[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69845-69848]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27801]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9919-57-OAR]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Large Spark-Ignition Engines Regulation; Request for Authorization;
Opportunity for Public Hearing and Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it has adopted amendments to
its large spark-ignited engines regulation (LSI amendments). By letter
dated June 2, 2014, CARB asked that EPA either confirm that the LSI
amendments (adopted in 2008 and 2010) are within the scope of prior
authorizations or that EPA issue a full authorization for those LSI
amendments found not to be within the scope of prior authorizations,
pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This
notice announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to
consider California's authorization request for the LSI amendments, and
that EPA is now accepting written comment on the request.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's
request on January 14, 2015, at 10 a.m. ET. EPA will hold a hearing
only if any party notifies EPA by December 15, 2014, to express
interest in presenting the agency with oral testimony. Parties that
wish to present oral testimony at the public hearing should provide
written notice to David Dickinson at the email address noted below. If
EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that hearing will be held
at the William Jefferson Clinton Building (North), Room 5530, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. If EPA does not receive
a request for a public hearing, then EPA will not hold a hearing, and
instead will consider CARB's request based on written submissions to
the docket. Any party may submit written comments until February 16,
2015.
    Any person who wishes to know whether a hearing will be held may
call David Dickinson at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or after December 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0533, by one of the following methods:
     Online at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the Online
Instructions for Submitting Comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0533, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Online Instructions for Submitting Comments: Direct your comments
to

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0533. EPA's policy is that all comments
we receive 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will
automatically be 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    EPA will make available for public inspection materials submitted
by CARB, written comments received from any interested parties, and any
testimony given at the public hearing. Materials relevant to this
proceeding are contained in the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0533.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government
work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public
docket is available through the federal government's electronic public
docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter, in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view
documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(``CBI'') or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a Web
page that contains general information on its review of California
waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to
prior waiver and authorization Federal Register notices. The page can
be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405A) NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. California's LSI Regulations

    CARB promulgated its first LSI regulations, applicable to new LSI
engines, in 1999 and they remained unchanged until the 2008
amendments.\1\ EPA authorized the LSI regulations, on May 15, 2006.\2\
The 1999 LSI regulations established exhaust emission standards and
associated test procedures for LSI engines based upon engine
displacements. The exhaust emission standards applicable to 2002 and
subsequent model years (MYs) with displacements up to one liter were
identical to the emission standards applicable to California small off-
road engines (SORE) with engines greater than or equal to 225 cubic
centimeters and have remained unchanged except CARB subsequently
adopted more stringent exhaust emission standards for engines greater
than 225 cubic centimeters.\3\ CARB adopted its initial off-road LSI
fleet operator regulations on May 25, 2006 (Fleet Operator
Regulations).\4\ The Fleet Operator Regulations are designed to address
the hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing LSI engines
operating in California and require fleets to meet certain fleet
average emission level standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2430-
2439.
    \2\ 71 FR 29623 (May 15, 2006).
    \3\ EPA granted an authorization for these amendments at 71 FR
75536 (December 15, 2006). CARB also adopted amendments establishing
more stringent exhaust emission standards for engines equal to or
greater than one liter in 2007 and EPA granted an authorization for
these amendments at 77 FR 20388 (April 4, 2012).
    \4\ EPA granted an authorization for these regulations at 77 FR
20388 (April 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB adopted the 2008 LSI amendments on November 21, 2008. The 2008
LSI amendments create two new engine categories below one liter
displacement, with new more stringent exhaust and evaporative emission
standards applicable to new engines, and provide clarification as to
when CARB's off-road sport or utility regulations apply to certain LSI
engines.
    CARB adopted the 2010 LSI amendments on December 17, 2010. These
amendments are designed to provide compliance flexibility which will
allow operators to reduce their compliance costs while retaining the
emission benefits associated with the original regulations.
    By letter dated June 2, 2014, CARB submitted a request to EPA
pursuant to section 209(e) of the CAA for authorization of its 2008 and
2010 LSI amendments. CARB seeks EPA's confirmation that these
amendments fall within the scope of EPA's previous authorization, or,
in the alternative, a full authorization.

II. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the CAA prohibits states and local governments
from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement
relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad vehicles or
engines. The Act also preempts states from adopting and enforcing
standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions
from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however,
requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public
hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and
other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such
vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards
will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant
such authorization if it finds that (1) the

determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California
does not need such California standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with [CAA section 209].\5\ In
addition, other states with air quality attainment plans may adopt and
enforce such regulations if the standards, and implementation and
enforcement procedures, are identical to California's standards. On
July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other
things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section
209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California
authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission
standards.\6\ EPA revised these regulations in 1997.\7\ As stated in
the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has historically interpreted the
section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to require, at minimum,
that California standards and enforcement procedures be consistent with
section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has
interpreted that subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor
vehicle waivers).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's review of California regulations under section 209 is
not a broad review of the reasonableness of the regulations or its
compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the
Clean Air Act limit EPA's authority to deny California requests for
waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As
a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's
requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA
decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not
found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA's
determination. See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v.
Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir.1998), Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20
(D.C. Cir. 1979). See also 78 FR 58090, 58120 (September 20, 2013).
    \6\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
    \7\ 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable regulations,
now in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, Sec.  1074.105, provide:
    (a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
federal standards.
    (b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
    (1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
    (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
    (3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
    (c) In considering any request to authorize California to adopt
or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50
horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to
safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or
fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
    \8\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
Federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. See also 78 FR 58090, 58092 (September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If California amends regulations that EPA has already authorized,
California can seek EPA confirmation that the amendments are within the
scope of the previous authorization. A within-the-scope confirmation,
without a full authorization review, is permissible if three conditions
are met.\10\ First, the amended regulations must not undermine
California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency
with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not
raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 78 FR 38970, 38972 (June 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Request for Comments

    As stated above, EPA is offering the opportunity for a public
hearing, and is requesting written comment on issues relevant to a
within-the-scope analysis. Specifically, we request comment on whether
California's LSI amendments: (a) Undermine California's previous
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal
standards; (b) affect the consistency of California's requirements with
section 209 of the Act; or (c) raise any other new issues affecting
EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations.
    Should any party believe that the amendments are not within the
scope of the previous authorization, EPA also requests comment on
whether the LSI amendments meet the criteria for a full authorization.
Specifically, we request comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination
that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary
and capricious; (b) whether California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions; and (c) whether California's
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with
section 209 of the Act.

