[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 85328]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials--Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2016.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Office of the Special Permits and Approvals.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Regulation(s)     Nature of the special
    Application No.             Docket No.             Applicant           affected           permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20351-N................  .......................  Roeder Cartage      180.407(c),         To authorize the
                                                   Company,            180.407(e),         transportation in
                                                   Incorporated.       180.407(f).         commerce of
                                                                                Acetonitrile and
                                                                                Acetonitrile, crude
                                                                                in dedicated DOT
                                                                                Specification 407 and
                                                                                412 cargo tanks which
                                                                                are not required to
                                                                                have periodic
                                                                                internal visual
                                                                                inspections.
                                                                                (mode 1)
20356-N................  .......................  Tesla Motors, Inc.  172.101 Column      To authorize the
                                                                       (9B),               transportation in
                                                                       173.185(b)(3).      commerce of lithium
                                                                                ion batteries
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg by
                                                                                cargo-only aircraft.
                                                                                (mode 4)
20357-N................  .......................  Jingmen Hongtu      178.274(b),         To authorize the
                                                   Special Aircraft    178.276(a)(2),      manufacture, marking,
                                                   Manufacturing       178.276(b)(1).      sale and use of
                                                   Co., Ltd.                               certain DOT
                                                                                Specification 50
                                                                                steel portable tanks
                                                                                or UN steel portable
                                                                                tanks conforming with
                                                                                Section VIII,
                                                                                Division 2 of the
                                                                                ASME Code instead of
                                                                                Section VIII,
                                                                                Division 1, for the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of Division
                                                                                2.1 and 2.2
                                                                                materials.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3)
20360-N................  .......................  Scott's Helicopter  172.101 Column      To authorize the
                                                   Service Inc.        (9B), 172.200,      transportation in
                                                                       172.204(c)(3),      commerce of certain
                                                                       172.301(c),         hazardous materials
                                                                       173.27(b)(2),       by 14 Part 133
                                                                       175.30, 175.75.     Rotorcraft External
                                                                                Load Operations
                                                                                transporting
                                                                                hazardous materials
                                                                                attached to or
                                                                                suspended from an
                                                                                aircraft, in remote
                                                                                areas of the US only,
                                                                                without being subject
                                                                                to hazard
                                                                                communication
                                                                                requirements,
                                                                                quantity limitations,
                                                                                and certain loading
                                                                                and stowage
                                                                                requirements.
                                                                                (mode 4)
20361-N................  .......................  Keith Huber         178.345-3(f)(3)...  To authorize the
                                                   Corporation.                            manufacture, mark,
                                                                                sale, and use of non-
                                                                                DOT specification
                                                                                cargo tanks to
                                                                                transport gasoline.
                                                                                (mode 1)
20362-N................  .......................  FSC Metal           178.35(b).........  To authorize the mark,
                                                   Corporation.                            sale, and use of
                                                                                cylinders
                                                                                manufactured by a
                                                                                foreign company prior
                                                                                to obtaining
                                                                                manufacturing
                                                                                approval.
                                                                                (mode 1)
20366-N................  .......................  ATS-MER, LLC......  173.185(a)........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of prototype
                                                                                and low production
                                                                                lithium batteries via
                                                                                cargo-only aircraft.
                                                                                (mode 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-27724 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7634-7636]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3260]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66350; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary
.05 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 To Allow Trading of Options on
iShares[supreg] Silver Trust \1\ and United States Oil Fund at $0.50
Strike Price Intervals Where the Strike Price Is Less Than $75
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``iShares[supreg]'' is a registered trademark BlackRock
Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    February 7, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 6, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4
to allow trading of options on iShares[supreg] Silver Trust \5\ and
United States Oil Fund at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike
price is less than $75. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``iShares[reg]'' is a registered trademark BlackRock
Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of this filing is to amend Commentary .05 of Rule 6.4
to allow trading of options on iShares[supreg] Silver Trust (``SLV'' or
``SLV Trust'') and United States Oil Fund (``USO'' or ``USO Fund'') at
$0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
The Underlying ETFs
    Two popular exchange traded funds (``ETFs''), which are known on
the Exchange as Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, underlie SLV and USO
options.\6\ SLV and USO options are currently traded on several
exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As of July 31, 2011, the average daily volume (``ADV'') over
the previous three calendar months was 60,087,539 for SLV and
13,881,380 for USO.
    \7\ These exchanges include, in addition to NYSEArca: NYSEAmex
(``Amex''), BATS Global Markets (``BATS''), Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX''), Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), C2 Options
Exchange (``C2''), International Securities Exchange (``ISE''),
NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') and NASDAQ Options Exchange (``NOM'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The iShares[supreg] Silver Trust is a grantor trust that is
designed to provide a vehicle for investors to own interests in silver.
The purpose of the SLV Trust is to own silver transferred to the trust
in exchange for shares that are issued by the trust. Each of such
shares represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net
assets of the SLV Trust. The objective of the SLV Trust is for the
value of the iShares[supreg] to reflect, at any given time, the price
of silver owned by the trust at that time.
    The United States Oil Fund is a domestic exchange traded security
designed to track the movements of light, sweet crude oil that is known
as West Texas Intermediate. The investment objective of the USO Fund is
for the changes in percentage terms of

