			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 20, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-01-9932

________________________________________________________________________
___________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action
described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no
additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Application of   US AIRWAYS, INC.,    filed   5/2/03,  for:

XX Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the United States and Antigua.

Applicant rep: Joel Stephen Burton<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst: Gerald
Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The authority granted was effective when taken: June 20, 2003 through
June 20, 2005,

Action taken by: 	 Paul L. Gretch

			Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the U.S.-U.K. Air Services
Agreement, to which Antigua and Barbuda acceded upon their independence.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: 	   XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
_______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

1 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58600-58604]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0873; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00336-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-11-01, which applies to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2
and EC225LP helicopters. AD 2018-11-01 requires installing a cut-out
for the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) rail support junction
profiles and repetitively inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related
equipment for a crack. Since the FAA issued AD 2018-11-01, the
manufacturer has developed a modification for in-service helicopters
for replacing aluminum splices with steel splices on frame 5295. This
proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2018-11-01 and require
a modification for replacing aluminum splices with steel splices on
frame 5295 if cracking is found. This proposed AD would also provide
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 6,
2021.

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 https://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 Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0873; 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 European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0873; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00336-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial

information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually
treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it
is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.''
The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM.
Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace
Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2018-11-01, Amendment 39-19289 (83 FR 23778, May
23, 2018), (AD 2018-11-01), for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2 and
EC225LP helicopters with an extended aluminum splice installed on frame
5295, except helicopters with steel splice kit part number 332A08-2649-
3072 installed. AD 2018-11-01 requires installing a cut-out for the LH
and RH rail support junction profiles and repetitively inspecting
splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. AD 2018-11-01
was prompted by reports of cracks on frame 5295 and on splices
installed to prevent those cracks. The FAA issued AD 2018-11-01 to
address a crack in frame 5295, which if not detected and corrected,
could lead to loss of structural integrity of the helicopter frame and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2018-11-01 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2018-11-01, EASA issued AD 2021-0075, dated
March 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0075), which supersedes EASA Emergency AD
2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014 (EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E). EASA
advises that since EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E was issued, Airbus
Helicopters developed MOD 0728463, available for helicopters in service
through the applicable modification service bulletin, providing
instructions to replace aluminum splices with steel splices on frame
5295. Airbus Helicopters also issued the applicable inspection alert
service bulletins, as defined in EASA AD 2021-0075. Accordingly, EASA
AD 2021-0075 retains the requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E,
which is superseded, and requires a modification, replacing aluminum
splices with steel splices on helicopters on which any cracked aluminum
splice has been detected. EASA AD 2021-0075 also advises that the
modification is terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed the following Airbus Helicopters service
information.
     Alert Service Bulletins Nos. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 1;
and EC225-05A038, Revision 1; both dated February 9, 2021; which
specify procedures for, among other actions, installing a cut-out for
the LH and RH rail support junction profiles and inspecting splices,
frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.
     Service Bulletins Nos. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0; and
EC225-53-061, Revision 0; both dated February 9, 2021; which specify
procedures for modifying the helicopter by replacing the aluminum LH
and RH splices with steel splices under the plates and the brackets of
the main gear box (MGB) bars. The modification includes taking
reference readings of the brackets of the MGB bars, removing the MGB
brackets and plates, removing the aluminum splices and inspecting the
joggling areas for scratches or other damage, inspecting frame 5295 for
cracking (including a dye penetrant inspection if the inspection
results are not conclusive), identifying the current measurements
(values) of the rivet and attachment plate holes for installation of
the steel splice (including determining the values of the rivet holes
and attachment plate holes on frame 5295 with a calibrated pad and
determining the elongations of the holes and the lengths of the
straps), modifying the door hinge rail brackets on the LH and RH sides,
and installing the steel splices. These documents are distinct since
they apply to different helicopter models.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Helicopters (now Airbus Helicopters)
Service Bulletin No. 53-003, Revision 4, for Model EC225LP helicopters
and Service Bulletin No. 53.01.52, Revision 5, for Model AS332L2
helicopters, both dated July 23, 2010. The service bulletins specify
procedures to reinforce frame 5295 by installing a new titanium plate
underneath the fitting and a new widened aluminum splice below the
upper corner of the door.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. 05-
019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, for Model EC225 LP
helicopters. This service information specifies procedures for cutting
out the junction profiles.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletins
Nos. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0; and EC225-05A038, Revision 0; both
dated April 15, 2014; which specify procedures for, among other
actions, installing a cut-out for the LH and RH rail support junction
profiles and inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for
a crack.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2018-11-01 and
require a modification for replacing aluminum splices with steel
splices on frame 5295. This proposed AD would also provide terminating
action for the repetitive inspections required by AD 2018-11-01. This
proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information already described, except as discussed under
``Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD.''