IV. Procedures for Public Participation

    If a hearing is held, the Agency will make a verbatim record of the
proceedings. Interested parties may arrange with the reporter at the
hearing to obtain a copy of the transcript at their own expense.
Regardless of whether a public hearing is held, EPA will keep the
record open until February 16, 2015. Upon expiration of the comment
period, the Administrator will render a decision on CARB's request
based on the record from the public hearing, if any, all relevant
written submissions, and other information that she deems pertinent.
All information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0533.
    Persons with comments containing proprietary information must
distinguish such information from other comments to the greatest extent
possible and label it as ``Confidential Business Information''
(``CBI''). If a person making comments wants EPA to base its decision
on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential version of the
document that summarizes the key data or information should be
submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary information
is not inadvertently placed in the public docket, submissions
containing such information should be sent directly to the contact
person listed above and not to the public docket. Information covered
by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA
receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without further
notice to the person making comments.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014-27801 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 217 (Thursday, November 8, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55825-55828]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24387]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 217 / Thursday, November 8, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0956; Product Identifier 2018-NM-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and
700 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a main
landing gear (MLG) collapse due to a broken drag stay; an investigation
revealed that the drag stay failure was due to fatigue cracks,
introduced by incorrect machining of the affected drag stay tube during
production. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the drag
stay unit to determine the signal indication, and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 24,
2018.

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 Fokker service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email [email protected]; internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Safran service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Safran Landing Systems, One Carbon Way, Walton, KY
41094; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, 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-2018-
0956; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0956;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-041-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0015, dated January 25, 2018 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27
Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 1993, an occurrence was reported concerning an MLG collapse
due to a broken drag stay on a Fokker F27 Mark 500 RFV (rough field
version/configuration). The investigation revealed that the drag
stay failure was due to fatigue cracks, introduced by incorrect
machining (not smooth, with a notch) of the affected drag stay tube
bore during production.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG
collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane during
landing and consequent injury to occupants.
    To address this unsafe condition, DALG [Dowty Aerospace Landing
Gear] issued SB 32-169B and SB 32-82W (both later revised), and
Fokker Services issued SB F27/32-167, to provide inspection
instructions. Consequently, the Civil Aviation Authority of the
Netherlands (CAA-NL) issued AD (BLA) 93-169 (later revised) [which
corresponded to FAA AD 97-04-08, Amendment 39-9932 (62 FR 7924,
February 21, 1997), and applies to certain Fokker Model F27 Mark
050, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, and 700 airplanes], requiring a one-
time ultrasonic inspection to identify the type of drag stay tube
installed (with stepped or straight bore) on each affected drag stay
unit, inspection of the affected drag stay tubes for the presence of
cracks, and, depending on findings, re-identification.
    After CAA-NL AD (BLA) 93-169/2 was issued, another occurrence
was reported on an F27 Mark 500 RFV. Investigation results
determined that the drag stay tube of the second occurrence had not
been inspected as required by CAA-NL AD (BLA) 93-169, due to
misinterpretation of the instructions of Fokker SB F27/32-167.
Prompted by these findings, Fokker Services issued SB F27-32-171,
providing additional inspection instructions, and CAA-NL issued AD
NL-2005-003 (EASA approval 2005-3869) [which corresponds to FAA AD
2006-25-06, Amendment 39-14847 (71 FR 71475, December 11, 2006) and
applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 500 airplanes]

to require repetitive inspections of the affected drag stay tubes to
detect cracks and, depending on findings, rework or replacement.
    Since those SBs and [CAA-NL] ADs were issued, the applicable CMM
[component maintenance manual] were changed, although with incorrect
P/N information, as a result of which an affected drag stay tube
with a non-conforming bore radius may inadvertently have been
installed on an aeroplane. Prompted by these findings, the
applicable CMM were corrected and re-issued, and SLS issued Service
Letter (SL) F27-W-8 to inform the operators, and Fokker Services
introduced the relevant corrections in the F27 Mark 100 through Mark
700 Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC) in September 2017.
    Installation of an affected drag stay tube with a non-conforming
bore radius, on an MLG drag stay unit that has been re-identified,
i.e., not subject to the repetitive inspections as required by CAA-
NL AD NL-2005-003, would reintroduce the unsafe condition as
originally addressed by the SBs and ADs referred to above. To
address this potential unsafe condition, Fokker Services issued
SBF27-32-173 to provide instructions to inspect, remove/discard or
re-identify the affected drag stay tubes.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the affected drag stay units to determine whether
an affected drag stay tube is installed, repetitive inspections of
those that have an affected drag stay tube installed, and, depending
on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s)
[which includes replacement of the drag stay tube].
    With the issuance of this [EASA] AD and [EASA] AD 2018-0016
[dated January 25, 2018], the requirements of CAA-NL AD (BLA) 93-
169/2 dated 29 April 1994 are no longer necessary and that AD is
also cancelled.