its units' net asset value to reflect the changes in percentage terms
of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing,
Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures
contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (the ``NYMEX''), less USO's expenses.
    The ETFs underlying SLV and USO options, which are listed on NYSE
Arca, are not affected or changed by this filing.
The Proposal
    Commentary .05 of Rule 6.4 currently states that the interval of
strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares will
be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or
greater where the strike price is more than $200. This is similar to
the applicable ETF option interval standards of other options
markets.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 5.5 Interpretation and Policy .08; and
NOM Chapter IV Section 6, Supplementary Material .01 to Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has recently approved a CBOE proposal to allow $0.50
strike price intervals for options on certain ETFs and individual
equity securities on which CBOE would calculate volatility (known as
``volatility options'').\9\ The Exchange is, in this filing, proposing
$0.50 strike price intervals for options on ETFs similarly to what CBOE
proposed in respect of volatility options. The Exchange notes that its
$0.50 strike price interval proposal is, however, limited in several
respects. First, the proposed $0.50 intervals are limited to only one
type of underlying instrument, namely Exchange-Traded Fund Shares.
Second, the $0.50 intervals are proposed for two option products,
namely iShares[supreg] Silver Trust and United States Oil Fund. And
third, the intervals are limited to strike prices that are less than
$75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64189 (April 5,
2011), 76 FR 20066 (April 11, 2011) (SR-CBOE-008) (order granting
approval of $0.50 and $1 strike price intervals for certain
volatility options where the strike prices are less than $75 and
between $75 and $150, respectively). Other Exchanges have submitted
similar immediately effective proposals. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 64325 (April 22, 2011), 76 FR 23632 (April 27, 2011)
(SR-NYSEAmex-2011-26); 64324 (April 22, 2011), 76 FR 23849 (April
28, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-19); 64359 (April 28, 2011), 76 FR 25390
(May 4, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-27); and 64589 (June 2, 2011), 76 FR
33387 (June 8, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other than options in $0.50 strike price intervals approved for
CBOE as noted, options on ETFs or Exchange Trades Fund Shares trade at
$1 intervals where the strike price is below $200. As demonstrated in
this filing, however, this $1 strike price interval is no longer always
appropriate, and in fact may be counter-productive and more costly, for
ETF option traders and investors that are trying to achieve optimum
trading, hedging, and investing objectives.
    The Exchange believes that reducing these strike price intervals
would make excellent economic sense, would allow better tailored
investing and hedging opportunities, and would potentially enable
traders and investors to save money.
    The number of low-priced strike interval options have increased
significantly over the last decade, such that now there are
approximately 935 equity options and 225 ETF options listed at $1
strike price intervals.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Figures were based on July 2011 data using symbols with a
2011 expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also, in addition to the newly enabled CBOE $0.50 strike
price options, approximately 7 options listed at $0.50 strike price
intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program.\11\ Clearly, however,
this is no longer sufficient in the current volatile and economically
challenging environment. Traders and investors are requesting more low-
priced interval ETF options so that they may better tailor investing
and hedging strategies and opportunities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The noted $0.50 intervals were established per the $0.50
Program found in Commentary .13 of Rule 6.4. The $0.50 Program has
inherent price limitations that make it unsuitable for SLV and USO
options.
    \12\ The Exchange is not aware of any material market
surveillance issues arising because of the $0.50 or $1.00 the strike
price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of example, if an investor wants to gain exposure to the
silver market or hedge his position, he may invest in options on the
iShares[reg] Silver Trust (SLV). Today an investor must choose a strike
price that might lack the precision he is looking for in order to gain
or reduce exposure to the silver market. Thus, an investor executing a
covered call strategy may be looking to sell calls on SLV. Assume the
investor's SLV cost basis is $38.35. The nearest out-of-the-money
strike call is the 39.00 strike, which is 1.69% out of the money. If
the 38.50 strike were available, however, the investor could sell calls
in a strike price only .39% out-of-the-money, thus offering 1.29%
additional risk protection. To an investor writing covered calls on an
equity position, this extra protection could be significant on an
annual basis.
    With United States Oil Fund (USO), a similar lack of precision
exists at the current strike prices. For an investor looking to
purchase out-of-the-money put protection against a USO purchase of
$31.65, the investor must choose the 31.00 strike, which is 2.05% out-
of-the-money. If the 31.50 strike were available, the investor could
avail himself of a superior strike price that is only .47% out of the
money, thus offering 1.58% additional protection. The smaller strike
price offers an increased amount of downside protection to the investor
at a more precisely factored cost for the hedging opportunity.
    Moreover, an investor may want to execute an investment or hedging
strategy whereby the investor would close one position and open another
through use of a complex order. Implementing $0.50 strike intervals
would, again, offer more precision and an opportunity to improve
returns and/or risk protection. Thus, using the previous SLV example,
the investor who purchased SLV at $38.35 and sold the $38.50 call might
later wish to purchase a call to close the original position and roll
into a new position as the stock moves away from the original strike
price. By offering $0.50 strike prices, the investor may be able to
again avail himself of a better return or hedging opportunity.
    The Exchange also believes that with the increase in inter-market
trading and hedging,\13\ the ability to offer potentially similarly-
situated products at more similar strike intervals gains importance.
Thus, options on futures underlying USO and SLV are traded at $0.50 and
lower strike price intervals. Options on USO futures listed for trading
on the NYMEX have $0.50 strike price intervals.\14\ And options on
silver futures listed on NYMEX have strike price intervals as low as
$0.05.\15\ The Exchange is not, in this filing, proposing to go to sub-
$0.50 strike price intervals but is proposing reasonable, requested,
and needed $0.50 intervals only where

the strike price of the underlying is less than $75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Particularly between options markets and futures markets
that also trade options on futures.
    \14\ Per the NYMEX Web site, http://www.cmegroup.com/product-codeslisting/nymex-market.html, options on crude oil futures are
listed nine years forward whereby consecutive months are listed for
the current year and the next five years, and in addition, the June
and December contract months are listed beyond the sixth year.
Additional months will be added on an annual basis after the
December contract expires, so that an additional June and December
contract would be added nine years forward, and the consecutive
months in the sixth calendar year will be filled in.
    \15\ Per the NYMEX Web site, http://www.cmegroup.com/product-codeslisting/nymex-market.html, options on silver futures are listed
for the first three months at strike price intervals of $.05. An
additional ten strike prices will be listed at $.25 increments above
and below the highest and lowest five-cent increment, respectively,
beginning with the strike price evenly divisible by $.25. For all
other trading months, strike prices are at an interval of $.05,
$.10, and $.25 per specified parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By establishing $0.50 strike intervals for SLV and USO options,
investors would have greater flexibility for trading and hedging the
underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure \16\ through establishing
appropriate options positions tailored to meet their investment,
trading and risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A trader or investor may, for example, use a commodity-
oriented ETF such as the SLV Trust or USO Fund to counter-balance
(hedge) an equity or ETF position that tends to move inversely to
the price movement of SLV or USO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, because it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. This
would be achieved by establishing $0.50 strike intervals for SLV and
USO options so that traders, market participants, and investors in
general may have greater flexibility for trading and hedging the
underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure through establishing
appropriate options positions tailored to meet their investment,
trading and risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 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 Act.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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 \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and 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
Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission that permit
such exchange to allow trading of options on iShares[supreg] Silver
Trust and United States Oil Fund at $0.50 strike price intervals where
the strike price is less than $75.\21\ Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66285 (February
1, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2011-175).
    \22\ 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.

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-NYSEArca-2012-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-14. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-14 and should
be submitted on or before March 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3260 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28085-28086]
[DOCID:fr18my07-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Regulation S-AM; SEC File No. 270-548; OMB Control No. 3235-
0609.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.

Regulation S-AM: Limitations on Affiliate Marketing

    Regulation S-AM implements the requirements of Section 214 of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-159)
(``FACT Act'') as applied to brokers, dealers, and investment
companies, as well as investment advisers and transfer agents that are
registered with the Commission (collectively, ``Covered Persons''). As
directed by Section 214 of the FACT Act, before a receiving affiliate
may make marketing solicitations based on the communication of certain
consumer financial information from a Covered Person, the Covered
Person must provide a notice to each affected individual informing the
individual of his or her right to prohibit such marketing. The
regulation potentially applies to all of the approximately 22,106
Covered Persons registered with the Commission, although only
approximately 15,474 of them have one or more corporate affiliates, and
the regulation would require only approximately 2,211 of them to
provide

consumers with notice and an opt-out opportunity.
    The Commission has estimated that each of the approximately 15,474
Covered Persons having one or more affiliates would require an average
one-time burden of 1 hour to review affiliate marketing practices, for
a total of 15,474 hours, at a total staff cost of approximately
$3,791,130. Approximately 2,211 Covered Persons would be required to
provide notice and opt-out and would incur an average first-year burden
of 6 hours in doing so, for a total estimated first-year burden of
13,266 hours, at a total staff cost of approximately $2,510,590.50.
With regard to continuing notice burdens, each of the approximately
2,211 Covered Persons required to provide notice and opt-out would
incur a one-time first-year burden of 2 hours to develop notices for
new consumers and an annual burden of 2 hours to deliver the notices
and record any opt-outs, at a total staff cost of approximately
$1,673,727. Averaged across the first three years for which compliance
would be required, the total average yearly burden would be
approximately 12,528 hours and $7,975,447.50 in staff costs.
    Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Va. VA 22312 or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 60 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9568 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57215-57216]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Waiver of Requirement To Enter Into a Reciprocal Waiver of Claims
Agreement With All Customers for Orbital Sciences Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice concerns a petition for waiver submitted to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by Orbital Sciences Corporation
(Orbital) to waive in part the requirement that a launch operator enter
into a reciprocal waiver of claims with each customer. The FAA grants
the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Licensing Program Lead,
Commercial Space Transportation--Licensing and Evaluation Division, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7715; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
waiver, contact Sabrina Jawed, Attorney-Adviser, Space Law Branch, AGC-
250, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 8, 2013, Orbital submitted a petition to the FAA's Office
of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) requesting a waiver under its
launch license for flight of an Antares launch vehicle carrying
Orbital's Cygnus module.\1\ Orbital requested a partial waiver of 14
CFR 440.17, which requires a licensee to enter into a reciprocal waiver
of claims (a ``cross-waiver'') with each of its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This mission is also referred to as OrbD-1. See Letter from
Mark A. Wright, Manager, Safety Inspection Division AST, to Natalie
Imfeld, Contracts Manager, Advanced Programs Group Orbital Sciences
Corporation (August 16, 2013) (on file with FAA) (referring to
Antares launch of the Cygnus payload as ORB-D1 Mission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA licenses the launch of a launch vehicle and reentry of a
reentry vehicle under authority granted to the Secretary of
Transportation by the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended
and re-codified by 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and
delegated to the FAA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, who exercises licensing authority
under Chapter 509.
    The petition for waiver applies to Orbital's September 2013 launch
of an Antares launch vehicle and Orbital's Cygnus pressurized cargo
module to be used in the delivery of cargo to the International Space
Station (ISS). The Cygnus cargo module will carry cargo for NASA to
resupply the ISS. In addition to the ISS supplies, the Antares may also
carry other payloads whose transport NASA has arranged as part of the
Johnson Space Center cargo. These consist of a NanoRacks, LLC, and
NanoRacks locker insert and student experiments created under NASA's
Student Spaceflight Experiments Program (SSEP). NASA describes SSEP as
a national science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education
initiative.\2\ According to its Space Act Agreement with NASA,\3\
NanoRacks arranges to carry the student experiments on a locker insert
to put into an experimental locker on board the ISS. The Space Act
Agreement states that NASA will provide on-orbit resources and limited
launch opportunities to NanoRacks for the launch of its insert and the
experiments the insert carries. Orbital provided the FAA, along with
its petition for waiver, a letter signed by Christopher Cummins, Chief
Operating Officer of NanoRacks, stating that NanoRacks will not have
any personnel at the launch site for the OrbD-1 \4\ launch, which is
the launch that is the subject of this waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Space Station--Here we Come! NASA Press Release: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/station-here-we-come.html (last
visited August 16, 2013).
    \3\ Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between NanoRacks, LLC
and NASA for Operation of the NanoRacks System Aboard the
International Space Station National Laboratory, (Sept. 4 and 9
2009) (NanoRacks Agreement), 387938main--SAA--SOMD--6355--
NanoRacks--ISS--National--Lab.pdf.
    \4\ OrbD-1 refers to the COTS Demo mission currently scheduled
to launch in September on the Antares launch vehicle from Wallops.
See Letter from Mark A. Wright, Manager, Safety Inspection Division
AST, to Natalie Imfeld, Contracts Manager, Advanced Programs Group
Orbital Sciences Corporation (August 16, 2013) (on file with author)
(referring to Antares launch of the Cygnus payload as ORB-D1
Mission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NanoRacks and each student who places a payload on board the
NanoRacks insert qualify as customers under the FAA's definitions.
Section 440.3 defines a customer, in relevant part, as any person with
rights in the payload or any part of the payload, or any person who has
placed property on board the payload for launch, reentry, or payload
services. A person is an individual or an entity organized or existing
under the laws of a State or country. 51 U.S.C. 50901(12), 14 CFR
401.5. The subjects of this waiver are persons because the students are
individuals and NanoRacks is an entity, a limited liability
corporation. Accordingly, because NanoRacks and the students are
persons who have rights in their respective payloads, the locker insert
and the experiments, due to their ownership of those objects, and
because they have placed property on board, they are customers. Section
440.17 requires their signatures as customers.
    In this instance, however, NanoRacks and the students are also
subject to a NASA reciprocal waivers of claims, a cross-waiver, which
is governed by NASA's regulations at 14 CFR part 1266. Article 8 of the
Space Act Agreement between NASA and NanoRacks governs liability and
risk of loss and establishes a cross-waiver of liability.
    Other than the NanoRacks and SSEP customers, all other customers as
defined by 14 CFR 440.3 will execute the cross-waivers required by 14
CFR 440.17. The cross-waivers among Orbital and all customers, other
than NanoRacks and SSEP customers, are amended to provide that signing
customers waive claims against any other customer as defined by 14 CFR
440.3. The petition for partial waiver of the requirement that the
licensee implement a cross-waiver with each customer applies to
NanoRacks and the SSEP customers as customers of the September 2013
launch of the Antares launch vehicle carrying the Cygnus module.

