55458 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c). 

(h) After the effective date of this AD, don’t 

install any model LTP101–600A–1A or 

–700A–1A turboprop engine that has a gas 

generator turbine disc, P/N 4–111–015–14, 

with a SN listed in Appendix 1 of Honeywell 

International Inc. SB LT 101–71–00–0002, 

Revision 25, dated August 31, 2007; if that 

disc has 2,770 or more CSN. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(i) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, has the authority to 

approve alternative methods of compliance 

for this AD if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(j) Honeywell International Inc. Service 

Bulletin LT 101–71–00–0002, Revision 25, 

dated August 31, 2007, pertains to the subject 

of this AD. 

(k) Contact Robert Baitoo, Aerospace 

Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712–4137; e-mail: robert.baitoo@faa.gov; 

telephone (562) 627–5245; fax (562) 627– 

5210, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

September 19, 2008. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22522 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 455 

[Project No. P087604] 

Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation 

Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Reopening of period within 

which to submit comments in response 

to request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 21, 2008, the Federal 

Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) published a Federal 

Register document soliciting public 

comments in connection with its review 

of the Used Motor Vehicle Trade 

Regulation Rule (‘‘Used Car Rule’’ or 

‘‘Rule’’). The document stated that 

comments must be received by 

September 19, 2008. In response to a 

request to extend the comment period 

received on September 12, 2008, the 

Commission has determined to reopen 

and extend the comment period until 

November 19, 2008. 

DATES: Comments addressing the Used 

Car Rule must be received on or before 

November 19, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Used Car 

Regulatory Review, Matter No. 

P087604’’ to facilitate the organization 

of comments. Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

Commission Rule 4.9(c).1 Comments 

should not include any sensitive 

personal information, such as an 

individual’s Social Security Number; 

date of birth; driver’s license number or 

other state identification number or 

foreign country equivalent; passport 

number; financial account number; or 

credit or debit card number. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records and other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a 

person and privileged or 

confidential. . . .,’’ as provided in Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2) (2008). 

Because paper mail in the Washington 

area, and specifically to the FTC, is 

subject to delay due to heightened 

security screening, please consider 

submitting your comments in electronic 

form. Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by using the 

following weblink: (https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcUsedCarRuleReview) (and following the 

instructions on the web-based form). To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the weblink: 

(https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcUsedCarRuleReview). If this document 

appears at http://www.regulations.gov, 

you may also file an electronic comment 

through that website. The Commission 

will consider all comments that 

regulations.gov forwards to it. You may 

also visit the FTC website at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/07/ucr.shtm to 

read the Federal Register document 

announcing the request for public 

comments and the news release 

describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Used Car Rule 

Regulatory Review, P087604’’ reference 

both in the text and on the envelope, 

and should be mailed or delivered to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H-135 (Annex H), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20580. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC website. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ 

ftc/privacy.shtm). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

C. Hallerud, Attorney, Midwest Region, 

Federal Trade Commission, 55 West 

Monroe Street, Suite 1825, Chicago, 

Illinois 60603, (312) 960-5615. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission’s July 21, 2008 Federal 

Register document seeks comments on 

the Rule’s costs, benefits, and 

effectiveness. The document seeks 

comments on whether the Rule should 

permit used car dealers to use a single 

bilingual Buyers Guide and, if so, on 

how to design a bilingual Buyers Guide. 

The document also asks for comments 

on the Buyers Guide’s pre-printed list of 

systems and major defects. In addition, 

the document solicits comments on 

whether the Rule should be revised to 

permit dealers to use alternative Buyers 

Guides when disclosing manufacturer’s 

warranties and other third-party 

warranties. 

On September 12, 2008, the 

Commission received a joint letter from 

Consumer Action, Consumers for Auto 

Reliability and Safety, the Consumer 

Federation of America, the National 

Association of Consumer Advocates, 

and the National Consumer Law Center 

requesting that the comment period be 

extended for sixty days. Among other 

reasons supporting the request, these 

organizations cite their need to conduct 

research to address the numerous 

questions raised in the Commission’s 

Federal Register document and changes 

that have occurred in the automotive 

marketplace and information 

technologies since the Commission last 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55459 

1Reliability Standards CIP–002–1 through CIP– 

009–1. Reliability Standard CIP–001–1, which 

pertains to sabotage reporting, does not include the 

exemption statement that is the subject of this 

order. 

2 Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical 

Infrastructure Protection, Order No. 706, 73 FR 

7368 (Feb. 7, 2008), 122 FERC ¶ 61,040, order on 

reh’g, 123 FERC ¶ 61,174 (2008). 

3 16 U.S.C. § 824o (2006). 

4 16 U.S.C. § 824o(d)(5). 

