[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52498-52502]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18702]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78461; File No. SR-C2-2016-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse
of Material Nonpublic Information by Market-Makers and Designated
Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')

August 2, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 28, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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 Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 8.9 and 8.21 related to
information barriers. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to
prohibit the misuse of material, nonpublic information by Market-Makers
and DPMs by deleting Rule 8.9 and Rule 8.21. In so doing, the Exchange
would harmonize its rules related to the preventing the misuse of
material, nonpublic information for every Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH''). The Exchange believes that Rule 8.9 and Rule 8.21 are no
longer necessary because all TPHs, including Market-Makers and DPMs,
are subject to the Exchange's general principles-based requirements
governing the protection against misuse of material, nonpublic
information, pursuant to Chapter 4 and incorporated therin [sic] CBOE
Rule 4.18 \3\ (Prevention of the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic
Information), which obviates the need for separately prescribed
requirements for a subset of market participants on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Chapter 4 of the CBOE rulebook has been incorporated into
Chapter 4 of the C2 Rules. CBOE Rule 4.18, as incorporated in the C2
Rules, will hereafter be referenced as ``Rule 4.18.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Pursuant to Rule 8.1, TPHs registered as Market-Makers have certain
rights and bear certain responsibilities beyond those of other TPHs.
All Market-Makers are subject to the requirements of Rule 8.5, which
sets forth the obligations of Market-Makers, including providing
continuous electronic quotes.
    Rule 8.17 outlines the obligations of DPMs, which must fulfill a
number of increased obligations in addition to the Market-Maker
obligations of Rule 8.5, including providing continuous

