                                                         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

 								 OFFICE OF POLICY

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Transmittal to Docket:  Summary of the March 15, 2011, Public Meeting with Tribal Leaders in Denver, Colorado, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of Executive Order 13563:  Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

FROM:	Stuart C. Miles-McLean 		Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

TO: 		Public Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156:  Improving Regulations:  General                     As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned."                As part of its retrospective review of regulations, EPA convened public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodically review our regulations.  This Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting with tribal leaders held on March 15, 2011, in Denver, Colorado.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 2942]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00754]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-70]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing
Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6811
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking 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 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    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: Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-6811.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.341(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests an exemption
from 14 CFR 25.341(a) for the STC-modified 767-2C ARB and its local
attachment structure.
[FR Doc. 2016-00754 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9098-9100]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02747]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68817; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule

February 1, 2013.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 January 29, 2013, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to establish fees for the MIAX Clearing
Trade Drop Port, a connection to a messaging interface that will
provide real-time trade clearing information to the participants to a
trade on MIAX and to the participants' respective clearing firms.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on February 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a single
monthly port fee of $0.0030 per executed contract for the MIAX Clearing
Trade Drop (``CTD''), a messaging interface that will provide real-time
trade clearing information to the participants to a trade on MIAX and
to the participants' respective clearing firms. The Exchange proposes
to assess a single per-contract monthly fee to entitled users of the
ports, regardless of the number of ports used by a Member or member
organization, their clearing firms, and other third-party entities as
requested by the Member.
    The Exchange originally filed SR-MIAX-2013-03 on January 17, 2013.
The instant proposal replaces that filing in its entirety.
    MIAX currently assesses fees for Exchange access and services used
by Members, Service Bureaus \3\ and Extranet Providers.\4\ Such
Exchange access is gained through ``Ports.'' MIAX currently assesses
monthly Port Fees for the Financial Information Exchange (``FIX'') \5\
on Electronic Exchange Members (``EEMs''),\6\ based upon the number of
FIX Ports used by the EEM submitting orders to MIAX. MIAX also
currently assesses monthly Port Fees for the MIAX Express Interface
(``MEI'') \7\ on Market Makers, based upon the number of MIAX matching
engines \8\ used by the Market Maker, which allows Market Makers to
submit electronic quotes to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Service Bureau is a technology provider that offers and
supplies technology and technology services to a trading firm that
does not have its own proprietary system. The technology and
technology services supplied by Service Bureaus includes both
software applications and connectivity, thus Service Bureaus are
subject to both API testing and certification and Network testing
and certification.
    \4\ An Extranet Provider is a technology provider that connects
with MIAX systems and in turn provides such connectivity to MIAX
participants that do not connect directly with MIAX. Extranet
Providers do not provide software interfaces with MIAX software
applications, thus Extranet Providers are not subject to API testing
and certification.
    \5\ A FIX Port allows EEMs Members to electronically send orders
in all products traded on the Exchange.
    \6\ The term ``Electronic Exchange Member'' means the holder of
a Trading Permit who is not a Market Maker. Electronic Exchange
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \7\ MEI is a connection to MIAX systems that enables Market
Makers to submit electronic quotes to MIAX.
    \8\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will
be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY options). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a
single designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not
be assigned to multiple matching engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX proposes to establish a new Port Fee for the MIAX CTD. CTD
provides Exchange Members, their clearing firms, and other third-party
entities as requested by the Member with real-time clearing trade
updates. The updates contain the Member's clearing trade messages on a
low latency, real-time basis. The trade messages are routed to a CTD
connection containing certain information. The information includes,
among other things, the following: (i) Trade date and time; (ii) symbol
information; (iii) trade price/size information; (iv) member type (for
example, and without limitation, Market Maker, Electronic Exchange
Member, Broker-Dealer); and (v) Exchange Member Participant Identifier
(``MPID'') for each side of the transaction, including clearing member
MPID.
    MIAX will assess a CTD fee of $0.0030 per executed contract side
for real-time clearing information that is transmitted to one or more
CTD ports to which users of such CTD ports are entitled. The executing
Member or member organization, their clearing firms, and other third-
party entities as requested by the Member are entitled to the use of
the CTD port(s) by way of using the executing or clearing member's
MPID, OCC Numbers, and/or CMTA Number.
    Unlike FIX and MEI Port Fees, the CTD Port Fee will not be based on
the number of Ports or connections a Member or member organization has;
instead, the CTD Port Fee will be assessed monthly, based upon the
number of contracts executed and cleared in the affected month that are
sent through the CTD port(s) used by the entitled executing or clearing
Member or member organization, their clearing firms, and other third-
party entities as requested by the Member, regardless of the number of
ports or connections used by the Member or member organization. The
Exchange intends to assess the fee for the data and information used in
trading options contracts and ongoing entitlement management and
configuration, and not for the amount of connectivity to which the
Member or member organization subscribes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges
among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this amendment is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is uniformly assessing the
CTD fees on all members and member organizations that wish to subscribe
to it.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed CTD Port Fee is reasonable
because it is within the range of similar fees charged by other
exchanges, as cited below, and because the CTD data is offered as an
optional service for members and member organizations who wish to
obtain the data on a real-time basis.