Waiver Criteria

    Chapter 509 allows the FAA to waive a license requirement if the
waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and safety, safety of
property; (2) will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States; and (3) will be in the public interest.
51 U.S.C. 50905(b)(3) (2013); 14 CFR 404.5(b) (2013).

Waiver of FAA Requirement for Each Customer To Sign a Reciprocal Waiver
of Claims

    The FAA waives 14 CFR 440.17, which requires a licensee to enter
into a reciprocal waiver of claims with each of its customers with
respect to NanoRacks and the SSEP participants for the September 2013
Antares launch.
    In 1988, as part of a comprehensive financial responsibility and
risk sharing regime that protects launch participants and the U.S.
Government from the risks of catastrophic loss and litigation, Congress
required that all launch participants agree to waive claims against
each other for their own property damage or loss, and to cover losses
experienced by their own employees. 51 U.S.C. 50915(b). This part of
the regime was intended to relieve launch participants of the burden of
obtaining property insurance by having each party be responsible for
the loss of its own property and to limit the universe of claims that
might arise as a result of a launch. H. Rep. 100-639, at 11-12 (1988);
S. Rep. 100-593, at 14, (1988); Financial Responsibility Requirements
for Licensed Launch Activities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR
38992, 39011 (Jul. 25, 1996). The FAA's implementing regulations may be
found at 14 CFR part 440.
    In its request for a waiver, Orbital submits that the NASA Space
Act Agreement reciprocal waivers of claims imposed on NanoRacks and the
SSEP participants are equivalent to the requirements imposed on each
customer under the FAA's requirements of 14 CFR part 440. A comparison
of the two regimes shows that in this particular situation the two sets
of cross-waivers are sufficiently similar that the statutory goals of
51 U.S.C. 50914(b) will be met by the FAA agreeing to accept the NASA
cross-waivers in this instance.
    The FAA cross-waivers require the launch participants, including
the U.S. Government and each customer, and their respective contractors
and subcontractors, to waive and release claims against all the other
parties to the waiver and agree to assume financial responsibility for
property damage sustained by that party and for bodily injury or
property damage sustained by the party's own employees, and to hold
harmless and indemnify each other from bodily injury or property damage
sustained by their respective employees resulting from the licensed
activity, regardless of fault. 14 CFR 440.17(b) and (c). Each party \5\
to the cross-waiver must indemnify the other parties from claims by the
indemnifying party's contractors and subcontractors if the indemnifying
party fails to properly extend the requirements of the cross-waivers to
its contractors and subcontractors. 14 CFR 440.17(d). A comparison of
each element shows that, although there are some differences, because
the NASA cross-waiver signed by NanoRacks is consistent with
Congressional intent and the FAA's regulations, because relevant
employees will not be present at the launch site, and because the
Orbital cross-waiver submitted to the FAA has been amended to protect
non-signing customers, NanoRacks and the SSEP participants need not
sign a cross-waiver under 14 CFR part 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Indemnification by the U.S. Government is conditioned upon
the passage of legislation. 51 U.S.C. 50915; 14 CFR 440.17(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated in the waiver the FAA published for SpaceX
on October 16, 2012,\6\ and for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that this waiver implicates no safety, national security or foreign
policy issues. The waiver is consistent with the public interest goals
of Chapter 509. Under 51 U.S.C. 50914, Congress determined that it was
necessary to reduce the costs associated with insurance and litigation
by requiring launch participants, including customers, to waive claims
against each other. Because the NanoRacks Agreement under 14 CFR part
1266 accomplishes these goals by the same or similar means, the FAA
finds this request in the public interest, and grants the waiver with
respect to NanoRacks and the SSEP participants in reliance on the
representations Orbital made in its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Waiver of Requirement to Enter Into a Reciprocal Waiver of
Claims Agreement With All Customers, Notice of Waiver, 77 FR 63221
(Oct. 16, 2012).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 10, 2013.
Kenneth Wong,
Commercial Space Transportation, Licensing and Evaluation Division
Manager.
[FR Doc. 2013-22566 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46959-46961]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0373; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01352-R;
Amendment 39-21668; AD 2021-16-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-19-11
for certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. AD
2020-19-11 required repetitive borescope inspections of the 90-degree
tail rotor gearbox (TGB) and depending on the inspection results,
removing the TGB from service. This AD was prompted by the
determination that additional parts may be susceptible to the unsafe
condition. This AD retains