electronic quotes in a larger percentage of series.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compare Rule 8.17(a)(1) (``[Each DPM shall] provide
continuous electronic quotes . . . in at least the lesser of 99% of
the non-adjusted options series (as defined in Rule 8.5(a)(1)) or
100% of the non-adjusted option series minus one call-put pair . .
.'') with Rule 8.5(a)(1) (``During trading hours a Market-Maker must
maintain a continuous two-sided market in 60% of the non-adjusted
option series of each registered class that have a time to
expiration of less than nine months.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 8.19, the Exchange may establish participation
entitlements for DPMs appointed pursuant to the aforementioned Rules.
DPMs must meet specific obligations prior to being awarded a
participation entitlements.
    All Market-Makers and DPMs have access to the same information in
the Book that is available to all other market participants. Moreover,
none of the Exchange's Market-Makers have agency obligations to the
Book.
    Despite the fact that Market-Makers and DPMs have access to the
same trading information as all other market participants on the
Exchange, the Exchange has distinct rules governing how Market-Makers
and DPMs may operate. Rule 8.9 states that a Market-Maker shall
maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent
the misuse of material, nonpublic information with any affiliates that
may conduct a brokerage business in option classes allocated to the
Market-maker or that may act as a specialist or market-maker in any
security underlying options allocated to the Market-Maker. Rule 8.21
states that a DPM shall maintain information barriers that are
reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic
information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business
in option classes allocated to the DPM or act as a specialist or
market-maker in any security underlying options allocated to the DPM.
Rule 8.21 also requires a DPM provide its information barriers to the
Exchange and obtain prior written approval.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange believes that Rule 4.18 governing the misuse of
material, nonpublic information provides for an appropriate,
principles-based approach to prevent the type of market abuses Rules
8.9 and 8.21 are designed to address. Specifically, Rule 4.18 requires
every TPH to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of
such TPH's business, to prevent the misuse, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and Exchange Rules, of
material, nonpublic information by such TPH or persons associated with
such TPH. For the purposes of Rule 4.18, conduct constituting the
misuse of material, nonpublic information in violation of the Act and
Exchange Rules includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, partnership,
Trust Issued Receipts or Units (as defined in Exchange Rules) or a
trust or similar entities, or in any related securities or related
options or other derivative securities, or in any related non-U.S.
currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or
any other derivatives based on such currency, or in any related
commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures or
in any related commodity derivatives, while in possession of material,
nonpublic information concerning that corporation, partnership, Trust
Issued Receipts, or those Units, or that trust or similar entities;
    (b) Trading in an underlying security or related options or other
derivative securities, or in any related non-U.S. currency, non-U.S.
currency options, futures or options on futures on such currency, or in
any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on
commodity futures or any other related commodities derivatives, or any
other derivatives based on such currency while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning imminent transactions in the
above; and
    (c) Disclosing to another person or entity any material, nonpublic
information involving a corporation, partnership, Trust Issued
Receipts, or Units or a trust or similar entities whose shares are
publicly traded or an imminent transactions in an underlying security
or related securities or in the underlying non-U.S. currency of any
related non-U.S. currency options, futures or options on futures on
such currency, or any other derivatives based on such currency, or in
any related commodity, related commodity futures or options on
commodity futures or any other related commodity derivatives, for the
purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, nonpublic
information.
    Because Market-Makers and DPMs are already subject to the
requirements of Rule 4.18, the Exchange does not believe that it is
necessary to require all Market-Makers and DPMs to explicitly maintain
information barriers. Deleting Rules 8.9 and 8.21 would provide Market-
Makers and DPMs with the flexibility to adapt their policies and
procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model,
business activities, or the securities market in a manner similar to
how other TPHs on the Exchange currently operate consistent with Rule
4.18.
    Neither the obligations nor the entitlements associated with
Market-Makers and DPMs provide different or greater access to nonpublic
information than any other market participant on the Exchange.
Specifically, neither Market-Makers nor DPMs on the Exchange have
access to trading information provided by the Exchange, either at, or
prior to, the point of execution, that is not made available to all
other market participants on the Exchange in a similar manner. Further,
as noted above, Market-Makers and DPMs on the Exchange do not have any
agency responsibilities for orders in the Book. Accordingly, because
Market-Makers and DPMs do not have any trading advantages at the
Exchange due to their market roles, the Exchange believes that they
should be subject to the same rules regarding the prevention of the
misuse of material, nonpublic information, specifically Rule 4.18.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that by deleting Rules 8.9 and 8.21, the
Exchange would no longer require information barriers for Market-
Makers or DPMs or, with respect to DPMs, require pre-approval of any
information barriers that a DPM would erect for purposes of
protecting against the misuse of material nonpublic information.
However, information barriers of new entrants, including new Market-
Makers and DPMs, would be subject to review as part of a new firm
application. Moreover, the policies and procedures of Market-Makers
and DPMs, including those relating to information barriers, would be
subject to review by FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, pursuant to a
Regulatory Services Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its proposed approach to use a principles-
based approach to protecting against the misuse of material nonpublic
information for all of its registered Market-Makers is consistent with
recently filed rule changes for the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), NYSE MKT, LLC on behalf of NYSE Amex Options,
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), BOX Options Exchange,
LLC (``BOX''), BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') on behalf of BATS Options
Market (``BATS Options''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC (``PHLX''), and NASDAQ
BX, Inc. (``BX Options'') \6\ The