    EASA AD 2018-0016, dated January 25, 2018, applies to Model F27
Mark 500 airplanes and has been added to the Required Airworthiness
Action List.
    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-2018-
0956.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173,
dated November 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures
for an inspection of the drag stay unit to determine the signal
indication, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary.
    SAFRAN Landing Systems (previously Messier-Dowty, Dowty Aerospace)
has issued Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W,
Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994; and Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear
Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994. The service
information describes procedures for reworking the drag stay tube.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
models.
    These 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

    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 the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although the procedures specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-
32-173, dated November 30, 2017, permits further flight if cracks are
detected in the drag stay tube, this proposed AD does not. We have
determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences
associated with that cracking, any cracked drag stay tube must be
repaired or modified before further flight. This difference has been
coordinated with the manufacturer.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 airplane of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170             $170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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):

Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes: Docket No. FAA-2018-0956; Product
Identifier 2018-NM-041-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 24, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2006-25-06, Amendment 39-14847 (71 FR 71475,
December 11, 2006) (``AD 2006-25-06'') and AD 97-04-08, Amendment
39-9932 (62 FR 7924, February 21, 1997) (``AD 97-04-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 100,
200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Main landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear (MLG)
collapse due to a broken drag stay; an investigation revealed that
the drag stay failure was due to fatigue cracks, introduced by
incorrect machining of the affected drag stay tube during
production. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking,
which could lead to MLG collapse and result in damage to the
airplane during landing and consequent injury to passengers.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For purposes of this AD, an affected drag stay unit is
SAFRAN Landing Systems (previously Messier-Dowty, Dowty Aerospace)
main landing gear (MLG) drag stay unit, part number (P/N) 200261001,
P/N 200261002, P/N 200261003, P/N 200261004, P/N 200485001, P/N
200485002, P/N 200485003, P/N 200485004, P/N 200684001, P/N
200684002, P/N 200684003, and P/N 200684004.
    (2) For purposes of this AD, an affected drag stay tube is a
SAFRAN Landing Systems (previously Messier-Dowty, Dowty Aerospace)
MLG drag stay tube, P/N 200259300, which has a change in section
(stepped bore).

(h) Configuration Verification of the Drag Stay Units

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
ultrasonic inspection of each affected drag stay unit to determine
the configuration of the drag stay tube, in accordance with step F.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-
32-173, dated November 30, 2017.

(i) Re-Identification of an Affected Drag Stay Unit

    (1) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, an affected drag stay unit is found to have a straight bore drag
stay tube, P/N 200485300, installed: Before further flight, re-
identify that affected drag stay unit in accordance with step I.(2),
I.(3), or I.(4), as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173, dated November 30, 2017.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, an affected drag stay unit is found to have an affected drag
stay tube, P/N 200259300, installed with a correct radius: Before
further flight, re-identify the affected drag stay unit in
accordance with step J.(1), J.(2), or J.(3), as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173,
dated November 30, 2017.
    (3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, an affected drag stay unit is found to have an affected drag
stay tube, P/N 200259300, installed with an incorrect radius: Before
further flight, re-identify the affected drag stay unit in
accordance with step K.(1), K.(2), or K.(3), as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173,
dated November 30, 2017.

(j) Inspection and Corrective Action for Certain Drag Stay Unit Part
Numbers

    For affected drag stay units having P/N 200261002, P/N
200261003, P/N 200485002, P/N 200485003, P/N 200684002, and P/N
200684003: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do
an ultrasonic inspection of the affected drag stay tube for any
cracking, in accordance with step G. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173, dated November
30, 2017.
    (1) If, during the ultrasonic inspection, a crack indication is
found, before further flight, replace the affected drag stay tube
with a serviceable part, in accordance with step H. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173,
dated November 30, 2017.
    (2) For affected drag stay units having P/N 200261002, P/N
200485002, and P/N 200684002 (drag stay units with incorrect bore
radius drag stay tubes): If, during the ultrasonic inspection, no
indication of cracking is found, within 1,500 flight cycles after
that inspection, and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 1,500
flight cycles until the next scheduled MLG overhaul, repeat the
ultrasonic inspection of the affected drag stay tube in accordance
with step G. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF27-32-173, dated November 30, 2017.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, a drag stay unit (which includes installation of a
replacement MLG), unless it has been determined that no affected
drag stay tube is installed; or the installed affected drag stay
tube has been reworked during the MLG overhaul in accordance with
the instructions of Appendix B of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear
Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994 (for Model
F.27 Mark 500 airplanes), or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service
Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994 (for Model F.27
Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, and 700 airplanes), as applicable; or
has passed an inspection (confirmed correct bore radius) in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF27-32-173, dated November 30, 2017. For the purpose of
this AD, removal of an MLG or an affected drag stay unit from an
airplane and re-installing that MLG or drag stay unit on the same
airplane is not ``installation.''

(l) Terminating Action for Inspections of the MLG Drag Stay Units

    Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD terminates all
the requirements in AD 2006-25-06, Amendment 39-14847 (71 FR 71475,
December 11, 2006); and AD 97-04-08, Amendment 39-9932 (62 FR 7924,
February 21, 1997).

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin
32-82W, Revision 1, dated September 10, 1993, or Dowty Aerospace
Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 1, dated September
10, 1993, which were incorporated by reference in AD 2006-25-06,
Amendment 39-14847 (71 FR 71475, December 11, 2006).