5Reliability Standard CIP–002–1, section 4.2 

(Applicability). 

6Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Power Reactor Security 

Requirements, NRC Docket No. RIN 3150–AG63 

(Oct. 2006). 

7April 8, 2008, Joint Meeting of the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and Federal Regulatory 

Commission, Tr. at 77–78. 

8See id. See also 42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201 and 2232. 

reviewed the Rule. The organizations 

argue that they will be able to present 

more carefully considered comments if 

provided an additional sixty days to 

comment. 

Based on the arguments raised in the 

joint letter, the Commission believes 

that an extension of the initial sixty-day 

comment period until November 19, 

2008 is reasonable. The additional time 

should enable the organizations that 

sent the letter and other commenters to 

submit detailed and thoughtful 

comments in response to the document. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

decided to extend the comment period 

set forth in the July 21, 2008 Federal 

Register document until November 19, 

2008. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

[FR Doc. E8–22415 Filed 9–24–08: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM06–22–000] 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for 

Critical Infrastructure Protection 

Issued September 18, 2008. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Order on proposed clarification. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing 

to clarify that the facilities within a 

nuclear generation plant in the United 

States that are not regulated by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission are 

subject to compliance with the eight 

mandatory ‘‘CIP’’ Reliability Standards 

approved in Commission Order No. 706. 

DATES: Comments are due October 20, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. 

Documents created electronically using 

word processing software should be 

filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan First (Legal Information), 

Office of General Counsel, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8529. 

Regis Binder (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–6460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. 

Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, 

Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and 

Jon Wellinghoff. 

1. In this order, the Commission 

proposes to clarify the scope of the eight 

Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 

Reliability Standards 1 approved in 

Order No. 706 to assure that no ‘‘gap’’ 

occurs in the applicability of these 

Standards.2 In particular, each of the 

eight CIP Reliability Standards provides 

that facilities regulated by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

are exempt from the Standard. It has 

come to the attention of the Commission 

that the NRC does not regulate all 

facilities within a nuclear generation 

plant. Thus, to assure that there is no 

‘‘gap’’ in the regulatory process, the 

Commission proposes to clarify that the 

facilities within a nuclear generation 

plant in the United States that are not 

regulated by the NRC are subject to 

compliance with the eight CIP 

Reliability Standards approved in Order 

No. 706. 

2. Comments on the Commission’s 

proposed clarification are due 30 days 

from the date of issuance of this order, 

after which the Commission intends to 

issue a further order on the matter. 

Background 

3. The North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC), the 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO), 

developed eight CIP Reliability 

Standards that require certain users, 

owners and operators of the Bulk-Power 

System to comply with specific 

requirements to safeguard critical cyber 

assets. In January 2008, pursuant to 

section 215 of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA),3 the Commission approved the 

eight CIP Reliability Standards. In 

addition, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) 

of the FPA,4 the Commission directed 

the ERO to develop modifications to the 

CIP Reliability Standards to address 

specific concerns identified by the 

Commission. 

4. Each of the eight CIP Reliability 

Standards includes an exemption for 

facilities regulated by the NRC. For 

example, Reliability Standard CIP–002– 

1 provides: 

The following are exempt from Standard 

CIP–002: Facilities Regulated by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. * * * [5] 

5. In an April 8, 2008 public joint 

meeting of the Commission and the 

NRC, staff of both Commissions 

discussed cyber security at nuclear 

generation plants. While NRC staff 

indicated that the NRC has proposed 

regulations to address cybersecurity at 

nuclear generation plants,6 NRC staff 

raised a concern regarding a potential 

gap in regulatory coverage. In particular, 

NRC staff indicated that the NRC’s 

proposed regulations on cybersecurity 

would not apply to all systems within 

a nuclear generation plant. NRC staff 

explained: 

The NRC’s cyber requirements are not 

going to extend to power continuity systems. 

They do not extend directly to what is not 

directly associated with reactor safety 

security or emergency response. * * * 

As a result, and when you look at the CIP 

standards that were issued, there is a discrete 

statement in each of the seven or eight 

standards where it specifically exempts 

facilities regulated by the United States 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 

compliance with those CIP Standards. So 

there is an issue there in the sense that our 

regulations for cyber security go up to a 

certain point, and end.[7] 

Discussion 

6. The Commission shares the 

concern raised at the April 8, 2008 joint 

meeting. It appears that the NRC’s 

regulation of a nuclear generation plant 

is limited to the facilities that are 

associated with reactor safety or 

emergency response.8 The Commission 

believes that a nuclear generation plant 

will likely include critical assets and 

critical cyber assets that are not safety 

related and, therefore, not regulated by 

the NRC. For example, facilities that 

pertain to the ‘‘continuity of operation’’ 

of a nuclear generation plant may be 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS