitations. We issued AD 2012-02-18 to address cracking of the flap
tracks, which could lead to flap asymmetry and loss of control of the
airplane. Since we issued AD 2012-02-18, we have issued AD 2017-09-03
to address the unsafe condition. Accordingly, AD 2012-02-18 is removed.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

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-2018-
1010; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by removing AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175,
February 29, 2012) (``AD 2012-02-18''). AD 2012-02-18 applied to all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67155). The NPRM
was prompted by a determination that AD 2012-02-18 is no longer
necessary because we have since issued AD 2017-09-03, Amendment 39-
18865 (82 FR 21467, May 9, 2017) to address the unsafe condition. The
NPRM proposed to remove AD 2012-02-18. We are issuing this AD to remove
AD 2012-02-18.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

2019-05-14 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19596; Docket No. FAA-
2018-1010; Product Identifier 2018-NM-148-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 28, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD removes AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175,
February 29, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 18, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05890 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P