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (o)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (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, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0015, dated January 25, 2018, 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-2018-0956.
    (2) 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>.
    (3) For Fokker service information identified in this AD,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box
1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-
350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email [email protected];
internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Safran service
information identified in this AD, contact Safran Landing Systems,
One Carbon Way, Walton, KY 41094; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(859) 485-8827. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 26, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-24387 Filed 11-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75953-75955]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246]
RIN 2105-AE12

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel;
Consideration of Negotiated Rulemaking Process

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (``Department'' or ``DOT'')
announces that it is exploring the feasibility of conducting a
negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) concerning accommodations for air
travelers with disabilities addressing inflight entertainment,
supplemental medical oxygen, service animals, accessible lavatories on
single-aisle

aircraft, seating accommodations, and carrier reporting of disability
service requests. The Department has hired a convener to speak with
interested parties about the feasibility of conducting this Reg Neg.
The Department anticipates that the interested parties may include
disability advocacy organizations, airlines, airports, airline vendors
providing wheelchair assistance, aircraft manufacturers, IFE system
manufacturers, movie studios, other IFE content providers, service
animal training organizations, and other Federal agencies that have a
regulatory interest in these issues such as the Department of Justice,
the Federal Communications Commission, and the United States Access
Board.

DATES: Please submit your comments no later than January 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number DOT-OST-
2015-0246 using any one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the
regulatory negotiation, you may contact Kathleen Blank Riether, Senior
Attorney, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To obtain a copy of this notice in an
accessible format, you may also contact Kathleen Blank Riether.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress enacted the Air Carrier Access Act
(ACAA) in 1986. It prohibited discrimination in airline service on the
basis of disability by U.S. air carriers. In 1990, following a lengthy
rulemaking process that included a regulatory negotiation involving
representatives of the airline industry and disability community, the
Department issued a final ACAA rule. In 2000, Congress amended the ACAA
to specifically include foreign air carriers. The ACAA now prohibits
U.S. and foreign air carriers from discriminating against individuals
on the basis of disability in air travel. In 2008, the Department
revised its disability regulation to, among other things, apply its
rule to foreign carriers and add new protections for passengers who use
portable oxygen concentrators and passengers who are deaf or hard of
hearing. See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008), effective May 13, 2009.
    In the preamble to the 2008 final rule, the Department explained
that it had deferred final decisions regarding a number of proposed
requirements and expressed its intent to issue a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) seeking additional public input on carrier-
supplied in-flight medical oxygen, transport of service animals, in-
flight entertainment, and accessible kiosks and Web sites. The
Department also announced its intent to carefully monitor ongoing
developments with respect to lavatory accessibility on single aisle
aircraft during longer flights to determine if a future rulemaking
proposal may be warranted. See 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008). In September
2011, the Department issued an SNPRM on airline Web sites and automated
airport kiosks. See 76 FR 59307 (September 26, 2011). The proceeding
culminated in a final rule mandating that airline Web sites and
automated airport kiosks be accessible by specific dates. See 78 FR
67882 (November 12, 2013). The Department is now planning to address
in-flight medical oxygen, transport of service animals and in-flight
entertainment.
    Additionally, since the issuance of the 2008 final rule, the
Department has become aware of other difficulties individuals with
disabilities are having in accessing the air travel system. For
example, airlines and disability organizations \1\ have raised concerns
with the Department of passengers falsely claiming that their pets are
service animals. These groups have also pointed out the inconsistency
between the Department of Justice definition of a service animal and
the Department of Transportation's definition of a service animal.
Separately, the Department has noted the industry trend toward greater
use of single aisle aircraft that are not equipped with accessible
lavatories on medium and long haul flights. The disability community
has also expressed distress that single aisle aircraft are increasingly
used by airlines for longer flights but lack accessible lavatories.
Issues have also been raised about whether premium economy is a
different class of service from standard economy as airlines are
required to provide seating accommodations to passengers with
disabilities within the same class of service. Extra legroom is a
standard feature of premium economy, with some carriers providing
premium economy passengers amenities in addition to the standard
economy class services. Various disability organizations have reported
to the Department that their members are unable to obtain bulkhead
seating while traveling with a service animal as the bulkhead seats are
now primarily located in what has been designated by airlines as the
premium economy section. The Department has also received a petition
for rulemaking to modify the existing seating accommodations
requirement for passengers who need extra legroom.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See DOT-OST-2009-0093-0001, Psychiatric Service Dog Society
Petition for Rulemaking (April 13, 2009).
    \2\ See DOT-OST-2012-0030, In Re Petition for Rule Change of
Title 14 CFR 382.81(d) Pertaining to Disabled Seating Accommodations
(February 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is exploring the feasibility of conducting a
negotiated rulemaking on the remaining issues that it deferred final
action on in its 2008 final rule as well as the issues described above
that have arisen since its 2008 final rule. Specifically, the
Department is exploring a Reg Neg to:
     Ensure that the same in-flight entertainment (IFE)
available to all passengers is accessible to passengers with
disabilities;
     Provide individuals dependent on in-flight medical oxygen
greater access to air travel consistent with Federal safety and
security requirements;
     Determine the appropriate definition of a service animal;
     Establish safeguards to reduce the likelihood that
passengers wishing to travel with their pets will be able to falsely
claim that their pets are service animals;
     Address the feasibility of accessible lavatories on new
single aisle aircraft;
     Address whether premium economy is a different class of
service from standard economy as airlines are required to provide
seating accommodations to passengers with disabilities within the same
class of service; and
     Require airlines to report annually to the Department the
number of requests for disability assistance they receive and the time
period within which wheelchair assistance is provided to passengers
with disabilities.
    In a Reg Neg, an agency invites representatives of interested
parties likely to be significantly affected by a regulation to work
with each other and the agency on an advisory committee to seek to
reach consensus recommendations on the appropriate resolution of the
issues before the committee. If a consensus is reached, the Department
will issue a proposed rule consistent with that consensus for

