[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42160-42161]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 230 (SC 230)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fifth Meeting Notice of Special Committee 230.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fifth meeting of the Special Committee 230.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 29th-October 1st from 10:00
a.m.-1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters--WEBEX
Meeting, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:
(202) 330-0663.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Sophie Bousquet, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 230. This Plenary
will be a WebEx meeting. For those wishing to attend in person at RTCA,
a room will be reserved. The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Overview
3. Meeting #4 Minutes approval
4. Review of final findings from DO-220

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

1. Review findings from DO-213 draft

Thursday, October 1, 2015

1. Review findings from DO-213 draft
2. Action item review
3. Approval/release of Revisions to DO-220 and DO-213 for Final Review
and Comments (FRAC)
4. Date and Place of Next Meeting
5. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement
to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-17508 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66923-66925]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of November 4, 2015 which has been
established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS
report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals
resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 8, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Maricopa County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1418
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Avondale.......................  Development and Engineering
                                          Services Department, 11465
                                          West Civic Center Drive,
                                          Avondale, AZ 85323.
City of Chandler.......................  Transportation and Delevopment,
                                          215 East Buffalo Street,
                                          Chandler, AZ 85255.
City of Goodyear.......................  Engineering Department, 14455
                                          West Van Buren Street, Suite D
                                          101, Goodyear, AZ 85338.
City of Mesa...........................  Engineering Department, City
                                          Hall, 20 East Main Street, 5th
                                          Floor, Mesa, AZ 85211.
City of Phoenix........................  Street Transoportation
                                          Department, 200 West
                                          Washington Street, 5th Floor,
                                          Phoenix, AZ 85003.
City of Scottsdale.....................  Planning Records, 7447 East
                                          Indian School Road, Suite 100,
                                          Scottsdale, AZ 85251.
Town of Gila Bend......................  Town Hall, 644 West Pima
                                          Street, Gila Bend, AZ 85337.
Town of Gilbert........................  Development Engineering, 90
                                          East Civic Center Drive,
                                          Gilbert, AZ 85296.
Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County  Flood Control District of
                                          Maricopa County, 2801 West
                                          Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ
                                          85009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Santa Barbara County, California, and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1404
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Santa Barbara..................  City Administrator, 630 Garden
                                          Street, Santa Barbara, CA
                                          93101.
Unincorporated Areas of Santa Barbara    Santa Barbara County Public
 County.                                  Works Department, Water
                                          Resources Division 123 East
                                          Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara,
                                          CA 93101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Maui County, Hawaii, and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1440
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Maui County....  County of Maui Planning
                                          Department, 2220 Main Street,
                                          Suite 315, Wailuku, HI 96793.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Flathead County, Montana, and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1418
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Kalispell......................  Planning Director, Planning
                                          Department, 17 Second Street
                                          East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT
                                          59901.
City of Whitefish......................  Planning Director, Planning and
                                          Building Department, 1005C
                                          Baker Avenue, Whitefish, MT
                                          59937.
Unincorporated Areas of Flathead County  Planning Director, Planning and
                                          Zoning Office, 1035 1st Avenue
                                          West, Kalispell, MT 59901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Otero County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1429
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Otero County...  Otero County Administration
                                          Building, 1101 New York
                                          Avenue, Room 105, Alamogordo,
                                          NM 88310.
Village of Tularosa....................  Otero County Administration
                                          Building, 1101 New York
                                          Avenue, Room 105, Alamogordo,
                                          NM 88310.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-27748 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


" Hunt, Tim" < Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA . org> cc: Subject: State letters 02/ 25/ 2004 05: 31 PM Did these two state letters find their way to you and the docket? I didn't see it on the list.

<< MT Gov PCWP risk Letter 1 27 04. pdf>> << ID risk support letter 1 12 04. pdf>>

Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs American Forest and Paper Association Suite 800 1111 19th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202 463 2588 fax: 202 463 2423 Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa. org ( See attached file: MT Gov PCWP risk Letter 1 27 04. pdf)( See attached file: ID risk support letter 1 12 04. pdf) Docket Nos. OAR 2003 0048 and A 44 98 The document Letter supporting a risk based exemption in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP ( filename: MT Gov PCWP risk Letter 1 27 04. pdf) is filed in Docket No. OAR 2003 0048, item OAR 2003 0048 0127.