proposed approach is also consistent with approved rule changes for
NYSE Arca Equities Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), BATS, and New York Stock
Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') rules governing cash equity Market-Makers on
those respective exchanges.\7\ Except for prescribed rules relating to
floor-based designated Market-Makers on the NYSE, who have access to
specified nonpublic trading information, each of these exchanges have
moved to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material, nonpublic information. In connection with approving those
rule changes, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') found that, with adequate oversite [sic] by the
exchanges of their members, eliminating redundant information barrier
requirements should not reduce the effectiveness of exchange rules
requiring its members or participants to establish and maintain systems
to supervise the activities of its members, including written
procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable
federal securities law and regulations, and with the rules of the
applicable exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77081 (February 8,
2016), 81 FR 7609 (February 12, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-007) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Adopting a Principles-Based Approach to Prohibit the
Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``DPMs'') and Lead Market-Makers (``LMM's'')); 75432
(July 13, 2015), 80 FR 42597 (July 17, 2015) (Order Approving
Adopting a Principles-Based Approach to Prohibit the Misuse of
Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by
Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY); 75792
(August 31, 2015), 80 FR 53606 (September 4, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-26)
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach to Prohibit the Misuse
of Material, Non-public Information by Market Makers by Deleting
Rule 810); 75916 (September 14, 2015), 80 FR 56503 (September 18,
2015) (SR-BOX-2015-31) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt a Principles-based Approach to
Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Market
Makers); 76327 (November 2, 2015), 80 FR 68884 (November 6, 2015)
(SR-BATS-2015-093) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
a Proposed Rule Change To Delete Rule 22.10, Limitations on
Dealings); 76687 (December 18, 2015), 80 FR 80403 (December 24,
2015) (SR-PHLX-2015-85) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Sections (e) Through
(h) of Exchange Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options
Specialists); 77461 (March 28, 2016), 81 FR 18907 (April 1, 2016)
(SR-BX-2016-018) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Delete From the Exchange's Rulebook Section
10, Limitations on Dealings, of Chapter VII, Market Participants).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60604 (Sept. 2,
2009), 76 FR 46272 (Sept. 8, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-78) (Order
approving elimination of NYSE Arca rule that required market makers
to establish and maintain specifically prescribed information
barriers, including discussion of NYSE Arca and Nasdaq rules)
(``Arca Approval Order''); 61574 (Feb. 23, 2010), 75 FR 9455 (Mar.
2, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-003) (Order approving amendments to BATS Rule
5.5 to move to a principles-based approach to protecting against the
misuse of material, nonpublic information, and noting that the
proposed change is consistent with the approaches of NYSE Arca and
Nasdaq) (``BATS Approval Order''); and 72534 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR
39440 (July 10, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-12) (Order approving amendments
to NYSE Rule 98 governing designated market makers to move to a
principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material
nonpublic information) (``NYSE Approval Order'').
    \8\ See, e.g., BATS Approval Order, supra note 4 at 9458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change,
pursuant to Rule 4.18, a Market-Maker or DPM would still be obligated
to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of
its business and continue to be reasonably designed to prevent the
misuse of material, nonpublic information. While information barriers
would not specifically be required under the proposal, Rule 4.18
already requires that a TPH consider the nature of the TPH's business
in structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an
information barrier or a functional separation be part of the
appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and
regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
    The Exchange is not proposing to change what is considered to be
material, nonpublic information and, thus, does not expect there to be
any changes to the types of information that an affiliated brokerage
business of a Market-Maker or DPM could share with such Market-Maker or
DPM. In that regard, the proposed rule change will not permit the
brokerage unit of a TPH firm to have access to any nonpublic order or
quote information of an affiliated Market-Maker or DPM, including
hidden or undisplayed orders and quotes on the Exchange. TPHs do not
expect to receive any additional order or quote information as a result
of this proposed rule change.
    Further, the Exchange does not believe that there will be any
material change to TPH information barriers as a result of removal of
the Exchange's pre-approval requirements for DPMs. In fact, the
Exchange anticipates that eliminating the pre-approval requirement
should facilitate implementation of changes to TPH information barriers
as necessary to protect against the misuse of material, nonpublic
information. The Exchange also suggests that the pre-approval
requirement is unnecessary because DPMs do not have agency
responsibilities to the Book. However, information barriers of new
entrants would be subject to review as part of a new firm application.
Moreover, the policies and procedures of Market-Makers and DPMs,
including those relating to information barriers, would be subject to
review by FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, pursuant to a Regulatory
Services Agreement.
    The Exchange further notes that under Rule 4.18, a TPH would be
able to provide for its options Market-Makers or DPMs, as applicable,
to be structured with its equities and customer-facing businesses,
provided that any such structuring would be done in a manner reasonably
designed to protect against the misuse of material, nonpublic
information. For example, pursuant to Rule 4.18, a Market-Maker or DPM
on the Exchange could be in the same independent trading unit, a
defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,\9\ as an equities Market-
Maker and other trading desks within the firm, including options
trading desks, so that the firm could share post-trade information to
better manage its risk across related securities. The Exchange believes
it is appropriate, and consistent with Rule 4.18 and Section 15(g) of
the Act \10\ for a firm to share options position and related hedging
position information (e.g., equities, futures, and foreign currency)
within a firm to better manage risk on a firm-wide basis. The Exchange
notes, however, that if so structured, a firm would need to have
appropriate policies and procedures, including information barriers as
applicable, to protect against the misuse of material nonpublic
information, and specifically customer information consistent with Rule
4.18. The Exchange further notes that federal rules supersede Exchange
rules in the event of any conflicts regarding the misuse of material
nonpublic information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR part 242.200(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-
based Rule 4.18 would ensure that a TPH that operates a Market-Maker or
DPM would be required to protect against the misuse of any material
nonpublic information. As noted above, Rule 4.18 already requires that
firms refrain from trading while in possession of material nonpublic
information concerning imminent transactions in a security or related
product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based
approach based on Rule 4.18 would still provide TPHs operating Market-
Makers or DPMs with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a
firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of
the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk
management purposes for a TPH operating a Market-Maker or DPM to be
able to consider