the inspection requirements of AD 2020-19-11, and revises the
compliance time and applicability. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 27, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. 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 (817)
222-5110. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0373.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0373; 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 final rule, the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received,
and other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer,
Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy &
Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-19-11, Amendment 39-21254 (85 FR
59404, September 22, 2020) (AD 2020-19-11). AD 2020-19-11 applied to
Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters with TGB part
number (P/N) 109-0440-06-101 or P/N 109-0440-06-105 having serial
number (S/N) 167, 169 through 172 inclusive, 215 through 225 inclusive,
227, 230, 232, 233, AW268, K3, K16, M47, or L29, installed. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2021 (86 FR 27538). In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 2020-19-11,
revise the compliance time for the repetitive inspections from
intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 6 months to
only intervals not to exceed 6 months, and revise the applicability
paragraph by adding certain serial-numbered TGB shafts. The NPRM was
prompted by EASA AD 2020-0206, dated September 30, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-
0206), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A.,
AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; and AgustaWestland Philadelphia
Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace Corporation. EASA advises that
additional parts may be susceptible to similar occurrences and some TGB
shafts could have been reinstalled on a TGB other than the one on which
they were initially installed. This condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the tail rotor, possibly resulting in reduced
control of the helicopter.
    Accordingly, EASA AD 2020-0206 retains the inspection requirements
of EASA AD 2018-0156, dated July 24, 2018, which prompted AD 2020-19-
11, for certain part-numbered TGB shafts and revises the definition of
an affected part by adding certain serial-numbered TGB shafts.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    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 reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
119-090, Revision A, dated September 14, 2020. This service information
specifies procedures for conducting an endoscope inspection of the
internal surface of the TGB output shaft for corrosion. This service
information also specifies replacing the TGB if corrosion is found.
    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.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2020-0206 uses flight hours to describe one compliance
time, whereas this AD uses hours TIS. EASA AD 2020-0206 requires using
an endoscope for inspection, whereas this AD requires inspecting with a
borescope. EASA AD 2020-0206 defines the affected part as the 90-degree
TGB shaft installed on TGB P/N 109-0440-06-01-101, whereas the
applicability paragraph of this AD includes TGB P/N 109-0440-06-101
instead.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 134 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Borescope inspecting the TGB output shaft takes about 3 work-hours
for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter and $34,170 for the U.S.
fleet per inspection cycle.
    Replacing a TGB takes about 18 work-hours and parts cost about
$49,000 (overhauled TGB) for an estimated cost of $50,530 per
helicopter.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-19-11, Amendment 39-21254 (85
FR 59404, September 22, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2021-16-06 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21668; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0373; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01352-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 27,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-19-11, Amendment 39-21254 (85 FR 59404,
September 22, 2020).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII
helicopters, certificated in any category, with 90-degree tail rotor
gearbox (TGB) part number (P/N) 109-0440-06-101 or 109-0440-06-105,
and with TGB shaft P/N 109-0443-03-107 having a serial number (S/N)
listed in Table 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
119-090, Revision A, dated September 14, 2020 (ASB 119-090),
installed.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c): A TGB shaft is also referred to as a
mast gear assembly.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6510, Tail Rotor
Drive Shaft.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by two occurrences of corrosion on the
internal surface of the TGB shaft. The FAA is issuing this AD to
detect corrosion of the TGB shaft. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the tail rotor, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3 months, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6 months, borescope inspect the entire
internal surface of the TGB shaft for corrosion. Refer to Detail A
of Figure 1 of ASB 119-090, for a depiction of the entry point for
the borescope. If there is corrosion, before further flight, remove
the TGB from service.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
helicopter any TGB P/N 109-0440-06-101 or 109-0440-06-105 that has
TGB shaft P/N 109-0443-03-107 having an S/N listed in Table 1 of ASB
119-090, unless the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD
have been accomplished.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    A special flight permit may be permitted provided that there are
no passengers onboard.

(i) 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 (j)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti,
Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation
Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0206, dated September 30,
2020. You may view the EASA AD at https://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2021-0373.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 119-090,
Revision A, dated September 14, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/.
    (4) 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 16, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17951 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29445-29446]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10441]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10009-58-OAR]

Administration of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Trading Program
Assurance Provisions for 2019 Control Periods

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of the availability of data on the administration of the assurance
provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading
programs for the control periods in 2019. Total emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) reported by Mississippi units participating in
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program during
the 2019 control period exceeded the state's assurance level under the
program. Data demonstrating the exceedance and EPA's preliminary
calculations of the amounts of additional allowances that the owners
and operators of certain Mississippi units must surrender have been
posted in a spreadsheet on EPA's website. EPA will consider timely
objections to the data and calculations before making final
determinations of the amounts of additional allowances that must be
surrendered.

DATES: Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be
received on or before July 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your objections via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include
``2019 CSAPR Assurance Provisions'' in the email subject line and
include your name, title, affiliation, address, phone number, and email
address in the body of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice
should be addressed to Garrett Powers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations for each CSAPR trading
program contain ``assurance provisions'' designed to ensure that the
emissions reductions required from each state covered by the program
occur within the state. If the total emissions from a given state's
affected units exceed the state's assurance level under the program,
then two allowances must be surrendered for each ton of emissions
exceeding the assurance level (in addition to the ordinary obligation
to surrender one allowance for each ton of emissions). In the quarterly
emissions reports covering the 2019 control period, Mississippi units
participating in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program collectively reported emissions that exceed the state's
assurance level under the program by 473 tons, resulting in a
requirement for the surrender of 946 additional allowances.
    When a state's assurance level is exceeded, responsibility for
surrendering the required additional allowances is apportioned among
groups of units in the state represented by ``common designated
representatives'' based on the extent to which each such group's
emissions exceeded the group's share of the state's assurance level.
For the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, the
procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 97.802 (definitions of ``common
designated representative,'' ``common designated representative's
assurance level,'' and ``common designated representative's share''),
97.806(c)(2), and 97.825. Applying the procedures in the regulations
for the 2019 control period for Mississippi, EPA has completed
preliminary calculations indicating that responsibility for
surrendering 946 additional allowances should be apportioned entirely
to the group of units operated by Mississippi Power Company, all of
which are represented by one common designated representative.
    In this document, EPA is providing notice of the data relied on to
determine the amount of the exceedance of the Mississippi assurance
level discussed above, as required under 40 CFR 97.825(b)(1)(ii), and
notice of the preliminary calculations of the amounts of additional
allowances that the owners and operators of certain Mississippi units
must surrender as a result of the exceedance, as required under 40 CFR
97.825(b)(2)(ii).\1\ By October 1, 2020,