Redesignation of AD 2018-11-01 Paragraph Identifier

    Since AD 2018-11-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph

identifiers have been redesignated in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
       Requirement in AD 2018-11-01               this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (e).............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (f).............................  paragraph (j)(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD 2021-0075

    EASA AD 2021-0075 requires contacting Airbus Helicopters for
approved repair instructions if any crack is found during an
inspection. This proposed AD would not require that action.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 38 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                Labor cost      Parts cost      Cost per product       Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained installation of cut-  40 work-hours x        $5,000  $8,400..................  $319,200.
 outs on frame 5295 from AD     $85 per hour =
 2018-11-01.                    $3,400.
Retained inspection of frame   2 work-hours x              0  $170, per inspection      $6,460, per inspection
 5295 from AD 2018-11-01.       $85 per hour =                 cycle.                    cycle.
                                $170, per
                                inspection
                                cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might
need these repairs:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair........................................  40 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $5,000          $8,400
                                                 $3,400.
New proposed modification (replacement of       830 work-hours x $85 per hour =           35,000         105,550
 aluminum splices with steel splices).           $70,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2018-11-01, Amendment 39-19289 (83
FR 23778, May 23, 2018); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2021-0873; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00336-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by December 6, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-11-01, Amendment 39-19289 (83 FR 23778,
May 23, 2018) (AD 2018-11-01).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2 and Model
EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category, as specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) Model AS332L2 helicopters equipped with extended aluminum
splices on frame 5295 installed in accordance with Airbus
Helicopters (AH) Modification (MOD) 0726517, Eurocopter (EC) AS332
Service Bulletin (SB) 53.01.52, or AH repair design 332-53-507-06,
332-53-21-07, or 332-53-82-06; except helicopters embodying AH MOD
0728463, AH SB AS 332-53.01.97, or

repair design 332-53-409-12, 332-53-1284-13, 332-53-1079-16, or 332-
53-1358-16.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c)(1): As referenced in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this AD, helicopters with AH MOD 0728463 installed have
replaced the aluminum splices with steel splices.
    (2) Model EC225LP helicopters equipped with extended aluminum
splices on frame 5295 installed in accordance with AH MOD 0726517,
or EC EC225 SB 53-003 (pre AH MOD 0726493 and post AH MOD 0726517),
except helicopters embodying AH MOD 0728463, or SB EC225-53-061.
    Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2): Helicopters with AH MOD 0726493 have
installed steel splice kit part number 332A08-2649-3072.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5300, Fuselage
Structure.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on frame 5295 and on
aluminum splices installed to prevent those cracks. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address cracking on frame 5295 and on the inner
skins. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss
of structural integrity of the helicopter frame and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Installation and Inspections With New Service Information
and Corrective Actions (Modification)

    This paragraph retains the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD
2018-11-01, with new service information and corrective actions
(modification).
    (1) Before a splice reaches 1,700 hours time-in-service (TIS),
within 50 hours TIS, or before the helicopter reaches 11,950 hours
TIS, whichever occurs latest, do the following.
    (i) Install the rail support cut-out and identify the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) junction profile, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2., of Airbus Helicopters
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC225-05A038, Revision 1, dated
February 9, 2021 (Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A038, Revision
1); or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 1, dated
February 9, 2021 (Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97,
Revision 1); whichever is applicable to your helicopter.
    (ii) Inspect each splice for a crack in the area depicted as
Area Y in Figure 3 of Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A038,
Revision 1; or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision
1; whichever is applicable to your helicopter. If a crack exists, do
the applicable action required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of
this AD.
    (A) For any cracking found before the effective date of this AD:
Repair or replace the splice before further flight.
    (B) For any cracking found on or after the effective date of
this AD: Before further flight, modify the helicopter in accordance
with paragraph 3.B.2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0,
dated February 9, 2021 (Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97,
Revision 0); or Service Bulletin No. EC225-53-061, Revision 0, dated
February 9, 2021 (Airbus Helicopters SB No. EC225-53-061, Revision
0); as applicable to your helicopter; except as specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, inspect
each splice for a crack in the area depicted as Area Y in Figure 3
of Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A038, Revision 1; or Airbus
Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 1; whichever is
applicable to your helicopter. If a crack exists, do the applicable
actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
Accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B)
and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the inspections required by
this paragraph.
    (i) For any cracking found before the effective date of this AD:
Repair or replace the splice before further flight.
    (ii) For any cracking found on or after the effective date of
this AD: Before further flight, modify the helicopter in accordance
with paragraph 3.B.2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0; or Airbus Helicopters
SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0; as applicable to your helicopter;
except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A038, Revision 1;
Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 1; Airbus
Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0; and Airbus
Helicopters SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0; specify to perform
dye-penetrant inspections ``if in doubt'' or ``if any doubt,'' this
AD requires performing a dye-penetrant inspection during inspections
done on or after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0;
and Airbus Helicopters SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0; specify
discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts from
service.
    (3) Where Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0;
and Airbus Helicopters SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0, specify
contacting Airbus Helicopter for corrective action or further
procedures, this AD requires repair done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0; and
Airbus Helicopters SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0, specify a
visual check and dye penetrant inspection for cracks on the inside
and outside of frame 5295. For this AD, if any cracking is found
during any visual check or dye penetrant inspection on the inside
and outside of frame 5295, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA;
or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(i) Reporting Not Required