public comment under established rulemaking procedures. The Department
believes this cooperative problem-solving approach should be given
serious consideration. To do so, the Department must determine, among
other statutorily-mandated considerations, whether an appropriate
advisory committee can be assembled that will fairly represent all
affected interests, negotiate in good faith, and offer a reasonable
likelihood of reaching a consensus on the issues.
    The Department has retained a neutral convener, Mr. Richard Parker
from the University of Connecticut School of Law, to undertake the
initial stage in the Reg Neg process and assist the agency in making
this threshold determination. Mr. Parker's credentials have been placed
in docket DOT-OST-2015-0246. The neutral convener will interview
representatives of affected interests, including but not limited to,
disability advocacy groups, airlines, and manufacturers of aircraft
cabin facilities and equipment and determine whether other interest
groups should be included. The convener will examine the potential for
adequate and balanced representation of the varied interests on an
advisory committee convened to negotiate the regulation and/or to reach
consensus on specific issues. Based on these interviews, the convener
will submit a written report of findings and recommendations to the
Department, and the final report will be available to the public. The
convenor's report will provide a basis for the Department to decide
whether to proceed with a Reg Neg, and, if so, to determine the scope
of the issues the committee will address. In the alternative, the
Department may also decide to forgo a Reg Neg and proceed with a
traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    The convener's activities are subject to the confidentiality
provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 5 U.S.C. 574.
The Federal Government will make no claim to the convener's notes,
memoranda, or recollections or to documents provided to the convener in
confidence in the course of the convening process. The convener will
not interpret Department policy, make decisions on items of policy,
regulation, or statute, or take a stand on the merits of substantive
matters under discussion.
    The Department will provide any comments it receives in response to
this notice to the convener and will file the comments in docket DOT-
OST-2015-0246. Should the Department decide to proceed with a Reg Neg
process, the Agency will follow the procedures set forth in the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq. This would
include the publication of a notice of intent to solicit comment on
membership and to invite interested persons to apply for nomination to
the committee. It also includes the establishment of an advisory
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix
2).

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27.

    Dated: November 30, 2015.
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-30764 Filed 12-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30395-30397]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77798; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA
Rule 4554, Alternative Trading Systems--Recording and Reporting
Requirements of Order and Execution Information for NMS Stocks

May 10, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On February 29, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to require alternative trading systems (``ATSs'')
to submit additional order information to FINRA. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 7,
2016.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\
On April 22, 2016, FINRA responded to the comment letter.\5\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77269 (March 1,
2016), 81 FR 11851 (March 7, 2016) (``Notice''). On April 15, 2016,
the Commission extended the time period for Commission action on the
proposed rule change until June 3, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 77635 (April 15, 2016), 81 FR 23536 (April 21, 2016).
    \4\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''), dated April 1, 2016 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Andrew Madar, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, dated April 22, 2016 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA proposed Rule 4554 to impose additional reporting
requirements on trading venues that have filed a Form ATS with the
Commission.\6\ The proposal is intended to enhance FINRA's order-based
surveillance by requiring ATSs to report additional ATS-specific order
information for NMS stocks.\7\ While ATSs submit order information to
FINRA under the Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'') rules,\8\ there is
order information not currently required to be reported to OATS, such
as order re-pricing events and order display and reserve size
information, which FINRA needs so that it can more fully reconstruct an
ATS's order book and perform certain order-based surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 17 CFR 242.300(a).
    \7\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \8\ For example, upon receipt of an order, a member must report
the number of shares to which the order applies, any limit or stop
price prescribed in the order, special handling requests, and the
time at which the order is received. See FINRA Rule 7440(b). Upon
the modification or execution of an order, the member must report
the time of modification or execution, whether the order was fully
or partially executed, the number of unexecuted shares remaining if
the order was only partially executed, and the execution price. See
FINRA Rule 7440(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, proposed Rule 4554 sets forth four categories of
reporting requirements: (1) Data to be reported by all ATSs at the time
of order receipt; (2) data to be reported by all ATSs at the time of
order execution; (3) data to be reported by ATSs that display
subscriber orders; and (4) data to be reported by ATSs that are
registered as ADF Trading Centers. The proposed requirements would
apply to order and execution information for NMS stocks. ATSs would be
required to report this information to FINRA consistent with current
OATS reporting requirements.

Reporting Requirements for Receipt of Orders

    Proposed Rule 4554 would require, among other things, each ATS to
indicate on all orders received whether it displays subscriber orders
outside of the ATS (other than to ATS employees).\9\ This information
will enable FINRA to distinguish between ATSs that display orders
outside the ATS (``display ATS''), either to subscribers or through
consolidated quote data, and ATSs that do not display orders outside
the ATS (``non-display ATS'').\10\ A display ATS would also be required
to indicate whether the order book is displayed to subscribers only, or
distributed for publication in the consolidated quotation data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed requirements apply to any alternative trading
system, as defined in Rule 300(a)(1) of SEC Regulation ATS, that has
filed a Form ATS with the SEC and is subject to FINRA's OATS and
equity trade reporting rules. See 17 CFR 242.300(a)(1).
    For purposes of this rule, the term ``order'' includes a broker-
dealer's proprietary quotes that are transmitted to an ATS.
    \10\ If an ATS meets the applicable volume thresholds, it is
required to make its best bid and best offer available for
publication in the consolidated quotation data. See 17 CFR
242.301(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each ATS would also be required to indicate whether it is an ADF
Trading Center as defined in Rule 6220, whether a specific order can be
routed away from the ATS for execution, and whether there are any
counter-party restrictions on the order. ATSs would also be required to
provide FINRA with a

unique identifier representing the specific order type.\11\ ATSs will
be required to provide FINRA with a list of all of their order types
twenty days before the order types become effective, and if the ATS
makes any subsequent changes to its order types, twenty days before the
changes become effective, which will enable FINRA to map the identifier
to a specific order type.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This requirement would not apply to market and limit orders
that have no other handling instructions.
    \12\ FINRA will provide a deadline prior to the implementation
date by which current ATSs must submit lists of their existing order
types. See Notice at 11851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An ATS also would be required to report, for all orders, the NBBO
(or relevant reference price) in effect at the time of order receipt
and the timestamp of when the ATS captured the effective NBBO (or
relevant reference price); as part of this report, the ATS must
identify the market data feed it used to obtain the NBBO (or relevant
reference price). These two data elements will enable FINRA to
ascertain if the NBBO changed between the time of order receipt and the
time the ATS captured the effective NBBO.\13\ Finally, each ATS would
be required to provide the sequence number assigned to the order event
by the ATS's matching engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice at 11852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Requirements for Execution of Orders