EPA will provide notice of the final calculations of the amounts of
additional allowances that must be surrendered, incorporating any
adjustments made in response to objections received, as required under
40 CFR 97.825(b)(2)(iii)(B). Each set of owners and operators
identified pursuant to the notice of the final calculations must hold
the required additional allowances in an assurance account by November
2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The regulations allow the notice of data availability
required under 40 CFR 97.825(b)(2)(ii) to be published approximately
two months after the notice of data availability required under 40
CFR 97.825(b)(1)(ii), but in this instance EPA already has all the
information needed to prepare both of the required notices and is
therefore combining the two required notices into this single
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data and preliminary calculations are set forth in an Excel
spreadsheet entitled
``2019_CSAPR_assurance_provision_calculations_prelim.xlsx'' available
at http://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-assurance-provision-nodas. The
spreadsheet contains data for the 2019 control period showing, for each
Mississippi unit identified as affected under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program, the amount of NOX
emissions reported by the unit and the amount of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 allowances allocated to the unit, including any
allowances allocated from a new unit set-aside. The spreadsheet also
contains calculations for the 2019 control period showing the total
NOX emissions reported by all such units and the amount by
which the total reported NOX emissions exceeded the state's
assurance level under the program. Finally, the spreadsheet also
includes calculations for the 2019 control period showing, for each
common designated representative for a group of such units in the
state, the common designated representative's share of the total
reported NOX emissions, the common designated
representative's share of the state's assurance level, and the amount
of additional CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances that
the owners and operators of the units in the group must surrender.
    Any objections should be strictly limited to whether EPA has
identified the data and performed the calculations in the spreadsheet
correctly in accordance with the regulations. Objections must include
(1) precise identification of the specific data or calculations the
commenter believes are inaccurate, (2) new proposed data or
calculations upon which the commenter believes EPA should rely instead,
and (3) the reasons why EPA should rely on the commenter's proposed
data or calculations and not the data and calculations referenced in
this notice.

    Authority: 40 CFR 97.825(b).

Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2020-10441 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


15 A total of 1,244 hours were transferred, corresponding to 1,147 hours for facilities to develop the milestone plans, and 97 hours for state review. The agency tally was not changed. Faulk Jack, personal communication ( May 17. 2006) Application ICR June 2006 48 Information Collection Activity Burden Current ICR Burden Previous ICR Change ( hours) Type of change Existing Facilities 10,983 10,512 471 Adjustment Major New Non Municipal Facilities 200 200  MS4s 1,020 1,060 ( 40) Adjustment Minor New Non Municipal Facilities and Individual SW Permits 780 780  Sludge Only Facilities ( Municipal) 1,280 1,365 ( 86) Adjustment Sludge Only Facilities ( Non Municipal) 161 192 ( 32) Adjustment NOI Storm water SWPPP 28,965 27,639 1,326 Adjustment Applicant Recordkeeping Subtotal: 43,388 41,748 1,640 Adjustment  Form 1: 9,542 9,126 416 Adjustment Form 2A:  POTWs

1.0 MGD 21,392 19,130 2,262 Adjustment POTWs 0.1  1.0 MGD 7,241 11,105 ( 3,864) Adjustment POTWS   0.1 MGD 3,664 9,070 ( 5,406) Adjustment Sec. 308 Requests  Major Municipals: 9,240 8,095 1,145 Adjustment Sec. 308 Requests  Minor Municipals: 210 350 ( 140) Adjustment Form 2B: 228 156 72 Adjustment Form 2C: 159,225 158,829 396 Adjustment Form 2D:  Major New Facilities 1,840 1,840  Minor New Facilities 10,304 10,304  Sec. 308 Requests  Major Non Municipal: 1,375 1,430 ( 55) Adjustment Sec. 308 Requests  Minor Non Municipal: 745 705 40 Adjustment Form 2E: 38,304 38,220 84 Adjustment Form 2F: 2,603 1,716 887 Adjustment Form 2S:  POTWs 33,530 33,539 ( 9) Adjustment PrOTWs 5,150 5,429 ( 279) Adjustment NOI Storm water and NOI: 83,321 59,282 24,039 Adjustment Alaskan Lands: 90 90  MS4s:  Large 452,105 469,834 ( 17,729) Adjustment Medium 286,916 298,167 ( 11,251) Adjustment Petition for Individual Permit: 960 960  Permit Consolidation: 200 200  Notice of Construction: 3 3  Ocean Discharge: 23,340 23,340  NOT:  Construction 78,750 100,607 ( 21,857) Adjustment MSGP ( Industrial  storm water) 3,429 3,429 ( 1) Adjustment Applicant Respondent Subtotal: 1,233,706 1,264,956 ( 31,250)

Pulp, Paper, And Paperboard * 1,147 1,147

Applicant Respondent Total: 1,278,241 1,307,851 ( 29,610) * Note: Application ICR June 2006 49 Information Collection Activity Burden Current ICR Burden Previous ICR Change ( hours) Type of change 1,147 hours for facilities to develop the milestone plans are already in OMB's burden budget.

Table 28. Change in State Respondent Burden Information Collection Activity Burden Current ICR Burden Previous ICR Change ( hours) Type of change Form 1: 4,013 3,873 140 Adjustment Form 2A: 5,666 8,344 ( 2,678) Adjustment Sec. 308 Requests  Municipals: 433 412 21 Adjustment Form 2B: 18 13 5 Adjustment Form 2C: 9,110 9,220 ( 110) Adjustment Form 2D:    Sec. 308 Requests  Non Municipal: 403 409 ( 6) Adjustment Form 2E: 1,292 1,308 ( 17) Adjustment Form 2F: 189 125 64 Adjustment Form 2S: 1,020 568 452 Adjustment NOI Storm water and NOI: 6,688 6,570 118 Adjustment Alaskan Lands:    MS4s: 9,600 10,200 ( 600) Adjustment Petition for Individual Permit: 184 184  Permit Consolidation: 47 48 ( 1) Adjustment Notice of Construction:    Ocean Discharge: 2,464 2,552 ( 88) Adjustment NOT:  Construction 37,170 46,581 ( 9,411) Adjustment MSGP ( Industrial  storm water) 1,618 1,630 ( 12) Adjustment Pulp, Paper, And Paperboard * 97 97

State Respondent Total: 80,012 92,134 ( 12,123) * Note: 97 hours for states to review the milestone plans are already in OMB's burden budget.