The document Letter regarding a risk based exemption in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP ( Filename: ID risk support letter 1 12 04. pdf) is filed in Docket No. OAR 2003 0048, item OAR 2003 0048 0126.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85938-85941]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27065]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99087; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2023-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule

December 5, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 27, 2023, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Firm Monthly Fee Cap. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective November 27,
2023.\4\ The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
October 31, 2023 (SR-NYSEAMER-2023-55), then withdrew such filing
and amended the Fee Schedule on November 15, 2023 (SR-NYSEAMER-2023-
60), which latter filing the Exchange withdrew on November 27, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify
the Firm Monthly Fee Cap. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule
change on November 15, 2023.
    The Firm Monthly Fee Cap is set forth in Section I.I. of the Fee
Schedule.\5\ Currently, a Firm's fees associated with Manual
transactions are capped at $200,000 per month per Firm.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.I., Firm Monthly Fee Cap,
available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \6\ The Exchange also proposes two clarifying changes to the
description of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap. First, the Exchange
proposes to add text to specify that fees for QCC transactions are
included in the Manual transaction fees eligible to be capped. This
proposed change is not intended to modify the applicability of the
Firm Monthly Fee Cap, but rather to ensure that the Fee Schedule
clearly reflects the fees that are eligible for the Firm Monthly Fee
Cap. Second, the Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence of
the description of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap as extraneous. This
proposed change similarly does not impact the applicability of the
Firm Monthly Fee Cap and is instead intended to promote clarity in
the Fee Schedule.

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

    The Exchange proposes to raise the Firm Monthly Fee Cap to $250,000
per month per Firm. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to
modify Section I.I. to replace references to a $200,000 cap with
references to a $250,000 cap.\7\ Once a Firm has reached the Firm
Monthly Fee Cap, an incremental service fee of $0.02 per contract for
Firm Manual transactions will apply, including for the execution of a
QCC order. Royalty Fees and fees or volumes associated with Strategy
Executions will continue to be excluded from the calculation of fees
towards the Firm Monthly Fee Cap. Firm Facilitation Manual trades will
also continue to be executed at the rate of $0.00 per contract
regardless of whether a Firm has reached the Firm Monthly Fee Cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange also proposes a conforming change to footnote 4
in Section I.A. (Rates for Options transactions) of the Fee
Schedule, which cross-references the Firm Monthly Fee Cap as set
forth in Section I.I. The Exchange likewise proposes to modify
footnote 4 to replace the reference to a $200,000 cap with a
reference to a $250,000 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change, despite increasing
the amount of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap, would continue to incent Firms
to direct order flow to the Exchange to receive the benefits of a fee
cap on Manual transaction fees (including fees for QCC transactions).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 17 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\11\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in September 2023, the Exchange had less than 8%
market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options trades.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \12\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of ETF-based options, see
id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options decreased
from 8.66% for the month of September 2022 to 7.31% for the month of
September 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes
to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of
an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The proposed increase to the Firm Monthly Fee Cap is reasonable
because the Exchange believes the fee cap, although higher, would
continue to incent Firms to direct order flow to the Exchange to
receive the benefits of capped fees for their Manual transactions
(including QCC transactions). The Exchange also believes the proposed
change is reasonable because the proposed fee cap amount would be
applicable to all Firms. In addition, although the proposed change
would raise the amount of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap, it would continue
to offer Firms the opportunity to qualify for capped fees on Manual
transactions (including QCC transactions), which the Exchange believes
provides Firms with a benefit not offered by at least one other options
exchange.\13\ The Exchange also believes that the proposed clarifying
changes are reasonable, as they are intended only to improve the
clarity of the Fee Schedule (and are not intended to effect any
substantive changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., BOX Options Fee Schedule, available at: https://boxoptions.com/fee-schedule/ (no cap on Firm manual transaction
fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent the proposed change continues to attract greater
volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed change would
improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the
competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed
rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the
depth of its market and improve its market share relative to its
competitors. The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket
competition, as market participants can choose to direct their order
flow to any of the 17 options exchanges. The Exchange believes that
proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent market
participants to direct liquidity and, in particular, Manual (including
QCC) transactions, to the Exchange, and, to the extent they continue to
be incentivized to aggregate their trading activity at the Exchange,
that increased liquidity could promote market depth, price discovery
and improvement, and enhanced order execution opportunities for all
market participants.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposed change is equitable
because the proposal is based on the amount and type of business
transacted on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed modification of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap is equitable because
it would be available to all Firms equally and would continue to
provide the same fee cap amount for all Firms. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule change is equitable with respect to
non-Firm market participants because the Firm Monthly Fee Cap would not
be as meaningful for Customers and because Market Makers are offered
other incentives to reduce