    Although Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0;
and Airbus Helicopters SB No. EC 225-53-061, Revision 0; specify to
submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the installation of the
rail support cut-out required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, if
that action was performed before June 27, 2018 (the effective date
of AD 2018-11-01) using Airbus Helicopters MOD 0728090 or Airbus
Helicopters SB No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, if the actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Helicopters ASB
No. EC225-05A038, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014; or Airbus
Helicopters ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0, dated April 15,
2014.

(k) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
actions can be performed, provided no passengers are onboard.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this

referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0075, dated March 16, 2021.
You may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0873.

    Issued on October 4, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-22462 Filed 10-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24870]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08990]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0276]

Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment from the hazards associated with the fireworks
display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels
are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in
the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM),
any Official Patrol defined as other federal, state, or local law
enforcement agencies on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing
the regulated area.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced for the
location identified in Table 1 to Sec.  165.1191, Item number 1, from
10 a.m. until 11:30 p.m. on April 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email MST1 Shannon Curtaz-Milian,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone
(415) 399-7440, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 1 for the San Francisco Giants
Fireworks Display from 10 a.m. until 11:30 p.m. on April 29, 2022. The
safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the San Francisco
Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all
points 100 feet out from the fireworks barge during the loading,
transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location
to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display.
From 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. on April 29, 2022, the fireworks barge will
be loading pyrotechnics from Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The
fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit
to the display location. From 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. on April 29, 2022
the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site
near Pier 48 in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N, 122[deg]22'56''
W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks
display. Upon the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display,
scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, between
approximately 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on April 29, 2022, the safety
zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the
San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by
connecting all points 700 feet out from the fireworks barge near Pier
48 in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N, 122[deg]22'56'' W (NAD
83). This safety zone will be in enforced from 10 a.m. until 11:30 p.m.
on April 29, 2022, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official
Patrol, defined as a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on
scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During
the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of
the safety zones you must comply with directions from the Patrol
Commander or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may,
upon request allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated
areas when it is safe to do so.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 15, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-08990 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10856-10860]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03963]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94284; File No. SR-EMERALD-2022-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX EMERALD, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fee Schedule

February 18, 2022.
    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 February 9, 2022, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX
Emerald'' 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 Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, 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 Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule
to: (i) Modify the application of the per