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

    MIAX 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. Unilateral action by MIAX in establishing fees
for services provided to its Members and others using its facilities
will not have an impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already
highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX does
not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are
unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX's
proposed CTD Port Fee, as described herein, is comparable to fees
charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar
services.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') charges a Real-
time Risk Management Fee of $.0030 per contract for members and
member organizations receiving information on a real-time basis up
to a maximum of two ports. See PHLX Pricing Schedule, Section
VII(B). The MIAX proposal is also to assess a $0.0030 per contract
fee for real-time information to CTD users, regardless of, and with
no limitation on, the number of CTD Ports used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CTD Port is offered as an additional service for
members and member organizations at a price that is equal to or within
the range of prices for similar ports offered by other exchanges, and
therefore the Exchange believes that the price of the port fee does not
impose a burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\ 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2013-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-03. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-MIAX-2013-03,
and should be submitted on or before February 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-02747 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual citizen to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises numerous and significant issues, as well as questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks many different questions I want to respond to. I do want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is quite limited. I have already spent some hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took a few years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers of these products, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Put simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life - I quit smoking combustable cigarettes, after more than 30 years as a smoker, in June 2011 using e-cigarettes. I've experienced numerous failed attempts with pharmaceutically-developed products (patches, gum, etc.). I've no question that e-cigarettes are, in fact, very effective and present far less potential harm than combustable cigarettes. I wish to provide you with more of my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comments into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 60230]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-174, OMB Control No. 3235-0179]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 31a-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Section 31(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Act'') requires registered investment companies
(``funds'') and certain underwriters, broker-dealers, investment
advisers, and depositors to maintain and preserve records as prescribed
by Commission rules. Rule 31a-1 (17 CFR 270.31a-1) under the Act
specifies the books and records that each of these entities must
maintain. Rule 31a-2 (17 CFR 270.31a-2) under the Act specifies the
time periods that entities must retain certain books and records,
including those required to be maintained under rule 31a-1.
    The retention of records, as required by the rule, is necessary to
ensure access to material business and financial information about
funds and certain related entities. We periodically inspect the
operations of funds to ensure they are in compliance with the Act and
regulations under the Act. Due to the limits on our resources, however,
each fund may only be inspected at intervals of several years. In
addition, the prosecution of persons who have engaged in certain
violations of the federal securities laws may not be limited by timing
restrictions. For these reasons, we often need information relating to
events or transactions that occurred years ago. Without the requirement
to preserve books, records, and other documents, our staff would have
difficulty determining whether the fund was in compliance with the law
in such areas as valuation of its portfolio securities, computation of
the prices investors paid, and, when purchasing and selling fund
shares, types and amounts of expenses the fund incurred, kinds of
investments the fund purchased, actions of affiliated persons, or
whether the fund had engaged in any illegal or fraudulent activities.
As part of our examinations of funds, our staff also reviews the
materials that directors consider in approving the advisory contract.
    There are 2,754 funds currently operating as of December 31, 2021,
all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-2. The Commission
staff estimates that, on average, a fund spends 220.4 hours annually to
comply with the rule. The Commission therefore estimates the total
annual hour burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to
be 606,981.60 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission
staff estimates that the average yearly cost to each fund that is
subject to rule 31a-2 is about $40,577.95. The Commission estimates
total annual cost is therefore about $111.8 million.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of the rule is mandatory. Responses to the
disclosure requirements will not be kept confidential. 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.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by November 3, 2022 to (i) [email protected]
and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities
and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: September 28, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21445 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36746-36749]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62331; File No. SR-NSX-2010-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.19, Entitled
``Clearly Erroneous Executions''