transaction fees.\14\ The Exchange believes that the proposed change,
although it increases the fee cap amount, would not discourage Firms
from directing order flow to the Exchange. To the extent that the
proposed change achieves its purpose in continuing to incent Firms to
aggregate their executions at the Exchange as a primary execution venue
and does not discourage Firms from continuing to direct order flow to
the Exchange to achieve the benefits of capped fees, this increased
order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue
for, among other things, order execution, and all market participants
would benefit from enhanced opportunities for price improvement and
order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
would improve market quality for all market participants on the
Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the
Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, Customers are not subject to a fee for Manual
transactions, and the Exchange offers various incentives to Market
Makers, including the Market Maker Sliding Scale and Prepayment
Program. See Fee Schedule at Sections I.A., I.C., and I.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the modification of the Firm Monthly Fee
Cap is not unfairly discriminatory because the fee cap amount, as
proposed, would continue to be applicable to all similarly situated
Firms, any of which could continue to be incentivized to direct order
flow to the Exchange to qualify for the fee cap. Moreover, the proposed
change to the Firm Monthly Fee Cap is not unfairly discriminatory
because it would continue to apply the same fee cap amount to all
Firms. The Exchange notes that offering the Firm Monthly Fee Cap, as
proposed, to Firms but not to other market participants is not unfairly
discriminatory because the Firm Monthly Fee Cap would not be as
meaningful for Customers and because Market Makers are offered other
incentives to reduce transaction fees.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent the proposed change continues to attract Manual
(including QCC) transactions to the Exchange, this increased order flow
would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order
execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would
improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and,
as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby
improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting
increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities
and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 9, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change is designed to
continue to attract order flow to the Exchange, which could increase
the volumes of contracts traded on the Exchange. Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants on the Exchange, and the Exchange
believes that the proposed modification of the Firm Monthly Fee Cap
(even though it would raise the amount of the fee cap) would not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate because
it is intended to continue to incentivize Firms to direct order flow to
the Exchange to be eligible for the benefits of capped fees on Manual
transactions (including QCC transactions), thereby promoting liquidity
on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 17 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\17\ Therefore, no
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in September 2023, the Exchange had less than 8% market share of
executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See note 10, supra.
    \18\ See note 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to continue to incent market participants to direct
trading interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract
order flow. To the extent that Firms are incentivized to utilize the
Exchange as a primary trading venue for all transactions, all of the
Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market
quality and increased opportunities for price improvement. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed change could promote competition
between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that
do not offer a cap on Firm fees,\19\ by encouraging additional orders
to be sent to the Exchange for execution. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and
credits to remain competitive with other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it
establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-63. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEAMER-2023-63 and should
be submitted on or before January 2, 2024.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27065 Filed 12-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2212-2213]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844; FRL-9940-82]

Imidacloprid Registration Review; Draft Pollinator Ecological
Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft
pollinator-only ecological risk assessment for the registration review
of imidacloprid and opens a public comment period on this document.
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the
Agency has completed a comprehensive draft pollinator-only ecological
risk assessment for all registered agricultural uses of imidacloprid,
with focus on agricultural crops that are attractive to pollinators.
After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA
will issue a revised pollinator risk assessment, explain any changes to
the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request
public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed
registration review decision for imidacloprid. The revised risk
assessment will also address the ecological risks for all other taxa,
as well as a comprehensive draft human health risk assessment. Through
the registration review program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: Kelly Ballard, Chemical
Review Manager, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Rich Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of imidacloprid pursuant
to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at
40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other
things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every
15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain
registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration
given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in
accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the
pesticide product must perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk
from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for imidacloprid to ensure that it continues to satisfy
the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, that imidacloprid can
still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or
the environment. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide used for
the control of sucking insects on a large variety of agricultural and
non-agricultural sites, including vegetable crops, tree nuts, tree
fruits, stone fruits,