contract surcharge assessed for Complex Order \3\ transactions (the
``Complex surcharge''); and (ii) increase the Complex surcharge for
Complex Order transactions in Penny and non-Penny Classes (defined
below). The Exchange originally filed this proposal on January 31, 2022
(the ``First Proposed Rule Change'').\4\ On February 9, 2022, the
Exchange withdrew the First Proposed Rule Change and submitted this
filing for immediate effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5) for the definition of Complex
Order.
    \4\ See SR-EMERALD-2022-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all
market participants, which are based upon a threshold tier structure
(``Tier''). Tiers are determined on a monthly basis and are based on
three alternative calculation methods, as defined in Section 1)a)ii) of
the Fee Schedule. The calculation method that results in the highest
Tier achieved by the Member \5\ shall apply to all Origin types by the
Member, except the Priority Customer \6\ Origin type. For the Priority
Customer Origin calculation, the Tier applied for a Member and its
Affiliates' \7\ is solely determined by calculation Method 3, as
defined in Section 1)a)ii) of the Fee Schedule, titled ``Total Priority
Customer, Maker sides volume, based on % of CTCV (`Method 3').'' The
monthly volume thresholds for each of the methods, associated with each
Tier, are calculated as the total monthly volume executed by the Member
in all options classes on MIAX Emerald in the relevant Origins and/or
applicable liquidity, not including Excluded Contracts,\8\ (as the
numerator) expressed as a percentage of (divided by) Customer Total
Consolidated Volume (``CTCV'') (as the denominator). CTCV is calculated
as the total national volume cleared at The Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') in the Customer range in those classes listed on
MIAX Emerald for the month for which fees apply, excluding volume
cleared at the OCC in the Customer range executed during the period of
time in which the Exchange experiences an ``Exchange System
Disruption'' \9\ (solely in the option classes of the affected Matching
Engine).\10\ In addition, the per contract transaction rebates and fees
shall be applied retroactively to all eligible volume once the Tier has
been reached by the Member. Members that place resting liquidity, i.e.,
orders on the MIAX Emerald System, will be assessed the specified
``maker'' rebate or fee (each a ``Maker'') and Members that execute
against resting liquidity will be assessed the specified ``taker'' fee
or rebate (each a ``Taker'').\11\ Members are also assessed lower
transaction fees and smaller rebates for order executions in standard
option classes in the Penny Interval Program \12\ (``Penny Classes'')
than for order executions in standard option classes which are not in
the Penny Program (``non-Penny Classes''), for which Members will be
assessed a higher transaction fees and larger rebates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization approved to
exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit.
Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See the
Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule and Exchange Rule 100.
    \6\ ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100, including Interpretation and Policy .01.
    \7\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at least
75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's
Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). An ``Appointed Market Maker'' is a MIAX Emerald
Market Maker (who does not otherwise have a corporate affiliation
based upon common ownership with an EEM) that has been appointed by
an EEM and an ``Appointed EEM'' is an EEM (who does not otherwise
have a corporate affiliation based upon common ownership with a MIAX
Emerald Market Maker) that has been appointed by a MIAX Emerald
Market Maker, pursuant to the following process. A MIAX Emerald
Market Maker appoints an EEM and an EEM appoints a MIAX Emerald
Market Maker, for the purposes of the Fee Schedule, by each
completing and sending an executed Volume Aggregation Request Form
by email to [email protected] no later than 2 business days
prior to the first business day of the month in which the
designation is to become effective. Transmittal of a validly
completed and executed form to the Exchange along with the
Exchange's acknowledgement of the effective designation to each of
the Market Maker and EEM will be viewed as acceptance of the
appointment. The Exchange will only recognize one designation per
Member. A Member may make a designation not more than once every 12
months (from the date of its most recent designation), which
designation shall remain in effect unless or until the Exchange
receives written notice submitted 2 business days prior to the first
business day of the month from either Member indicating that the
appointment has been terminated. Designations will become operative
on the first business day of the effective month and may not be
terminated prior to the end of the month. Execution data and reports
will be provided to both parties. See the Definitions Section of the
MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule.
    \8\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an away
market for execution. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \9\ The term ``Exchange System Disruption'' means an outage of a
Matching Engine or collective Matching Engines for a period of two
consecutive hour or more, during trading hours. See the Definitions
Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \10\ A ``Matching Engine'' is a part of the MIAX Emerald
electronic system that processes options orders and trades on a
symbol-by-symbol basis. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \11\ For a Priority Customer complex order taking liquidity in
both a Penny class and non-Penny class against Origins other than
Priority Customer, the Priority Customer order will receive a rebate
based on the Tier achieved.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88993 (June 2,
2020), 85 FR 35145 (June 8, 2020) (SR-EMERALD-2020-05) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum
Trading Increments, To Conform the Rule to Section 3.1 of the Plan
for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed
To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options) (the
``Penny Program'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Modify the Application of, and Increase, the Complex
Surcharge
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule
to: (i) Modify the application of the Complex surcharge; and (ii)
increase the Complex surcharge for Complex Order transactions in Penny
and non-Penny Classes. Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.86
or $0.88 per contract for all Origins other than Priority Customer for
Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange's Strategy Book
\13\ in non-Penny Classes, depending on the Origin and Tier achieved.
The Exchange also assesses a Complex surcharge of $0.05 per contract
for all Origins other than Priority Customer for Complex Orders that
remove liquidity from the Strategy Book in non-Penny Classes, which is
denoted by footnote ``~'' following the tables in Section 1)a)i) of the
Fee Schedule. Currently, the Exchange does not assess a Complex
surcharge for Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Strategy
Book in Penny Classes for any Origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the application of the Complex
surcharge in several ways. First, the Exchange proposes that the
Complex surcharge will now apply to both Penny and non-Penny Classes,
which the Exchange will denote in both the Penny and non-Penny Class
tables of transaction fees and rebates in Section 1)a)i) of the Fee
Schedule (described further below). Prior to the First Proposed Rule
Change, the Complex surcharge applied only to non-Penny Classes.
Second, the Exchange proposes that the Complex surcharge will now apply
to both liquidity adding (Maker) and liquidity removing (Taker) Complex
Orders for all Origins, except the Priority Customer Origin. Prior to
the First Proposed Rule Change, the Complex surcharge applied only to
liquidity removing (Taker) Complex Orders. Third, the Exchange proposes
that the Complex surcharge will apply to Complex Orders submitted as a
Response or unrelated quote or