6( f). BURDEN STATEMENT The calculations performed for this ICR cover the burden and costs for the Agency ( EPA), NPDES authorized state, and owner/ operators of regulated facilities. This ICR estimates a burden of 1,278,241 hours annually for 249,448 owner/ operators respondents at a cost of $ 45,662,808. Burden for the state respondents is 80,012 hours annually at a cost of $ 2,924,420. Agency burden is 9,817 hours annually at a cost of $ 351,355. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than 5 hours per response. Application ICR June 2006 50 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA HQ OW 2006 0138 which is available for online viewing at www. regulations. gov, or in person at the public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www. regulations. gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA HQ OW 2006 0138 and OMB control number 2040 0086 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 694]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                 File date                       Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-554-000................       1-10-2018  Richard H. Allan III.
    2. EC18-63-000.................       1-18-2019  FERC Staff.\1\
Exempt:
    1. CP17-21-000, CP17-21-001....        1-9-2018  FERC Staff.\2\
    2. CP17-21-000, CP17-21-001....        1-9-2018  FERC Staff.\3\
    3. CP17-101-000................       1-16-2019  New Jersey Senator Christopher Bateman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo to the Record dated January 18, 2019.
\2\ Telephone Log reporting call on November 27, 2018 to Jefferson County, Texas.
\3\ Telephone Log reporting call on November 16, 2018 to the City of Port Arthur Planning and Zoning Department.

    Dated: January 22, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00457 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61539-61540]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(a). SEC File No. 270-34, OMB Control No. 3235-0034.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in the Rule
17f-2(a), (17 CFR 240.17f-2(a)), under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17f-2(a) (Fingerprinting Requirements for Securities
Professionals) requires that securities professionals be fingerprinted.
This requirement serves to identify security- risk personnel, to allow
an employer to make fully informed employment decisions, and to deter
possible wrongdoers from seeking employment in the securities industry.
Partners, directors, officers, and employees of exchanges, brokers,
dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies are included.
    The Commission staff estimates that approximately 4,500 respondents
will submit an aggregate total 300,700 new fingerprint cards each year
or approximately 67 fingerprint cards per year per registrant. The
staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete
a fingerprint card is one-half hour. Thus, the total estimated annual
burden is 150,350 hours for all respondents (300,700 times one-half
hour). The average internal labor cost of compliance per hour is
approximately $283. Therefore, the total estimated annual internal
labor cost of compliance for all respondents is $42,549,050 (150,350
times $283).
    This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 6, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25870 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20-22]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31094]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2013-0809]

Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved Training
Devices

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: The notification provides information and guidance concerning
the use of FAA approved ground trainers, Personal Computer Aviation
Training Device's (PCATD), Flight Training Devices (FTD) level 1-3, and
Aviation Training Devices (ATD).

DATES: Effective Date: The policy described herein is effective
February 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this policy notice, contact AFS-810, Airmen Certification and Training
Branch, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since the 1970s, the FAA has gradually expanded the use of flight
simulation for training--first permitting simulation to be used in air
carrier training programs and eventually permitting pilots to credit
time in devices toward the aeronautical experience requirements for
certification and recency. Currently, Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the qualification of full flight
simulators and flight training devices (levels 4 through 7). The FAA
has, however, approved other devices for use in certification training
under the authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c).
    For over 30 years, the FAA has issued Letters of Authorization
(LOAs) to manufacturers of ground trainers, personal computer-based
aviation training devices (PCATD), FTDs (levels 1 through 3), basic
aviation training devices (BATD), and advanced aviation training
devices (AATD). These LOAs were based on guidance provided in advisory
circulars that set forth the qualifications and capabilities for the
devices. Prior to 2008, most LOAs were issued under the guidance
provided in advisory circular AC 61-126, Qualification and Approval of
Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices, and AC 120-45,
Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification. Since July 2008, the FAA
has been approving devices in accordance with Advisory Circular 61-136,
FAA Approval of Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced
Aviation Training Devices (AATD).
    Generally, the LOAs that have been issued list the approved uses
for the devices with specific regulatory references. Several of these
regulations have changed over the years, and some approved uses are no
longer permissible.\1\ In addition, the majority of these LOAs were
issued to manufacturers without a specific expiration date. The LOAs
simply placed obligations on the manufacturer and the eventual operator
of the device to ensure that the device was properly maintained and
that annual reports were submitted to the FAA regarding the status and
continued use of the device. It is unclear the extent that these
reporting requirements have been satisfied. Moreover, devices approved
prior to July 2008 have not been assessed under the most current
guidance provided in AC 61-136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Some of these devices at one time were approved for
practical tests for pilot certification and ratings. However,
because these trainers are not tested to the levels of fidelity
required for FFSs and FTDs, they are no longer listed in the PTS for
use during testing. Specifically, level 1-3 flight training devices
have been removed from the task table in each PTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that placed express limits on
the amount of instrument training in an ATD that could be credited
toward the aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument
rating. 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009). Under Sec.  61.65(i), no more than
10 hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited toward
instrument time requirements of that section. Likewise, appendix C to
part 141 states that credit for instrument training in an ATD cannot
exceed 10% of the total flight training hour requirements of an
approved course.
    The FAA has determined that it may not use LOAs as a means to
exceed express limits that have been placed in the regulations through
notice and comment rulemaking. As such, any LOAs for new devices that
the FAA has issued since August 2013 reflect current regulatory
requirements. Because, however, manufacturers and operators who hold
LOAs issued prior to August 2013, have acted in reliance on FAA
statements that were inconsistent with the regulations, the FAA is
granting a limited exemption from the requirement in the regulations to
provide manufacturers, operators, and pilots currently training for an
instrument rating time to adjust to the reduction in hours. This short-
term exemption will provide an interim period to transition the LOAs
for currently approved devices in accordance with this policy.\2\ This
exemption is in the public interest because it will prevent undue harm
caused by reasonable reliance on FAA statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA is granting an exemption from Sec.  61.65(i) for
pilots applying for an instrument rating who have received training
from a training provider who operates an ATD under the reduced
training hours. The FAA is also granting an exemption to training
providers from appendix C to part 141 to permit them to continue to
train during the transition period under training programs with more
than 10% of the training time in ATDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FAA notes that, notwithstanding any statements in
existing LOAs, only FFS and FTDs levels 4-7 approved under part 60 may
be used during a practical test as noted in the appropriate Practical
Test Standards (PTS) for the certificate or rating sought. The current
PTSs reflect that no portion of a practical test may be conducted in an
ATD.