cotton, tobacco, grapes, citrus, turf, and ornamentals. EPA has
completed a comprehensive draft pollinator-only ecological risk
assessment for all registered agricultural uses of imidacloprid, with
focus on agricultural crops that are attractive to pollinators.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft pollinator-only
ecological risk assessment for imidacloprid. Such comments and input
could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment
methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft pollinator-only
risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during
the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the
draft pollinator-only risk assessment. EPA will then issue a revised
pollinator risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the revised risk assessment, if the
revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may
provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for
mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk assessment before
developing a proposed registration review decision on imidacloprid.
Additionally, the revised risk assessment will also address ecological
risks for all other taxa, as well as a comprehensive draft human health
risk assessment.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on
imidacloprid is available on the Pesticide Registration Review Status
Web page. Information on the Agency's registration review program and
its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 8, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-00740 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 147-150]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0335; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-021-AD;
Amendment 39-18358; AD 2015-26-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C
helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the main gearbox (MGB) lower
housing jet bores for leaks, paint or caulk blistering, and liner
protrusion. This AD was prompted by several reports of MGB low oil
pressure warnings which were determined to be the result of unsecured
jet bore liners that had protruded. The actions are intended to prevent
failure of the MGB from loss of oil, which could result in subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective February 9, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of February 9,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering,
124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, Connecticut 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S
or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review a copy
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for or locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0335; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 2, 2014, at 79 FR 31231, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-
76B, and S-76C helicopters with a MGB installed that has undergone
certain repairs. The NPRM proposed to require, within 50 hours time-in-
service (TIS), inspecting the MGB for leaks, paint or caulk blistering,
and liner protrusion. If there is oil leakage or protrusion of a jet
bore liner, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the MGB before
further flight. The NPRM also proposed to require, within 1,500 hours
TIS, replacing the MGB with an MGB that was not subject to the
applicability of the NPRM unless it had been repaired in accordance
with a later overhaul and repair procedure.
    The NPRM was prompted by four reports of protruding jet bore liners
on Sikorsky S-76 helicopters with a MGB, part number (P/N) 76351-09000
series, 76351-09500 series, and 76351-09600 series. During an overhaul
of the MGB, the jet bore liner retaining pins were not adequately
drilled into the liner, allowing the jet bore liner to move in the
housing, because the overhaul and repair instruction (ORI) did not
adequately describe procedures and housing wall thickness limitations
for installing the retaining pins. Movement of the jet bore liner into
the housing allows oil to leak between the liner and the housing,
possibly resulting in loss of oil in the MGB, which could result in
failure of the MGB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    At the time we issued the NPRM, we understood these repairs had
been made in accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revisions A
through E. However, the incident MGBs had only been repaired in
accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revision A or earlier.
Sikorsky ORI 76350-065, Revisions B through F, resolve the unsafe
condition by clarifying the retaining pin installation instructions.
This AD now reflects that clarification.