both Market-Maker or DPM traded-positions for the purposes of
calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of Regulation
SHO,\11\ calculating intra-day net capital positions, and managing risk
both generally as well as in compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act
(the ``Market Access Rule'').\12\ The Exchange notes that any risk
management operations would need to operate consistent with the
requirement to protect against the misuse of material nonpublic
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR part 242.200.
    \12\ 17 CFR part 240.15c3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that if options Market-Makers or DPMs
are integrated with other Market-Making operations, they would be
subject to existing rules that prohibit TPHs from disadvantaging their
customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing of a
TPH organization's access to the receipt of material nonpublic
information. As such, a TPH organization that integrates its options
Market-Making or DPM operations together with equity Market-Making,
would need to protect customer information consistent with existing
obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has rules
prohibiting TPHs from disadvantaging their customers or other market
participants by improperly capitalizing on the TPH's access to or
receipt of material nonpublic information. For example, Rule 4.24(e)
requires Each TPH shall establish, maintain, and enforce written
supervisory procedures reasonably designed to prevent and detect
violations of applicable securities laws and regulations, and
applicable Exchange rules. Additionally Rule 6.9(e) prevents a TPH or
person associated with a TPH, who has knowledge of all material terms
and conditions of an original order and a solicited order, including a
facilitation order, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to buy
or sell an option of the same class as an option that is the subject of
the original order, or an order to buy or sell the security underlying
such class, or an order to buy or sell any related instrument unless
certain circumstances are met.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market by adopting a principles-based approach to permit a TPH
operating a Market-Maker or DPM to maintain and enforce policies and
procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material
nonpublic information. The proposed rule change would further eliminate
restrictions on how a TPH structures its Market-Maker or DPM
operations. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based
on an approved rule of the Exchange to which Market-Makers and DPMs are
already subject (Rule 4.18) and harmonizes the rules governing Market-
Makers, DPMs, and other market participants. Moreover, TPHs operating
Market-Makers and DPMs would continue to be subject to federal and
Exchange requirements for protecting material nonpublic order
information.\16\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market because it would harmonize the Exchange's approach to
protecting against the misuse of material nonpublic information and no
longer subject Market-Makers and DPMs to redundant requirements. The
Exchange does not believe that the existing requirements applicable to
Market-Makers and DPMs are narrowly tailored to their respective roles
because neither market participant has access to Exchange trading
information in a manner different from any other market participant on
the Exchange and they do not have agency responsibilities to the Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o(g) and Rule 4.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and
equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to all
TPHs the type of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While the
proposal eliminates certain requirements relating to the misuse of
material nonpublic information, Market-Makers, DPMs and all other TPHs
would remain subject to existing Exchange Rules requiring them to
establish and maintain systems to supervise their activities, and to
create, implement, and maintain written procedures that are reasonably
designed to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange Rules,
including the prohibition on the misuse of material nonpublic
information.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still
require that TPHs operating Market-Makers and DPMs maintain and enforce
policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with applicable
federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange Rules. Even
thought there would no longer be pre-approval of DPM information
barriers, both Market-Maker and DPM written policies and procedures
would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore
the elimination of the pre-approval requirements should not reduce the
effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of
material nonpublic information. Market-Makers and DPMs will be able to
utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies
and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business
model, business activities, or to the securities market itself.
Moreover the Exchange notes that a TPH's business model or business
activities may dictate that an information barrier or functional
separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures
that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable
securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange Rules.
The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change will
maintain the existing protection of investors and the public interest
that is currently applicable to Market-Makers and DPMs, while at the
same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open market
by moving to a principles-based approach to protect against the misuse
of material nonpublic information.