June 21, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 17, 2010, National Stock Exchange, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 comment 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

    National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or the ``Exchange'') is
proposing to amend Rule 11.19, entitled ``Clearly Erroneous
Executions.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web Site at http://www.sec.gov, the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nsx.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing modifications to its Rule 11.19, entitled
Clearly Erroneous Executions. First, the Exchange proposes replacing
existing paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 11.19, entitled ``Unusual
Circumstances and Joint Market Rulings'' with a new paragraph, entitled
``Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty or More Securities.'' Second, the
Exchange replacing existing paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 11.19, entitled
``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile Market Opens'' with a new
paragraph, entitled ``Individual Stock Trading Pauses.'' Third, the
Exchange is proposing changes to existing paragraphs (g) and (h) of
Rule 11.19 to eliminate the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the
Numerical Guidelines contained in paragraph (c)(1) (other than under
limited circumstances set forth in paragraph (g)) when deciding which
transactions will be reviewed by the Exchange as potentially clearly
erroneous. Finally, the Exchange proposes modifications to paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(3) and (e) of Rule 11.19 consistent with the proposed
changes to paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4). As proposed, the provisions of
paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (g), and (h) of Rule 11.19, as amended pursuant
to this filing, would be in effect during a pilot period set to end on
December 10, 2010. If the pilot is not either extended or approved
permanent by December 10, 2010, the prior versions of paragraphs (c),
(e)(2), (g), and (h) of Rule 11.17 would be in effect.
    The Exchange is proposing the rule changes described below in
consultation with other markets and Commission staff to provide for
uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in Multi-
Stock Events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event
transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock
trading pause by the primary market and subsequent transactions that
occur before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. The
Exchange has also proposed additional changes to Rule 11.19 that reduce
the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set
forth in the Rule. The proposed changes are described in further detail
below.
Revised Paragraph (c)(2) Related to Multi-Stock Events Involving Twenty
or More Securities
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the majority of existing
paragraph (c)(2), which provides flexibility to the Exchange to use
different Numerical Guidelines or Reference Prices in various ``Unusual
Circumstances.'' The Exchange proposes to replace this paragraph with
new language that would apply to Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or
more securities whose executions occurred within a period of five
minutes or less. The revised paragraph would retain language making
clear that during Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more
securities the number of affected transactions may be such that
immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market
and to protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, in such
circumstances, decisions made by the Exchange in consultation with
other markets could not be appealed. Further, as proposed, in
connection with reviews of Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more
securities, the Exchange may use a Reference Price other than