Comments

    After our NPRM (79 FR 31231, June 2, 2014) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Sikorsky stated the proposed requirement to overhaul the affected
MGBs within 1,500 hours TIS is overly conservative because the daily
visual inspection is adequate to ensure safety until the next overhaul
period. Sikorsky further commented that the 1,500 hour compliance time
would be burdensome to operators and not cost effective. When asked for
additional information to support this comment, Sikorsky stated that
its maintenance program has a major inspection, and not a MGB overhaul,
every 1,500 hours. The major inspection does not require removal of the
MGB. Overhaul of the MGB for Model S76A helicopters occurs every 3,250
hours and for Model S76B/C helicopters occurs every 3,750 hours.
    We agree. We intended the proposed requirement to provide a
terminating action that coincides with overhaul of the MGB. We
incorrectly understood the 1,500-hour major inspection involved
removing the MGB from the helicopter. We agree that due to the gradual
loss of oil, safety is maintained with the repetitive inspections until
the MGB is replaced or overhauled when specified in the maintenance
program. We have revised paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to require
replacement of the MGB ``within 3,750 hours TIS'' instead of ``within
1,500 hours TIS.''
    Sikorsky also commented that limiting acceptable repairs to those
performed in accordance with Sikorksy ORI 76350-065 Revision F was
unnecessary because Revision B and subsequent revisions provide
installation details that are structurally equivalent to Revision F.
When asked for additional information to support this comment, Sikorsky
stated the changes in Revision B clarified the pin retention
instructions sufficiently to resolve the oil leakage issue. Although
Revision F provides for the installation of an additional pin, Sikorsky
stated that this is not a significant change. Sikorsky confirmed that
all reports of oil leakage involved repairs using the procedures in
Revision A or earlier.
    We agree. We reexamined Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065 and its
revisions and found Revisions B through F structurally equivalent with
only minor changes and improvements. We have changed paragraphs (a) and
(e) of this AD to reference the appropriate revisions of Sikorsky ORI
No. 76350-065.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments
received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely
to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and
that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD
requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. These
changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (79
FR 31231, June 2, 2014), and will not increase the economic burden on
any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Sikorsky issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 76-66-50, Basic Issue,
dated January 14, 2013 (ASB 76-66-50) for Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C
helicopters with an MGB P/N 76351-09000 series, 76351-09500 series, and
76351-09600 series, which have been repaired in accordance with ORI No.
76350-065 or ORI No. 76350-065, Revision A. ASB 76-66-50 describes
procedures for inspecting each MGB lower housing jet bore for leaking
oil, paint or caulk blistering, and liner protrusion. If there is any
liner protrusion or leaking oil between the

liner and the housing, the ASB requires replacing the MGB. If there is
paint or caulk blistering, the ASB requires further inspecting for
leaking oil by replacing the jet bore packing, performing a ground run
of the main rotor for 30 minutes, and re-inspecting the jet bore for
leaking oil.
    This information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We also reviewed Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revision B, dated June
10, 2011; Revision C, dated June 27, 2011; Revision D, dated January
20, 2012; Revision E, dated January 27, 2012; and Revision F, dated May
10, 2012. This service information describes procedures for repairing
the retaining ring groove areas of the MGB jet bores and installing
retaining pins in the jet bore liners.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The ASB specifies compliance by a specific calendar date, while the
compliance time in this AD is in hours TIS. The ASB does not specify a
terminating action for the recurring inspections of the MGB jet bores;
while this AD does specify a terminating action for the recurring
inspections.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 53 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour,
inspecting the jet bore liners requires about 1.1 work-hours, for a
cost per helicopter of $94 and a total cost to US operators of $4,982
per inspection cycle. If required, repairing a jet bore liner requires
about 14 work-hours, and required parts cost $200, for a cost per
helicopter of $1,390. If required, replacing the MGB requires about 134
work-hours, and required parts cost $994,000, for a cost per helicopter
of $1,005,390.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-26-10 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky): Amendment 39-
18358; Docket FAA-2014-0335; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-021-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C
helicopters with a main gearbox (MGB) part number (P/N) 76351-09000
series, 76351-09500 series, and 76351-09600 series installed that
has been repaired in accordance with Sikorsky Overhaul and Repair
Instruction (ORI) No. 76350-065, dated November 12, 1982 (ORI 76350-
065), or ORI No. 76350-065, Revision A, dated September 21, 1984
(ORI 76350-065A), certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an unsecured MGB lower
housing jet bore liner. This condition may cause the liner to move
out of place, allowing oil to leak from the MGB, resulting in MGB
failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 9, 2016.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6 hours TIS, inspect each MGB lower housing
jet bore (jet bore), as depicted in Figures 3 and 4 of Sikorsky S-76
Alert Service Bulletin 76-66-50, Basic Issue, dated January 14, 2013
(ASB 76-66-50), for liner protrusion or movement, paint or caulk
blistering, or oil leakage.
    (i) If there is any liner protrusion or movement, before further
flight, replace the MGB with an MGB that has not been repaired in
accordance with ORI 76350-065 or ORI 76350-065A, unless it has been
subsequently repaired in accordance with Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065,
Revision B, dated June 10, 2011 (ORI 76350-065B); Sikorsky ORI No.
76350-065, Revision C, dated June 27, 2011 (ORI 76350-065C);
Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revision D, dated January 20, 2012 (ORI
76350-065D); Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revision E, dated January
27, 2012 (ORI 76350-065E); or Sikorsky ORI No. 76350-065, Revision
F, dated May 10, 2012 (ORI 76350-065F).
    (ii) If there is any oil leakage or paint or caulk blistering,
inspect the jet bore for liner protrusion and perform a leakage
check by following the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraphs
3.C.(1) through 3.C.(6)(a), of ASB 76-66-50.
    (iii) If any moisture or droplets of MGB oil are visible on a
jet bore after accomplishing the leakage check specified in
paragraph 3.C.(6)(a) of ASB 76-66-50, repeat paragraphs 3.C(4)
through 3.C(6) of ASB 76-66-50. If any moisture or droplets of MGB
oil are still visible, before further flight, replace the MGB with
an MGB that has not been repaired in accordance with ORI 76350-065
or ORI 76350-065A, unless it has been subsequently repaired in
accordance with ORI 76350-065B, ORI 76350-065C, ORI 76350-065D, ORI
76350-065E, or ORI 76350-065F.