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

    CBOE 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. To
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance
competition by allowing Market-Makers and DPMs to comply with
applicable Exchange Rules in a manner best suited to their business
models, business activities and the securities markets, thus reducing
regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable
securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange
believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace
without being overly burdensome upon Market-Makers and DPMs.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would
eliminate a burden on competition for TPHs that currently exists as a
result of disparate rule treatment between the options and equities
markets regarding how to protect against the misuse of material,
nonpublic information. For those TPHs that are also members of equities
exchanges, their respective equity Market-Maker operations are now
subject to a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse
of material nonpublic information. The Exchange believes it would
remove a burden on competition to enable TPHs to similarly apply a
principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material
nonpublic information in the options space. To this end, the Exchange
notes that Rule 4.18 still requires a TPH, which operates as a Market-
Maker or DPM on the Exchange, to evaluate its business to assure that
its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to protect against
the misuse of material, nonpublic information. However, with this
proposed rule change, a TPH that trades equities and options could look
at its firm more holistically to structure its operations in a manner
that provides it with better tools to manage risks across multiple
security classes, while at the same time protecting against the misuse
of material nonpublic information.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day
operative delay would help facilitate the harmonization of information
barrier rules across options exchanges. The Exchange represents that
Exchange rules still require a Market Maker to evaluate its business to
assure that its policies and procedures are reasonably designed to
protect against the misuse of material nonpublic information. Further,
the Exchange states that the proposed rule change is designed to
provide more flexibility to market participants, while not decreasing
the protections against the misuse of material, non-public information.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\18\ The Commission hereby grants the waiver and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2016-015 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-C2-2016-015. 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-C2-2016-015 and should be
submitted on or before August 29, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18702 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32969-32973]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0517; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00356-R;
Amendment 39-22047; AD 2022-10-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C1 and SA-365C2 helicopters. This AD was
prompted by a Model EC225 helicopter accident and subsequent
investigation that determined that the level of particles in certain
main gearboxes (MGB) could lead to a planet gear seizure. This AD
requires inspecting the MGB magnetic plugs and oil filter for particles
and, depending on the outcome of the inspections, further inspections
and replacing certain parts, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 16, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 16,
2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus Helicopters service
information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters,
2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this material
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>.
Service information that is incorporated by reference is also available
in the AD Docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket FAA-2022-0517.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0517; 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 AD, the EASA AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Bradley, Aerospace Engineer,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2020-0156, dated July 14, 2020 (EASA
AD 2020-0156), to correct an unsafe condition for all serial-numbered
Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France,
Aerospatiale) Model SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, and SA365 C3 helicopters.
EASA advised of an investigation that was conducted on the MGB's design
following an EC 225 helicopter accident. EASA further advised that
investigation results determined that the level of detectability of
particles linked to a planet gear spalling needs improvement. EASA
stated this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
planet gear seizure possibly resulting in the loss of the MGB and
subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.
    Accordingly, EASA AD 2020-0156 required inspecting the MGB magnetic
plug and MGB oil filter for particles and depending on the results of
the inspection, conducting further inspections or removing certain
parts from service. EASA AD 2020-0156 also required modification of
certain helicopters by replacing certain part-numbered magnetic plugs
with other part-numbered magnetic plugs and prohibited the installation
of an affected magnetic plug on any helicopter. EASA considered EASA AD
2020-0156 to be an interim action and stated that further AD action may
follow.
    After EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0156, further investigation results
determined the planet gears installed in the epicyclic module of the
MGB are subject to higher outer race contact pressures, which may cause
spalling and cracking. Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD No. 2021-0016,
dated January 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0016), which superseded EASA AD
2020-0156. EASA AD 2021-0016 retains the requirements of EASA AD 2020-
0156 and requires replacing the second stage planet gears at reduced
intervals. EASA AD 2021-0016 also prohibits the installation of an
affected MGB on any helicopter, unless the planetary gears are replaced
as required by the EASA AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0016 specifies procedures for inspecting the MGB
magnetic plug and oil filter and depending on the results, corrective
action. EASA AD 2021-0016 also specifies procedures for modifying the
helicopter by replacing the non-electrical magnetic plug with an
improved non-electrical magnetic plug. EASA AD 2021-0016 specifies
procedures for replacing all second stage planet gears at specified
intervals. EASA AD 2021-0016 also prohibits installing a certain part-
numbered magnetic plug on any helicopter and permits the installation
of an affected MGB provided that no planet gear installed has exceeded
300 flight hours since new and the planetary gears have been replaced
as required following the installation of the MGB.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. SA365-05.33, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2020, which establishes
a new maintenance criterion following the detection of particles during
the scheduled periodic check of the MGB magnetic plug.
    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. SA365-65.53,
Revision 0, dated May 28, 2020. This service information specifies
procedures for installing modification 0763B19 to improve the
performance in collecting metal particles in the new non-electrical
magnetic plug.