consolidated last sale in its review of potentially clearly erroneous
executions. With the exception of those securities under review that
are subject to an individual stock trading pause as described in
proposed paragraph (c)(4), and to ensure consistent application across
market centers when proposed paragraph (c)(2) is invoked, the Exchange
will promptly coordinate with the other market centers to determine the
appropriate review period, which may be greater than the period of five
minutes or less that triggered application of proposed paragraph
(c)(2), as well as select one or more specific points in time prior to
the transactions in question and use transaction prices at or
immediately prior to the one or more specific points in time selected
as the Reference Price. The Exchange will nullify as clearly erroneous
all transactions that are at prices equal to or greater than 30% away
from the Reference Price in each affected security during the review
period selected by the Exchange and other markets consistent with the
proposed paragraph (c)(2).
    Because the Exchange and other market centers are adopting a
different threshold and standards to handle large-scale market events,
which would include events occurring during times of high volatility at
the beginning of regular trading hours, the Exchange proposes deletion
of paragraph (c)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable to Volatile
Market Opens'') of the existing rule. The Exchange believes that this
provision is no longer necessary, and if maintained, could result in
extremely high Numerical Guidelines (up to 90%) in certain
circumstances.
Revised Paragraph (c)(4) Related to Individual Stock Trading Pauses
    The primary listing markets for U.S. stocks recently amended their
rules so that they may, from time to time, issue a trading pause for an
individual security if the price of such security moves 10% or more
from a sale in a preceding five-minute period. In this regard, the
Exchange recently amended its rules to pause trading in an individual
stock when the primary listing market for such stock issues a trading
pause in any Circuit Breaker Securities, as defined in Commentary .05
to Rule 11.20.\3\ As described above, the Exchange is proposing to
eliminate existing paragraph (c)(4) (``Numerical Guidelines Applicable
to Volatile Market Opens''). The Exchange proposes adopting a rule,
numbered as (c)(4) following such elimination, which will provide for
uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in the event
transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock
trading pause by the primary listing market and subsequent transactions
that occur before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. The
proposed rule change is necessary to provide greater certainty of the
clearly erroneous Reference Price for transactions that trigger a
trading pause (the ``Trigger Trade'') and subsequent transactions
occurring between the time of the Trigger Trade and the time the
trading pause message is received by the Exchange from the single plan
processor responsible for consolidation and dissemination of
information for the security and put into effect on the Exchange,
especially under highly volatile and active market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NSX Rule 11.20; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 62252 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-
05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to revise paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 11.19 to
allow the Exchange to use the price that triggered a trading pause in
an individual stock (the ``Trading Pause Trigger Price'') as the
Reference Price for clearly erroneous execution reviews of a Trigger
Trade and transactions that occur immediately after a Trigger Trade but
before a trading pause is in effect on the Exchange. As proposed, the
phrase ``Trading Pause Trigger Price'' shall mean the price that
triggered a trading pause in any Circuit Breaker Security as defined in
Commentary .05 of Rule 11.20. The Trading Pause Trigger Price reflects
a price calculated by the primary listing market over a rolling five-
minute period and may differ from the execution price of a transaction
that triggered a trading pause. If the Exchange is not the primary
listing market, the Exchange will rely on the primary listing market
that issued an individual stock trading pause to determine and
communicate the Trading Pause Trigger Price for such stock. The
Exchange proposes to make clear in the text that the proposed standards
in paragraph (c)(4) apply regardless of whether the security at issue
is part of a Multi-Stock Event involving five or more securities as
described in proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2).
    As proposed, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in Rule
11.19(c)(1), other than those Numerical Guidelines applicable to Multi-
Stock Events, would apply to reviews of Trigger Trades and subsequent
transactions. The Exchange proposes to review, on its own motion
pursuant to Rule 11.19(h), all transactions that trigger a trading
pause and subsequent transactions occurring before the trading pause is
in effect on the Exchange. The Exchange has proposed to limit such
reviews to reviews of transactions that executed at a price lower than
the Trading Pause Trigger Price in the event of a price decline and
higher than the Trading Pause Trigger Price in the event of a price
rise. Because the proposed rules for trading pauses would only apply
within Regular Trading Hours,\4\ an execution would be reviewed and
nullified as clearly erroneous if it exceeds the following thresholds:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Regular Trading Hours are defined in Rule 1.5(R) as the time
between 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Central Time. According to rules of
the primary listing markets, an individual stock trading pause can
be issued based on a Trigger Trade that occurs at any time between
9:45 a.m. and 3:35 p.m. Eastern Time. See NSX Rule 11.20B(a). See
also NASDAQ Rule 4120(a)(11), NYSE Rule 80C, and NYSE Arca Rule
7.11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Numerical guidelines (subject
                                            transaction's % difference
       Reference price or product         from the trading pause trigger
                                                      price)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than $0.00 up to and including   10
 $25.00.
Greater than $25.00 up to and including  5
 $50.00.
Greater than $50.00....................  3
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities...........  Regular Trading Hours Numerical
                                          Guidelines multiplied by the
                                          leverage multiplier (i.e.,
                                          2x).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Paragraphs (g) and (h)
    Consistent with other proposals made in this filing, the Exchange
proposes modifying paragraphs (g) and (h) to eliminate the ability of
an Exchange official to deviate from the Numerical Guidelines contained
in the Rule other than under very limited circumstances set forth in
paragraph (g).