order in a Complex Order Auction.\14\ Prior to the First Proposed Rule
Change, the Complex surcharge applied only to liquidity removing
Complex Orders that were not part of a Complex Order Auction. Fourth,
the Exchange proposes that the Complex surcharge will apply to Complex
Orders that are contra to the Priority Customer Origin only. Prior to
the First Proposed Rule Change, the Complex surcharge applied to
Complex Orders that were contra to any Origin. Fifth, the Exchange
proposes to increase the Complex surcharge from $0.05 per contract to
$0.12 per contract. The Exchange notes that the Complex surcharge will
continue to not apply to transactions that are Linkage Trades.\15\
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the Complex surcharge will not
apply to transactions that are paired trades, such as transactions in
cPRIME, which the Exchange proposes to explicitly exclude from the
Complex surcharge (denoted in a footnote described below). Accordingly,
with all of the proposed changes, the proposed Complex surcharge of
$0.12 per contract will apply to Complex Orders for all Origins except
Priority Customer that add (Maker) or remove (Taker) liquidity in Penny
and non-Penny Classes when trading against a Priority Customer on the
Strategy Book. The Complex surcharge would continue to not apply to the
Priority Customer Origin. The Complex surcharge would also apply to all
Origins except Priority Customer when trading against a Priority
Customer as a Response or unrelated quote or order in a Complex Order
Auction,\16\ other than a cPRIME auction.\17\ The Exchange notes that
the proposed application and amount of the Complex surcharge subject to
this filing is the same application and amount of the Complex surcharge
that is currently assessed by the Exchange's affiliate, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'').\18\ For example,
assuming a Firm Origin Complex Order taking liquidity against (contra)
a Priority Customer Origin Complex Order resting liquidity in a Penny
Class, MIAX will charge a standard fee of $0.47 and a Complex surcharge
of $0.12.\19\ Similarly, under the proposed fee application and
proposed Complex surcharge rate increase, MIAX Emerald would now charge
a standard (taker) fee of $0.50 and a Complex surcharge of $0.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 518(d) (describing the Complex Order
Auction process). The Exchange notes that the Complex surcharge will
not apply to Complex Orders submitted as part of a cPRIME auction. A
Complex PRIME or ``cPRIME'' Order is a complex order (as defined in
Rule 518(a)(5)) that is submitted for participation in a cPRIME
Auction. Trading of cPRIME Orders is governed by Rule 515A,
Interpretation and Policy .12. See Exchange Rule 518(b)(7).
``cPRIME'' is the process by which a Member may electronically
submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Exchange Rule 518(b)(7)) it
represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'') against principal or
solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME Auction''), subject to
the requirements in Exchange Rule 515A, Interpretation and Policy
.12(a). See, generally, Exchange Rule 515A.
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 521(j).
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 518(d).
    \17\ See supra note 14.
    \18\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Sections 1)a)i)-ii) (assessing a
$0.12 per contract surcharge for trading against a Priority Customer
Complex Order for Penny and Non-Penny classes).
    \19\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To represent all the proposed changes, the Exchange proposes to add
a new column to each table for Penny and non-Penny Classes in Section
1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule, under the ``Complex'' heading. The Exchange
proposes that each new column would be titled ``Per Contract Surcharge
for Trading Against a Priority Customer Complex Order.'' \20\ In the
new column for each table, the Exchange proposes to insert the proposed
increased Complex surcharge amount of $0.12 per contract for all
Origins, except Priority Customer, which would be $0.00 per contract
for all Tiers. The Exchange also proposes to move footnote ``~'' from
the ``Taker'' column in the non-Penny Classes table and insert it at
the end of each of the newly proposed column headings for the Complex
surcharge, described above. Further, the Exchange proposes to delete
the text of footnote ``~'' in its entirety and insert the following new
text for that footnote following the tables in Section 1)a)i) of the
Fee Schedule: ``The per contract surcharge for trading against a
Priority Customer Complex Order for Penny and Non-Penny Classes applies
to all Origins except Priority Customer when trading against a Priority
Customer: (i) On the Strategy Book; or (ii) as a Response or unrelated
quote or order in a complex order auction other than a cPRIME
Auction.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This is similar to how the Complex surcharge is represented
in the tables of transaction fees and rebates in the MIAX Fee
Schedule. See supra note 18.
    \21\ This is substantially similar language regarding the
application of the Complex surcharge that is represented by text
below the tables of transaction fees and rebates in the MIAX Fee
Schedule. See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1)a)ii), at page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange proposes to increase the Complex
surcharge from $0.05 per contract to $0.12 per contract. The Exchange
notes that the proposed Complex surcharge rate of $0.12 per contract is
the same amount charged by at least two competing options exchanges
with base fee amounts for complex orders of $0.50 per contract in Penny
Classes plus a $0.12 per contract complex surcharge, which has similar
application methods.\22\ Further, the proposed application and
increased amount of the Complex surcharge is the same application and
amount of the Complex surcharge that is currently assessed by the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section I.A.,
footnote 5, page 9 (assessing $0.12 per contract surcharge to any
Electronic Non-Customer Complex Order that executes against a
Customer Complex Order, regardless of whether the execution occurs
in a Complex Order Auction); BOX Options Exchange Fee Schedule,
Section III.A. Complex Order Transaction Fees (noting that a $0.12
per contract Complex Surcharge will be applied to any electronic
non-Public Customer Complex Order that executes against an
electronic Public Customer Complex Order, including for Penny
Interval Class taker fees with a base fee amount of $0.50 per
contract).
    \23\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed changes to the Complex surcharge are
for business and competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow,
the Exchange initially set its Complex surcharge rate so that it was
similar to, or lower, than other options exchanges that operate
comparable maker/taker pricing models.\24\ The Exchange now believes
that it is appropriate to adjust this rate and application so that it
is more in line with other exchanges, but will remain highly
competitive such that it should enable the Exchange to continue to
attract order flow and maintain market share.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85393 (March 21,
2019), 84 FR 11599 (March 27, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-15).
    \25\ See supra notes 18 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The proposed changes are immediately effective.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\27\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just
and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in

general, protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has a market share of more than
approximately 12-13% of the equity options market.\30\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power. More specifically, as of
January 26, 2022, the Exchange had a market share of approximately
3.96% of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and exchange traded
fund (``ETF'') options for the month of January 2022.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See ``The Market at a Glance,'' (last visited January 26,
2022), available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products and
services, terminate an existing membership or determine to not become a
new member, and/or shift order flow, in response to transaction fee
changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the Exchange's affiliate,
MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') filed with the Commission a proposal
to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for options transactions in
certain Penny classes for Priority Customers and decrease Maker rebates
in certain Tiers for options transactions in Penny classes for Priority
Customers (which fee was to be effective March 1, 2019).\32\ MIAX Pearl
experienced a decrease in total market share for the month of March
2019, after the proposal went into effect. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the MIAX Pearl March 1, 2019 fee change, to increase
certain transaction fees and decrease certain transaction rebates, may
have contributed to the decrease in MIAX Pearl's market share and, as
such, the Exchange believes competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's, and other options exchanges, ability to set transaction
fees and market participants can shift order flow based on fee changes
instituted by the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85304 (March 13,
2019), 84 FR 10144 (March 19, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated market
participants in the same Origin type (except Priority Customers) will
now be subject to the Complex surcharge. The Exchange believes it is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the Complex
surcharge for business and competitive business reasons. The Exchange
initially set its Complex surcharge rate similar to, or lower than, the
complex surcharges assessed by other options exchanges that operate
comparable maker/taker pricing models. The Exchange now believes that
it is appropriate to increase the Complex surcharge so that it is in
line with other exchanges, and will still remain highly competitive
such that it should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order
flow and maintain market share.\33\ The Exchange believes that the
amount of Complex surcharge, as proposed, will continue to encourage
market participants to send Complex Orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra notes 18 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the Complex
surcharge and broaden its application is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act \34\ because it applies equally to all market
participants (Market Makers, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealers, except Priority Customers) that would be charged such
Complex surcharge. Assessing the Complex surcharge to Market Makers and
other professional market participants (except Priority Customers), in
a broader application, similar to that of other exchanges, is
reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will provide
Market Makers and other professional market participants with equal
surcharges when trading against a Priority Customer Complex Order. As
stated above, the proposed Complex surcharge is the same amount as the
surcharges assessed by NYSE American Options, BOX Options, and the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX.\35\ The Exchange notes that, although the
increase of the Complex surcharge represents a slight fee increase, the
Exchange believes that this increase is fair and equitable because it
is in line with the amount of surcharges assessed on other options
exchanges when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \35\ See supra notes 18 and 22.
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal to apply the Complex surcharge
to all Origins, except Priority Customer, is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to
encourage Priority Customer Complex Order flow. The Exchange believes
increased Priority Customer Complex Order flow benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. The Exchange also believes that increased Priority Customer
Complex Order flow may attract Market Makers and other liquidity
providers, thus, facilitating price improvement in the Complex Order
Auction process, signaling additional corresponding increase in Complex
Order flow from other market participants, and, as a result, increasing
liquidity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to broaden the application of
the Complex surcharge is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \37\ because it perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system by aligning the broader application of the
Complex surcharge to that of other options exchanges,\38\ which will
help to create consistency and uniformity in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).
    \38\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intra-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Complex
surcharge should continue to encourage the provision of liquidity that
enhances the quality of the Exchange's Complex Order market and
increases the number of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all
participants who will be able to compete for such opportunities. The
proposed rule changes should enable the Exchange to continue to attract
and compete for order flow with other exchanges. The Exchange also
believes that its proposal to apply the Complex surcharge to all
Origins except Priority Customer will not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate because the