    The second category of proposed changes applies to all ATSs when
reporting the execution of an order to OATS. Specifically, each ATS
must record and report the NBBO (or relevant reference price) in effect
at the time of order execution, and the timestamp of when the ATS
captured the effective NBBO (or relevant reference price). An ATS must
identify the market data feed used by the ATS to obtain the NBBO (or
other reference price).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If for any reason, the ATS uses a feed other than the one
that was reported on its ATS data submission, the ATS must notify
FINRA via email of the fact that an alternative source was used,
identify the alternative source, and specify the date(s), time(s)
and securities for which the alternative source was used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Requirements for Display ATSs

    The third category of changes applies only to display ATSs and
requires that those ATSs report the following order receipt
information: (1) Whether the order is hidden or displayable; (2)
display quantity; (3) reserve quantity, if applicable; (4) displayed
price; and (5) the price entered. If the matching engine re-prices a
displayed order or changes the display quantity of a displayed order,
the ATS must report the time of the modification and the applicable new
display price or size. FINRA stated that it needs this information from
display ATSs to have an accurate, time sequenced audit trail to
reconstruct the displayed market and noted that the pricing and size
changes are being displayed to others.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice at 11852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Requirements for ADF Trading Centers

    Finally, FINRA proposed to require ADF Trading Centers to report
the quote identifier provided to the ADF if a change to the displayed
size or price of an order resulted in a new quote being transmitted to
the ADF. If an order held by the ADF Trading Center becomes associated
with a quote identifier based on an action by the matching engine
related to a different order(s), (e.g., another order is cancelled
making the order being held the best priced order in the matching
engine), the ADF Trading Center must provide FINRA the new quote
identifier.

III. Comment Letter

    The Commission received one comment letter \16\ on the proposal and
a response to the comment letter from FINRA.\17\ The commenter
suggested that FINRA amend the proposal to eliminate the requirement
for ATSs to submit NBBO timestamp information to OATS.\18\ The
commenter sought clarification that the proposal does not require an
ATS to report the time it actually received the NBBO, but would require
the time the ATS's matching engine took the action to evaluate the NBBO
after receiving or executing an order. According to the commenter, many
ATS matching engines receive only the price changes in the NBBO, and
not volume changes, to avoid unnecessary trading latency. Therefore, a
comparison of the time the NBBO was received to the time of order
receipt or execution could show significant time lag, which the
commenter believes could give FINRA the impression that an ATS is not
regularly updating its quotes.\19\ In addition, with regard to the
proposed requirement to identify the market data feed used by the ATS
to record the NBBO (or other reference price), the commenter believes
that FINRA should specify a list of market data feed types that should
be used to populate the field, and that the best approach would be to
designate general categories, such as ``SIP,'' ``direct,'' ``hybrid,''
and ``third party vendor.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra, note 4.
    \17\ See supra, note 5.
    \18\ See SIFMA Letter at 1.
    \19\ See id. at 2.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to these comments, FINRA clarified that an ATS
would comply with this NBBO timestamp requirement by reporting the time
the ATS captured the NBBO, and not the time the ATS actually received
the NBBO. In regard to the requirement to identify the market data feed
used by the ATS to record the NBBO (or other reference price), FINRA
stated that it will consider the commenter's suggestion when developing
the technical specifications to implement the proposal.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also suggested that FINRA eliminate the requirement
to submit order type information to OATS and the corresponding
requirement for ATSs to provide FINRA with advance notice of order
types and changes.\22\ The commenter stated that because the Commission
has proposed new requirements for ATSs that trade NMS stocks,\23\
including a requirement to provide advance notice of changes to order
types, ``FINRA should not use this proposal to get ahead of the
Commission's final action.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \23\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 76474 (November 18,
2015), 80 FR 80998 (December 28, 2015). The Commission's proposal,
among other things, would require ATSs to provide advance notice of
material changes to the operation of an ATS, including changes to
order types.
    \24\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to these comments, FINRA noted that the order type
requirement set forth in its proposal is independent of the
Commission's proposed action with respect to order types, and that
FINRA has fully explained and justified its requirement in the
proposal. FINRA stated that the reference to the Commission's proposed
action was solely for background purposes. In addition, FINRA believes
that the 20-day advance notice requirement is consistent with current
reporting obligations under Regulation ATS and thus would not increase
the reporting burden on ATSs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter requested clarification on technical
reporting aspects of counter-party restrictions and sequence
numbers.\26\ Specifically, the commenter requested that FINRA clarify
if ATSs must report counter-party restrictions on a ``yes/no'' basis or
if specific counter-party restrictions must be reported. In addition,
the commenter requested that FINRA clarify if ATSs must report the
sequence number a