FAA's Determination

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

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2021-0016, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD and except as discussed under ``Differences Between this AD and
the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2021-0016 will be
incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD would,
therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0016 in its entirety,

through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that
are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does
not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For
example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2021-0016 that is
required for compliance with EASA AD 2021-0016 is available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0517.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA 365 C3
helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model is not FAA
type-certificated. The EASA AD requires sending oil samples to Airbus
Helicopters, contacting Airbus Helicopters to determine the
characterization of certain particles collected or for details on the
MGB history, and reporting certain information to Airbus Helicopters,
whereas this AD does not. The EASA AD 2021-0016 specifies to contact
Airbus Helicopters if further particles are collected during close
monitoring, whereas this AD requires, before further flight,
accomplishing repair in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature. The EASA AD requires inspections
after the last flight of each day, whereas this AD requires those
inspections prior to the first flight of each day. Where the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0016 specifies that certain
requirements can be performed by a mechanical technician or pilot, this
AD requires that the visual check of the MGB magnetic plugs be
performed by a qualified mechanic.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action
is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S.
Registry. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, for the foregoing reasons, the FAA finds that good
cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0517; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00356-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for
any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kristin
Bradley, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not
required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered helicopters. If an
affected helicopter is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future and labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour, the FAA
provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:
    Inspecting the magnetic plugs and oil filter for particle deposits
will take about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter
per inspection cycle.
    Replacing the magnetic plugs will take about 5 hours and parts will
cost about $1,877 for a total cost of $2,302 per helicopter.
    Replacing the planetary gear assembly will take about 48 work-hours
and parts will cost about $58,009 for a total cost of $62,089 per
helicopter.
    Replacing an MGB will take about 42 work-hours and parts will cost
about $295,000 (overhauled) for a total cost of $298,570 per
helicopter.

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 this regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-10-09 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-22047; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0517; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00356-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 16,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C1 and SA-
365C2 helicopters, certificated in any category,

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an accident involving a Model EC225LP
helicopter in which the main rotor hub detached from the main
gearbox (MGB). The FAA is issuing this AD to detect particles in the
MGB and prevent planet gear seizure. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in planet gear seizure resulting in the loss
of the MGB and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0016, dated January 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0016).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0016