Policy

    Due to regulatory changes, new standards for qualifying aviation
training devices, and ongoing improvements in technology, the FAA has
determined that it is necessary to ensure all approved devices meet
current standards contained in AC 61-136 (issued in July 2008) and are
consistent with existing regulations. As such, all manufacturers of
devices \3\ (including ground trainers, PCATD, FTD level 1-3, and ATDs)
who currently hold an LOA (or any other official method of approval)
must apply for a new LOA. By January 1, 2015, all FAA approved training
devices must have an LOA that has been reissued by AFS-800 (excluding
part 60 approvals) that: (1) Assesses the training device under the
standards in current AC 61-136; (2) contains an expiration date; and
(3) reflects current regulatory requirements. The only exception to the
reapplication requirement in this notice applies to new devices that
received their first LOAs after August 23, 2013. As noted, these
devices have been approved in accordance with AC 61-136, contain
expiration dates, and reference the appropriate regulatory limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA expects that most requests for approval will come
from the ATD manufacturer. However, the FAA understands that in some
cases the manufacturer may no longer exist or may not wish to seek
approval for a particular device. As such, the FAA will accept
approval requests from individual ATD owners. An ATD owner can be
considered synonymous with a manufacturer for the purpose of
submitting and receiving device approvals as described in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After January 1, 2015, all LOAs previously issued prior to August
23, 2013, for training devices approved to meet requirements under
parts 61 and 141 will terminate. This means that experience obtained in
these devices may no longer be credited toward aeronautical experience
or currency requirements in parts 61 and 141. In order to promote
standardization, LOAs for any training device used for certification
and recency under parts 61 and 141 that are not approved by the
National Simulator Program AFS-205 will be issued only by General
Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800. The FAA notes that, as part
of this process, renewed LOAs (as well as any LOA issued for a new
device) will contain limitations for instrument training that are
consistent with the express aeronautical experience limits

for an instrument rating found in Sec.  61.65 and appendix C to part
141.
    LOAs that are reissued in accordance with this notice will contain
language noting the previously discussed exemption that will permit
operators of approved devices to continue to use ATDs at the higher
levels set forth in the previously approved LOAs--and pilots applying
for an instrument rating will be permitted to take the practical test
with the aeronautical experience set forth in the LOAs--until January
1, 2015. After this date, no applicant for an instrument rating may use
more than 10 hours of instrument training in an ATD toward the minimum
aeronautical experience requirements required to take the practical
test for an instrument rating. In addition, no graduate of a training
program approved under appendix C to part 141 may credit more than 10%
of the required coursework in ATDs (unless that program has been
approved in accordance with Sec.  141.55(d) or (e)).\4\ The FAA expects
manufacturers and operators to adjust training in advance of this date
so that no applicant for an instrument rating is ineligible. The FAA
notes that the regulations do not place a limit on the amount of time
that a person may train in an ATD. Rather, the regulations place a
limit on the amount of time in an ATD that may be credited toward the
aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument rating.
Operators may continue to use these devices to improve pilot
proficiency and reduce more costly time in an aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Part 141 Appendix C describes the curriculum requirements
for an approved training course. After January 1, 2015, no courses
approved under part 141 appendix C rating may allow for more than
10% of the required coursework to have been completed in an ATD.
After January 1, 2015, no person may graduate from a course that
allows for more than 10% of the required coursework to have been
completed in an ATD. The exception is those courses that have been
approved under Sec.  141.55 (d) and (e). The FAA recognizes that
some pilot schools will need to revise their instrument-rating
training program to reflect the 10% crediting limitation and
resubmit for approval. Alternatively, a pilot school may elect to
resubmit their training course for approval under Sec.  141.55 (d)
and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for any device, regardless of issue date, to be used to
gain the aeronautical experience and currency described in the letter
of authorization, that device must continue to perform to standards
required by that authorization. In addition, all conditions noted on
the letter of authorization must continue to be valid. These conditions
may include an annual periodic inspection and stakeholder report
verifying performance to original standards.

Applications for new LOAs

    As noted above, all devices that received initial approval before
August 23, 2013 will require a new LOA to be issued before January 1,
2015, in order to continue to be used to obtain aeronautical experience
to meet requirements under parts 61 and 141. The FAA does not intend to
reevaluate every individual device as is the case for FFSs and FTDs
under part 60. Rather, the FAA wants to ensure that the type of device
meets acceptable standards for use in crediting aeronautical experience
and currency. The manufacturer will be responsible for providing a copy
of the renewed LOA to any operator of the device.

Devices that received approval between July 14, 2008, and August 23,
2013

    Devices that were approved between July 14, 2008 and August 23,
2013 have been assessed under the current standards in AC 61-136;
however, these devices may not contain the current regulatory limits of
Sec.  61.65(i) or part 141 Appendix C. Any LOA issued after July 14,
2008, may be reissued without the need for additional evaluation.
Manufacturers must, however, submit a letter to the General Aviation
and Commercial Division (AFS-800), including a copy of the original
authorization, requesting a revised LOA that will contain regulatory
references that reflect current requirements. If the LOA contains an
expiration date, this new authorization will retain the original
expiration date.\5\ For LOAs originally issued without an expiration
date, the new LOA will reflect a five-year expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Since January 2012, all LOAs have been issued to
manufacturers with a five-year expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new LOA will replace and supersede the previous authorization.
However, as noted, the FAA will continue to accept applicants for the
instrument rating practical test who need to credit more than 10 hours
of instrument time in an ATD to meet the minimum aeronautical
experience requirements until January 1, 2015.

Devices approved prior to July 14, 2008

    All devices (including ground trainers, PCATD, FTD level 1-3, and
ATDs) for which an LOA (or any other official method of approval) was
issued prior to July 2008 must be reevaluated under the standards set
forth in the current advisory circular. Manufacturers of these devices
will be required to demonstrate that the device meets the current
standards for ATDs set forth in AC 61-136. The manufacturer must
request this evaluation by the means described in AC 61-136 no later
than July 1, 2014, in order to ensure that the FAA has adequate time to
evaluate the device and issue a new LOA before the existing LOA
terminates on January 1, 2015. The FAA cannot guarantee that
applications for reissued LOAs that are received after July 1, 2014,
will be processed prior to the termination date. The LOAs reissued for
these devices will be revised to contain expiration dates and reflect
current regulatory requirements and references.

Disposition

    The FAA has initiated a revision to AC 61-136 and will amend
obsolete guidance concerning the approval and use of PCATD's, FTD's
(level 1-3) and ATDs. The FAA will insert into AC 61-136 all of the
above policy concerning these training devices. Please direct any
questions or requests concerning information in this notice to AFS-810,
Airmen Certification and Training Branch, 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2013.
John Barbagallo,
Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-31094 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P