Exchange believes increased Priority Customer Complex Order flow
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange also believes that
increased Priority Customer Complex Order flow may attract Market
Makers and other liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price
improvement in the Complex Order Auction process, signaling additional
corresponding increase in Complex Order flow from other market
participants, and, as a result, increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. There are currently 16
registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on
publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no
single exchange has a market share of more than approximately 12-13% of
the equity options market.\39\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power. More specifically, as of January 26, 2022,
the Exchange had a market share of approximately 3.96% of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options for the month of
January 2022.\40\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing
power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order
flow. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its
transaction and non-transaction fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment because it
modifies the Exchange's fees for Complex Order transactions in a manner
that will allow the Exchange to remain competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 30.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\41\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \42\ thereunder.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2022-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2022-07.
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 website (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 website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2022-07, and should
be submitted on or before March 18, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03963 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 Original Message From: Bradfield, John [ mailto: jbradfield@ cpamail. org] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9: 45 AM To: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov Cc: Hanks, Katie P.; Hunt, Tim Subject: RE: Moisture Content Equation Mary Tom,

Thanks for the feedback. I was looking at this as a technical information/ definitional need and I guess EPA was looking at it from more of a process standpoint. There is no technical issue in the wood products field about the dry basis moisture content definition, of course, which is in the USDA Wood Handbook. Since its not in the rule, this sounds like something that needs to be referenced in one of the implementation documents being developed.

Have a wonderful trip to Russia. I hope you get a girl.

John John Bradfield Director of Environmental Affairs Composite Panel Association 18922 Premiere Court Gaithersburg, MD 20879 1574 USA 301.670.0604 · Direct 301.840.9094 x229 · Fax 301.840.1252 1.866.4Composites · jbradfield@ cpamail. org · http:// www. pbmdf. com  Original Message From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11: 04 AM To: Bradfield, John Cc: Hanks, Katie P.; Hunt, Tim Subject: Re: Moisture Content Equation Dear John,

The moisture content equations in the proposed and final rules have a different purpose. The equation in the proposed rule was to be used to calculate moisture content of grab samples ( weight percent on a dry basis). Based on comments from industry, we eliminated the grab sampling requirements and the associated equation ( FR page 1317) from the proposed rule. The equation we included in the final rule ( page 402) is used to convert wet basis moisture measurements made by a continuous moisture monitor to a dry basis.

Regards, Mary Tom " Bradfield, John" < jbradfield@ cpama To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA il. org> cc: " Hunt, Tim" < tim_ hunt@ afandpa. org>, " Hanks, Katie P." < kphanks@ rti. org> 06/ 04/ 2004 12: 03 PM Subject: Moisture Content Equation Mary Tom,

Yesterday I noted the apparent absence of a dry basis moisture content equation in the final rule. Did I miss it somewhere? All I could find was a conversion equation for turning a wet basis moisture content to a dry basis moisture content ( page 402). The equation is in the proposed rule ( FR page 1317) and we found it quite helpful. It would seem to be a necessary item for the rule to define since there are important regulatory parameters that are defined by dry basis moisture content.

Please let me know if I just managed to overlook the equation's presence in some other form. I was preparing a presentation for the AF& PA workshop and couldn't track it down for reference.

Best of luck on your next trip east to adopt another child. Will it be a girl this time? When do you leave?

John John Bradfield Director of Environmental Affairs Composite Panel Association 18922 Premiere Court Gaithersburg, MD 20879 1574 USA 301.670.0604 · Direct 301.840.9094 x229 · Fax 301.840.1252 1.866.4Composites · jbradfield@ cpamail. org · http:// www. pbmdf. com


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6142-6144]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74174; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
With the Proposed Amendment of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of Exchange Subsidiary NYSE Regulation, Inc.