specific ATS's matching engine assigns, or if all ATSs must adopt a
uniform method of assigning sequence numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SIFMA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to these comments, FINRA clarified that the
requirement to identify any counter-party restrictions is a yes or no
response, and that the ATS would not be required to provide the
specific counter-party restriction.\27\ In addition, FINRA clarified
that it is not mandating a particular or uniform format by which ATSs
must report sequence numbers, and that requiring an ATS to report the
sequence number as it currently exists in the ATS will satisfy this
requirement.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
    \28\ See id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the comment letter received,
and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\29\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\30\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the stated objectives of the
proposal--to enhance FINRA's ability to surveil activity occurring
within an ATS, and by extension FINRA's ability to surveil for
potentially abusive algorithmic trading activity more generally across
markets--are consistent with the purposes of the Act and with FINRA's
responsibility to enforce compliance by its members with its rules and
with the Act. The additional information provided by ATSs will better
enable FINRA to reconstruct an ATS order book and more effectively
conduct quotation-based surveillance. FINRA will integrate the
additional information into its surveillance patterns to support the
generation and analysis of alerts, which will increase FINRA's ability
to detect a wide range of potential market-specific and cross-market
manipulative activities.
    The Commission further believes that applying this proposal to NMS
stocks is consistent with the Act because the potentially abusive
trading activity that the proposal is designed to detect is of
particular concern with respect to NMS stocks. The Commission believes
that gaps in ATS order book data should be addressed in the near-term
to ensure effective surveillance of ATSs and, by extension, abusive
algorithmic trading activity more generally across markets. The
Commission believes that FINRA adequately responded to the issues
raised in the comment letter.
    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A of the
Act.

V. Conclusion

    It Is Therefore Ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-010) be and hereby is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11409 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING & IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO TRADITIONAL IN VIVO ACUTE TOXICITY STUDIES

                                  12/15/2014

                         Office of Pesticide Programs
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                             Washington DC, 20460

   I. BACKGROUND

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has developed a strategic vision for implementing the 2007 NRC report on Toxicity Testing in the 21[st] Century. This strategic vision has multiple components involving a combination of computational and predictive modeling approaches, in vitro techniques, and limited, targeted in vivo testing, to supplement or replace the existing toxicity tests required in 40 C.F.R. part 158 (40CFR158) in support of pesticide registration. In May 2011, the agency sought expert advice and input from its the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on OPP's vision and scientific issues associated with adopting integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA) and strategies for using new computational and molecular tools. The Panel concurred that OPP's strategic vision clearly articulated a sound scientific basis for utilizing the NRC's recommendations regarding "21[st] Century Toxicity Testing" in a manner that makes the risk assessment process more efficient and informative.  And, the Panel commented that utilizing data from rapidly and inexpensively performed in silico and in vitro technologies appears to be the most logical way to address the need to improve efficiency.

As part of the implementation of the strategic vision, OPP developed a document called "GUIDING PRINCIPLES for DATA REQUIREMENTS" which describes some of the key principles in moving towards smarter testing approaches. In 2013, OPP's policy on the "Use of An Alternative Testing Framework for Classification of Eye Irritation Potential of EPA Pesticide Products" was another early step toward this vision. As science is rapidly advancing and new technologies are emerging, including some alternatives assays with Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines, there is increasing potential for the use of alternative methods in regulatory risk assessment. OPP plans to continue to expand its acceptance of alternative methods for acute toxicity testing. The agency's goals for alternative testing approaches include: assessing a broader range and potentially more human-relevant adverse effects, faster and less expensive data generation and review, and reducing use of laboratory animals in regulatory testing.

This document describes a transparent, stepwise process for evaluating and implementing alternative methods of testing for acute oral, dermal, inhalation toxicity, along with skin and eye irritation and skin sensitization (often referred to as the "six pack studies"). Included in this document is a discussion of the three major phases of this process, and the implications for reporting information under section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA. Having such a process and a clear articulation of the related reporting requirements addresses a challenge that has previously been associated with adopting alternative methods. Successfully putting this process into place will require an open dialogue with stakeholders, other regulatory organizations, and the scientific community.

   II. STEPWISE PROCESS FOR EVALUATING & IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE METHODS

The following text describes the major components of a transparent, stepwise process for evaluating and implementing in vitro or other alternative methods in OPP's regulatory decision making with respect to acute toxicity tests. These components include:
   1.                   Evaluation
   2.                   Transition
   3.                   Implementation
OPP expects the alterative methodologies considered appropriate for this stepwise process to be well established by the scientific community with respect to reproducibility and domain of applicability; these methods may or may not have OECD guidelines. This process is focused on the utility of methods for regulatory application and is thus designed for well-established methods (for example, methods that have been ring-tested). Methods still in development or poorly characterized with respect to performance require further research and evaluation that is out of the scope of this process. The process does not prescribe a specific timeframe for each stage as the analysis required at each stage may differ among various methods.

         A. Evaluation Phase of Alternative Method(s)

The purpose of the evaluation phase is to determine whether an alternative method(s) could be used for regulatory purposes. The first step in the process is to identify an alternative method or system (array) of methods that have the potential to be used in place of a traditional acute toxicity test. Organizations or coalitions of stakeholders interested in pursuing an evaluation of an alternative method for regulatory applicability are welcome to contact OPP for a consultation. Alternatively, EPA may identify promising alternatives.

The objectives of the evaluation are to determine the reliability of the alternative method, evaluate the method in the context of regulatory use, and identify uncertainties. Some considerations during the evaluation phase are:

   1) the degree to which the method has been vetted by an international validation process (e.g., ASTM International) and/or the availability of an OECD guideline;
   2) whether the method is appropriate for single chemicals, mixtures, or both;
   3) the types of chemicals which can be used with the method i.e., the domain of applicability;
   4) whether the method can be used alone as a replacement for an in vivo study or the method must be used in combination with others as part of an integrated approach on testing and assessment (IATA) process;
   5) additional strengths and uncertainties associated with the assay such as feasibility, sensitivity and specificity, ease of interpretation, costs, etc.; and,
   6) whether information derived from the assay(s) is suitable for labeling and regulatory decisions (including whether the method(s) provide information relevant to risk assessment in addition to information for labeling decisions).

Once a proposed alternative method(s) is accepted as a suitable candidate, the evaluation process would consist of a number of steps. First, existing data generated using the alternative method(s) will be collated and organized (for example in a spreadsheet or database). The data could be previously generated or generated explicitly for the purpose of informing an evaluation of regulatory applicability. This data compilation could be accomplished in various ways. For example, a coalition of interested companies could work with a neutral party to collect and aggregate data so that confidential business information (CBI) would be concealed.