    Current paragraph (g) provides an officer of the Exchange or other
senior level employee designee the ability on his or her own motion, to
review and rule on executions that result from ``any disruption or a
malfunction in the use or operation of any electronic communications
and trading facilities of the Exchange, or extraordinary market
conditions or other circumstances in which the nullification of
transactions may be necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market or the protection of investors and the public interest exist.''
Without modification, the language ``extraordinary market conditions or
other circumstances* * *'' would leave the Exchange with broad
discretion to deviate from the Numerical Guidelines set forth in
paragraph (c)(1). Thus, the Exchange proposes narrowing the scope of
paragraph (g) so that it only permits the Exchange to nullify
transactions consistent with that paragraph (including at a lower
Numerical Guideline) if there is a disruption or malfunction in the
operation of the Exchange's system. For the same reason, the Exchange
proposes eliminating the words ``use or'' from the language in
paragraph (g) to make clear that the provision only applies to a
disruption or malfunction of the Exchange's system (and not of an
Exchange user's systems).
    Paragraph (h) gives an officer of the Exchange or other senior
level employee designee the ability on his or her own motion to review
transactions as potentially clearly erroneous. Consistent with the goal
of achieving more objective and standard results, the Exchange proposes
deleting language in existing paragraph (h) that would allow the
Exchange to deviate from the Numerical Guidelines contained in
paragraph (c)(1). In addition, the Exchange proposes to make clear that
any Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee reviewing
transactions on his or her own motion must follow the guidelines set
forth in proposed paragraph (c)(4), if applicable. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (h) to state that an officer must
rely on paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) of Rule 11.19 when reviewing transactions
on his or her own motion.
Additional Conforming Revisions to Paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3) and (e)
    Based on proposed paragraph (c)(2), the Exchange has proposed
certain conforming changes to paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3) and (e) of the
existing Rule, as described below.
    Under current Rule 11.19, a transaction may be found to be clearly
erroneous only if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is
the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference
Price by an amount that equals or exceeds the Numerical Guidelines set
forth in paragraph (c)(1) of the Rule. The ``Reference Price'' is
currently defined as ``the consolidated last sale immediately prior to
the execution(s) under review except for in Unusual Circumstances as
described in paragraph (c)(2)'' of Rule 11.19. The Exchange proposes
modifying paragraph (c)(1) consistent with the changes described above
such that the Exchange shall use the consolidated last sale immediately
prior to the execution(s) under review as the Reference Price except
for: (A) Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities, as
described in proposed paragraph (c)(2); (B) transactions not involving
a Multi-Stock Event as described in proposed paragraph (c)(2) that
trigger a trading pause and subsequent transactions, as described in
proposed paragraph (c)(4), in which case the Reference Price shall be
determined in accordance with that paragraph (c)(4); and (C) in other
circumstances, such as, for example, relevant news impacting a security
or securities, periods of extreme market volatility, sustained
illiquidity, or widespread system issues, where use of a different
Reference Price is necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market and the protection of investors and the public interest. The
Exchange also proposes modifying paragraph (c)(1) to reduce uncertainty
as to the applicability of the Numerical Guidelines, by requiring a
finding that an execution was clearly erroneous if such execution
exceeds the Numerical Guidelines, subject only to the Additional
Factors included in paragraph (c)(3). Moreover, the Exchange proposes
revising the existing description for Multi-Stock Events that is
contained on the Numerical Guidelines chart to make clear that
different Numerical Guidelines apply for Multi-Stock Events involving
five or more, but less than twenty, securities whose executions
occurred within a period of five minutes or less. In addition, the
Exchange proposes adding to the Numerical Guidelines chart a row that
contains the Numerical Guidelines (30%) for Multi-Stock Events
involving twenty or more securities whose executions occurred within a
period of five minutes or less.
    The Exchange proposes clarifying paragraph (c)(3) to make clear
that the additional factors set forth in that paragraph are not
intended to provide any discretion to an Exchange official to deviate
from the guidelines that apply to Multi-Stock Events or to transactions
in securities subject to individual stock trading pauses.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes amending paragraph (e)(2), related
to appeals of clearly erroneous execution decisions by the Exchange, to
preserve non-appealability of all joint rulings between the Exchange
and one or more other market centers. The Exchange believes that
certainty and consistency is critical to reviews of related executions
that span multiple market centers. Accordingly, although the Exchange
has proposed deletion of such language from existing paragraph (c)(2),
the Exchange proposes adding such language back in to paragraph (e)(2)
to make clear that joint market rulings are not appealable.
2. Statutory Basis
    Approval of the rule change proposed in this submission is
consistent with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') and the rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ In particular, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest. The proposed rule change is also designed to
support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \7\ of the Act in that it
seeks to assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and among
exchange markets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets
these requirements in that it promotes transparency and uniformity
across markets concerning reviews of potentially clearly erroneous
executions in various contexts, including reviews in the context of a
Multi-Stock Event involving twenty or more securities and reviews
resulting from a Trigger Trade and any executions occurring immediately
after a Trigger Trade but before a trading pause is in effect on the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
enhance the objectivity of decisions made by the Exchange with respect
to clearly erroneous executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).