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0016 refers to its effective date or July
28, 2020 (the effective date of EASA AD 2020-0156, dated July 14,
2020), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0016 requires actions during each ``after
last flight'' of the day inspection, this AD requires those actions
before the first flight of each day.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2021-0016 refers to flight hours, this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to return a certain part or send a certain part to an
approved workshop, this AD requires removing that part from service.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to use tooling, this AD allows the use of equivalent
tooling.
    (7) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to contact Airbus Helicopters if further particles
are collected during close monitoring, this AD requires, before
further flight, accomplishing a repair in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (8) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies that certain requirements can be performed by a
mechanical technician or pilot, this AD requires that the visual
check of the MGB magnetic plugs be performed by a qualified
mechanic.
    (9) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies that if any 16NCD13 or 18NC16 particles are present
you are to take a 1-liter sample of oil and send it to the
manufacturer, this AD does not require those actions.
    (10) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to perform a metallurgical analysis and contact the
manufacturer, this AD does require determining the characterization
of particles collected but does not require contacting the
manufacturer to determine the characterization of the particles
collected.
    (11) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-
0016 specifies to contact Airbus Helicopters for details on the MGB
history, this AD does not require this action.
    (12) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0016 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and
21.199, are not allowed.

(j) 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 (k)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kristin Bradley,
Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. For service information identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone
(972) 641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0016,
dated January 13, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]

    (3) For EASA AD EASA AD 2021-0016, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find
this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (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>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0517.
    (5) You may view this material 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 protected], or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 6, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-11553 Filed 5-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6203-6204]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

American Glaucoma Society/Food and Drug Administration Workshop
on Supporting Innovation for Safe and Effective Minimally Invasive
Glaucoma Surgery; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public workshop entitled ``American Glaucoma Society (AGS)/FDA Workshop
on Supporting Innovation for Safe and Effective Minimally Invasive
Glaucoma Surgery.'' This workshop will address the current challenges
in the assessment of implantable minimally invasive glaucoma surgical
(MIGS) devices with a focus on clinical trial design and conduct.
Glaucoma experts will present evidence to better define the appropriate
patient population, as well as the appropriate evaluation of
effectiveness and safety for MIGS devices. The primary goal of the
workshop is to discuss the appropriate clinical trial design and
conduct for MIGS devices in order to facilitate bringing these
innovative technologies to the U.S. marketplace.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on February 26,
2014, from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Materials may be picked up starting at 12
noon.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Washington
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Contact: Michelle Tarver, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, Rm. 2504, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: AGS will charge a registration fee to cover its share
of the expenses associated with the workshop. The registration fee is
$150 for AGS members and $300 for non-members in advance. Registration
is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in
attending this public workshop may register online or by telephone. The
deadline for online registration is February 10, 2014, at 5 p.m. EDT.
There will be onsite registration on the day of the public workshop
with the cost of onsite registration being $150 for AGS members and
$500 for non-members. Early registration is recommended because
facilities are limited.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Ms. Susan Monahan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>
no later than February 3, 2014.
    To register for the public workshop, please visit the AGS Web site
(http://www.americanglaucomasociety.net/professionals/events/). Those
interested in attending but unable to access the electronic
registration site should contact AGS Customer Service to register at
415-561-8587 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). Please provide complete
contact information for each attendee, including name, title,
affiliation, address, email, and telephone number. If there are any
questions with registration, please contact the AGS administrative
offices at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email to the attention of Amber Mendez at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been
accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.
    Food and beverages will be available for purchase by participants
during the workshop breaks.
    For more information on the workshop, please see the FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this public workshop from the posted events list.)
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
not be Webcast.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcript will also be available
approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Glaucoma is estimated to be the second leading cause of blindness
worldwide. Management of this often chronic disease is a challenge for
both patients and health care providers, requiring the use of multiple
modalities including drops, lasers, and surgery. In recent years,
innovative devices have been developed to decrease the risk of glaucoma
surgery. These MIGS devices have moved the option for surgical
intervention towards less severe forms of the disease. Hence, the
appropriate clinical trial design and conduct for the evaluation of the
safety and effectiveness of MIGS devices has become a topic of debate.
At this workshop, we will discuss the important clinical trial
components including subject enrollment criteria, safety parameters,
and effectiveness endpoints. The workshop seeks to involve industry and
academia in addressing the challenges in the development of appropriate
clinical trials to adequately evaluate safety and