Once the data are compiled, OPP anticipates performing an analysis, through which OPP and interested stakeholders would cooperatively evaluate the utility of these data in the context of regulatory decision making under FIFRA (e.g., approval of uses, application methods, labeling requirements for signal words and personal protective equipment). Part of this analysis will include comparison with existing data generated through EPA's approved test methods (i.e., consistent with existing test guidance). This analysis would consider how EPA would use data from the alternative method to classify products for acute toxicity labeling (Categories I  -  IV). Throughout the course of an evaluation, the agency will engage diverse stakeholders including states, non-government organizations (NGOs) and other federal agencies. The agency will seek peer review of the evaluation when necessary.

OPP's goal for the evaluation phase is to end with a determination that an alternative method(s) is suitable for regulatory purposes. Such a determination would come in the form of an EPA publication of a draft policy document (e.g., waiver guidance) for public comment on the proposed approach method and the appropriateness of the alternative method for a stated regulatory purpose, including the establishment of a correlation between method results and a toxic effect similar to those measured by current guidelines. The draft policy document would also discuss any requirements the agency may have with respect to needing in vivo data. For example, depending on the method(s) proposed, a certain amount of in vivo oral acute toxicity data may be necessary to support ecological risk assessments. At this point, with the publication of the draft policy, the agency will provide notice of its expectation and timeframes for reporting under section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA.

In some cases, the method(s) may be found not useful for regulatory purposes. Sometimes, areas for additional method development that have the potential to make the method more useful for regulatory purposes may be identified.  For example, some alternative assays are developed for use with a single chemical; because acute toxicity testing is conducted on both single technical ingredients and formulations (i.e., mixtures), additional testing may be necessary to evaluate the applicability of a particular method for mixtures (i.e., formulations). In other cases, the agency may recommend modifications to the test methods or the overall alternative approach.

         A. Transition Phase

In this phase, OPP would accept data generated from the alternative method(s), which were conducted following the draft policy document, and submitted along with corresponding data from its in vivo method counterpart (or citation to previously submitted in vivo studies).  This would provide the broader registrant community with the opportunity to practice conducting the method(s) and the agency additional experience in assessing the data. During the transition, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft policy document. The agency will use the public comments to revise the draft policy where appropriate. The agency is also aware of the importance of national and international harmonization and will continue to work with state and international regulators on use of the alternative method.

         B. Implementation

After addressing any potential issues identified through public comments, a final science policy will be completed and released. Subsequently, data generated from the accepted alternative approach may be submitted to fulfill the requirement of its standard in vivo counterpart. Data generated with the method will be reportable under section 6(a)(2), if relevant, regardless of when the data were generated (see Section III below).

   I. APPLICABILITY OF FIFRA 6(a)(2) REQUIREMENTS

FIFRA section 6(a)(2) provides that "[i]f at any time after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the pesticide, he shall submit such information to the Administrator."  This does not mean that the reported information will necessarily lead to regulatory decisions or label amendments: Information is reportable under section 6(a)(2) if it simply "pertain[s] or relate[s] to unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; it does not have to indicate, establish, or prove the existence of such effects." 43 Fed.Reg. 37611, 37612 (Aug. 28, 1978) (emphasis in the original). EPA always considers new information submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2) in the context of the full range of data previously submitted in support of the registration, applying a weight of the evidence approach to the multiple lines of available evidence. Likewise, OPP will review any information arising through the development of a new test method in relation to other pertinent information about the pesticide.

The process described above for evaluating and implementing alternative methods for in vivo acute toxicity studies includes comparing existing data previously generated by EPA's test methods with data generated using an alternative test methodology (e.g., OECD Skin Irritation).  Part of the focus of this comparison is simply to understand both the degree to which there is correlation between the standard in vivo and the alternative methods and the degree to which determinations regarding adverse effects can be made with the alternative method(s).  Pesticide registrants cooperating in this evaluation would already have submitted to EPA any information required to be reported under section 6(a)(2) arising from previous testing generated using EPA's test guidelines (i.e., in vivo test results) for registered pesticides.  As a result, the scope of the new information arising from the evaluation that could potentially be reportable under section 6(a)(2) would be limited to information arising from the alternative methods or from any new correlation established between the alternative methodologies and the methods upon which EPA currently relies.

At the beginning of the process, the results of the alternative testing methods are unlikely to be of interest to EPA, because the degree to which those results correspond to EPA's regulatory criteria is unknown.  Through its evaluation process, the agency will determine whether the alternative method(s) may meet OPP's regulatory needs.  If the evaluation is successful in developing a reasonably reliable correlation between the different test methods, then the results of alternative test methods would be more likely to be of regulatory utility to EPA.  For example, if a reasonably reliable correlation between the alternative assay and EPA's skin irritation criteria were developed, registrants who possess or know of information that, in the context of the new policy, would raise concerns about the continued registration of a product or about the appropriate terms and conditions of the registration of a product, would be required to report that information to EPA (§ 159.195(a)).  This would apply to data previously developed using existing test methods (e.g., the in vivo methods), as well as to data generated during initial research of new test methods.  It would apply to all registrants i.e., those who are not cooperating in the analysis, as well as cooperating registrants.

Information submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2) will not necessarily dictate regulatory decisions or label amendments. For the case of acute toxicity studies, an in vitro test result corresponding to a higher hazard category than that associated with an acceptable in vivo test result would not necessarily require a label change nor would an in vitro result corresponding to a lower hazard category necessarily lead to a label change. EPA will consider reported data in the context of the full range of data previously submitted in support of the registration, applying a weight of the evidence approach.