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

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
    Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File No.
SR-NSX-2010-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSX-2010-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\8\ 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 No. SR-NSX-2010-07 and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15588 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28764-28766]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6414; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-175-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 &
440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by two in-service
incidents of a loss of all air data information in the flight deck.
This proposed AD would require a revision of the airplane flight manual
(AFM) emergency procedures section to provide procedures to guide the
crew on how to stabilize the airplane airspeed and attitude for
continued safe flight when a loss of all air data information has
occurred in the flight deck. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss
of control when a loss of all air data information has occurred in the
flight deck.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

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-2016-
6414; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6414;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-175-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-12, dated June 23, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on CL-600-2C10
aeroplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the
cockpit. The air data information was recovered as the aeroplane
descended to lower altitudes. An investigation determined that the
root cause in both events was high altitude icing (ice crystal
contamination). If not addressed, this condition may affect
continued safe flight.
    Due to similarities in the air data systems, such events could
happen on all Bombardier CRJ models, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-
600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25. Therefore, the corrective
actions for these models will be mandated once their respective
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revisions become available.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AFM procedures
to guide the crew to stabilize the aeroplane's airspeed and attitude
for continued safe flight.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6414.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Section 03-19, Unreliable Airspeed, Revision 63, dated
February 13, 2015, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in the
Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight
Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015. The service
information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the
airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight when a loss
of all air data information has occurred in the flight deck. 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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 500 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $42,500, or $85
per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-6414; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-175-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 24, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by two in-service incidents of a loss of
all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD
to prevent loss of control when a loss of all air data information
has occurred in the flight deck.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
emergency procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) by
incorporating Section 03-19, Unreliable Airspeed, Revision 63, dated
February 13, 2015, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in the
Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2B19 Airplane Flight
Manual CSP A-012, Revision 64B, dated December 8, 2015.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-12, dated June 23,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6414.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 28, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-10732 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P