January 29, 2015.
    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 January 21, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in

Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes amendment of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation (the ``Current Restated Certificate'') of the Exchange's
subsidiary, NYSE Regulation, Inc., a New York not-for-profit
corporation (``NYSE Regulation''), to make corrections as requested by
the Department of State of the State of New York (the ``Department'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 seeks approval for its subsidiary NYSE Regulation to
modify the form of Restated Certificate of Incorporation that it
proposes to file with the Department. In December 2014, the Commission
approved an amendment and restatement of the Current Restated
Certificate (the ``Amended and Restated Certificate'') relating to the
termination of NYSE Group Trust I, a Delaware trust (the ``Trust'').\3\
However, in reviewing the Amended and Restated Certificate, the
Department requested further revisions prior to accepting the document
for filing. Specifically, under Section 805(b)(4) of the New York Not-
For-Profit Corporation Law, the Department requested that the recitals
to the Amended and Restated Certificate specify the amendment being
made in the body of the document. The Department also requested a
correction in a reference to the date of a filing made with it in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-73740 (Dec. 4, 2014) (SR-
NYSE-2014-53), 79 FR 73362 (December 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed amendment, the Amended and Restated Certificate
would be further revised to correct the date in the fourth recital and
to add a reference to the termination the [sic] Trust in the sixth
recital. The proposed amendment would not affect the substance of the
Amended and Restated Certificate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this filing is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Exchange Act,\4\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act,\5\ in particular, because the proposed rule change
summarized herein would be consistent with and facilitate a governance
and regulatory structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The enhanced recital and the
correction of the date reference will provide additional clarity to
readers of the Amended and Restated Certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not designed to address any competitive issue in the U.S.
securities markets or have any impact on competition in those markets.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\ Because
the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the enhanced recital and the correction of a date would provide
greater clarity to readers, and immediate operability would allow the
Exchange to file the Amended and Restated Certificate, as revised
pursuant to this proposed rule change, with the Department as soon as
possible. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSE-2015-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-04. 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 office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-04, and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2015.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02108 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33307]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0017]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Voluntary National Retail Food
Regulatory Program Standards

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Voluntary National Retail Food
Regulatory Program Standards'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 28, 2011
(76 FR 17132), the Agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0621.
The approval expires on May 31, 2014. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-14064 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 152)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44383-44384]
[DOCID:fr08au07-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0459; FRL-8450-3]

Determination of Attainment, Approval of Designation of Areas for
Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors in the final rule redesignating
LaPorte County, Indiana (LaPorte CO., IN) to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In the final
approval for the redesignation of this area, EPA inadvertently titled
the designation codification table as ``OHIO OZONE'' instead of
``Indiana-Ozone'', and inadvertently specified the effective date of
this action in the designation table as August 20, 2007, even though
the effective date of the final rule was July 19, 2007, as specified in
the DATES portion of the final rule. This technical correction to the
final rule corrects these errors.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 8, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-6057<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a notice of final rulemaking
to redesignate LaPorte County, Indiana (LaPorte CO., IN) to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone standard on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39574). In the
designation codification table used to revise the 8-hour ozone
designation of this area, EPA incorrectly titled the table as ``OHIO
OZONE.'' This should have read as ``Indiana-Ozone.'' In the same
designation codification table, EPA incorrectly specified the effective
date of the redesignation as August 20, 2007. This differed from the
actual effective date of the final rule, July 19, 2007, as specified in
the DATES section of the final rule. EPA intended to make the
redesignation of this area effective upon the date of the publication
of the final rule.

Correction

    For LaPorte County in the final rule published in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39574), on page 39576 in the
codification table, the table title: ``OHIO OZONE'' is corrected to
read ``Indiana-Ozone''. In the second column of the same codification
table, the Date: ``8/20/07'' is corrected to read ``7/19/07''. EPA is
making changes in 40 CFR 81.315 in order to correct the codification of
the 8-hour ozone designation for LaPorte County, Indiana.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting
errors in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is, therefore,
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have
substantial direct effects 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 governments, as
specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of August 8,
2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR part 81 for
Indiana is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Dated: July 26, 2007.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entries for LaPorte
County, Indiana: LaPorte County in the table entitled ``Indiana-Ozone
(8-Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                            Indiana--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation \a\                                            Classification
          Designated area           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\              Type                          Date \1\                                Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
LaPorte CO., IN:
    LaPorte County.................         7/19/07  Attainment............

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. E7-15246 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P