    (2) Within 3,750 hours TIS, replace the MGB with an MGB that has
not been repaired in accordance with ORI 76350-065 or ORI 76350-
065A, unless it has been subsequently repaired in accordance with
ORI 76350-065B, ORI 76350-065C, ORI 76350-065D, ORI 76350-065E, or
ORI 76350-065F. This is terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kirk Gustafson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky Overhaul and Repair Instruction No. 76350-065, dated
November 12, 1982; Revision A, dated September 21, 1984; Revision B,
dated June 10, 2011; Revision C, dated June 27, 2011; Revision D,
dated January 20, 2012; Revision E, dated January 27, 2012; and
Revision F, dated May 10, 2012, which are not incorporated by
reference, contain additional information about the subject of this
AD. You may review a copy of this service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

(i) 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) Sikorsky S-76 Alert Service Bulletin 76-66-50, Basic Issue,
dated January 14, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this final
rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service
Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, Connecticut 06611; telephone
1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, Texas 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 23, 2015.
John Hardie,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-33013 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3238]
[DOCID:fr20ja10-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0559]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Heart Valves -- Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and
Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance document entitled ``Heart Valves --
Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA)
Applications.'' This draft guidance document describes FDA's
recommendations about investigational device exemption and premarket
approval applications for heart valves. This draft guidance document is
not final, nor is it in effect at this time.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by April 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Heart Valves -- Investigational Device
Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications'' to the
Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer
Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 66, Room 4613,
Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to
301-847-8149. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information
on electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit written comments concerning this draft guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn D. Vaughan, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1230, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
6338.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 14, 1994, FDA issued a guidance document on replacement
heart valves (``the 1994 draft''), before the implementation of FDA's
good guidance practices regulation. FDA withdrew the 1994 draft on
January 5, 2005 (70 FR 824) and is now issuing this new draft guidance
document for public comment. This draft guidance document describes
FDA's recommendations about manufacturing, preclinical in vitro bench
testing, preclinical in vivo studies, clinical investigations, and
labeling that are different from or in addition to the recommendations
of the International Organization For Standardization (ISO), ISO
5840:2005, ``Cardiovascular Implants -- Cardiac Valve Prostheses'' (ISO
5840). Although the draft guidance document provides complementary
information to ISO 5840:2005, the draft guidance document can also be
used with other methods equivalent to ISO 5840:2005.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance document is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance
document, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking
on ``Heart Valves -- Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and
Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications.'' It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. To receive ``Heart Valves -- Investigational
Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications,'' you
may either send an e-mail request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document, or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER>
to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number (1607).
    CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to
information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded
to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular
basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal
Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including
lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small
manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and
electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented
information. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is
available at http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/
deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available on the Division of Dockets Management
Internet site at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance document contains information collection
provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-
3520) (the PRA). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections
of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part
58 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; and the
collections of information in parts 50 and 56 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0130.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), written or electronic comments regarding this
document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper
copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one
paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

    Dated: January 9, 2010.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-990 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S