effectiveness for implantable MIGS devices. By bringing together
relevant stakeholders, we hope to facilitate the improvement of
regulatory science in this rapidly evolving product area.
    FDA and AGS recognize the unique opportunity this workshop provides
for all stakeholders of the ophthalmic device community to work
together to improve trial design for the assessment of new MIGS
devices, and, thereby, strengthen contributions to improved patient
care and the protection of the public health.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    Topics to be discussed at the public workshop include, but are not
limited to:
     Definition of MIGS and overview of these procedures;
     defining the patient population for implantable MIGS
devices;
     determining effectiveness endpoints for implantable MIGS
devices; and
     determining the appropriate safety parameters for
implantable MIGS devices.
    These topics will be presented by experts in the associated area,
and will be discussed by panelists with extensive experience conducting
glaucoma clinical research.

    Dated: January 28, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-02146 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4585-4586]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01757]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0091; FRL-9516-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production (EPA ICR Number 1807.10, OMB Control Number 2060-
0370), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently-approved through
March 31, 2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on April 13, 2021 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0091, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR
part 63, subpart MMM) apply to existing and new facilities engaged in
the production of pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) that emit HAPs.
New facilities include those that commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP
standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and
periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.
They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential
in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Pesticide active ingredient
production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMM).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 13,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,910,000 (per year), which includes
$339,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to several adjustments. This increase is
not due to any program changes. The adjustment increase in burden from
the most-recently approved ICR is due to an increase in the number of
existing respondents. The number of estimated facilities subjected to
this rule has increased to 19 based on a review of EPA's Enforcement
and Compliance History Online and data collected during rulemakings for
related chemical sectors. Based on comments received from industry, we
have also updated the `burden' to reflect that at least one existing
respondent will install a new process unit per year. This ICR adjusts
the burden to reflect certain one-time activities for these sources,
including submittal of an updated pre-compliance report, notifications
of initial performance test or performance evaluation, updates to
facility record management systems, and development of a quality
assurance/quality control plan for continuous monitoring systems.
    This ICR also adjusts the capital and operation and maintenance
costs to reflect comments provided by industry. The ICR capital costs
have been adjusted to account for at least one existing respondent that
will install a new process unit per year. Additionally, this ICR
adjusts the operation and maintenance costs for pressure relief device,
process vent, and wastewater monitoring based on estimates provided by
industry.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-01757 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 12, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

DOCKETS OST-95-791; OST-95-806; OST-96-1687; OST-98-3631; OST-2001-9313;
& OST-2002-11657

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant: Polynesian Limited 						Date Filed: January 15, 2004

Relief requested:  (1) Renew exemptions from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and
mail between:  (i) Apia, Samoa, and Pago Pago, American Samoa, and
beyond to Rarotonga,

Cook Islands, and Papeete, Tahiti (OST-95-791);  (ii) Apia and Honolulu,
HI (OST-95-806);  (iii) Apia and Los

Angeles, CA (OST-96-1687);  (iv) Maota, Samoa, and Pago Pago
(OST-98-3631);  (v) Honolulu and Auckland, New Zealand, via Apia
(OST-2001-9313); and (2) Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
conduct charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
pursuant to 14 CFR 212 of the Department’s regulations
(OST-2002-11657).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  Notices of Action Taken
dated February 12, 2003, in Dockets OST-95-791, OST-95-806, OST-96-1687,
OST-98-3631, OST-2001-9313, and OST-2002-11657

Applicant representative:  Charles Donley<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  February 12, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 12, 2004 – February
12, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  The Multilateral
Agreement on the Liberalization of International

Air Transportation, to which Samoa became a member on November 9, 2002

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)        __ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order   -  -  )

Remarks:  We have advised Polynesian Limited that it cannot directly or
indirectly hold out or provide online air transportation wholly between
U.S. points.  Furthermore, pursuant to advice from the Assistant General
Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Polynesian Limited, as was its
predecessor, is subject to Consent Order 95-2-18.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

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

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

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

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

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

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

08/2003