[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76739-76740]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-E-0047]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ILARIS

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for ILARIS and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human biological product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6222, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human biological product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human biological product will include all of the testing
phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human biologic product
ILARIS (canakinumab). ILARIS is indicated for the treatment of
Cryopyrin Associated Periodic Syndromes in adults and children 4 years
of age and older including Familial Cold Autoinflammatory Syndrome and
Muckle-Wells Syndrome. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and
Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for
ILARIS (U.S. Patent No. 7,446,175) from Novartis AG, and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated
March 24, 2010, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this
human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and
that the approval of ILARIS represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark
Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
ILARIS is 1,072 days. Of this time, 889 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 183 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: July 13,
2006. The applicant claims July 12, 2006, as the date the
investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However,
FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 13, 2006,
which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262: December 17, 2008. The applicant claims
December 15, 2008, as the date the biologics license application (BLA)
for ILARIS (BLA 125319) was initially submitted. However, FDA records
indicate that BLA 125319 was submitted on December 17, 2008.
    3. The date the application was approved: June 17, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125319 was approved on June 17,
2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 177 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by February 7, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by June 7, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA

investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-
42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments.
    However, if you submit a written petition, you must submit three
copies of the petition. Identify comments with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions
that have not been made publicly available on regulations.gov may be
viewed in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

    Dated: October 22, 2010.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2010-30992 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58601-58603]
[DOCID:fr04oc06-58]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122; FRL-8070-3]

Risk Management Practices for Nanoscale Materials; Notice of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is convening a public meeting on risk management practices
under a possible stewardship program for nanoscale materials under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is considering development of
a stewardship program for such nanoscale materials. This program is
being explored to encourage responsible commercial development of
nanoscale materials. The stewardship program will also enable EPA,
affected industry, and other stakeholders to build the capacity to
assess potential risks to human health and the environment from
nanoscale materials and to identify risk management practices available
to reduce such potential risks. EPA is requesting comments at the
public meeting on: Risk management practices currently used or
potentially available for use for nanoscale materials, the rationale
for the use of these practices and the effectiveness or efficiency of
these practices, and issues to consider for including risk management
practices for nanoscale materials in the stewardship program. These
comments will inform EPA on risk management practices to include in the
stewardship program.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 19, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., and on October 20, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Comments must be received on or before 8 a.m., October 19, 2006.
    Requests to present oral comments must be submitted to the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT before
October 16, 2006. Time for oral comments may be limited, depending on
the number of requests received.
    Requests to attend the meeting may be submitted electronically
through the Eastern Research Group (ERG) registration website at
https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/nano by October 16, 2006.

Advance requests will assist in planning adequate seating; however,
members of the public may attend without prior registration. Requests
for special accommodations may also be submitted through the ERG
registration website by October 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal. http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2004-0122. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC). The EPA/DC suffered structural
damage due to flooding in June 2006. Although the EPA/DC is continuing
operations, there will be temporary changes to the EPA/DC during the
clean-up. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room, which was temporarily closed
due to flooding, has been relocated in the EPA Headquarters Library,
Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334) in EPA West, located at 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. EPA visitors are required to show photographic
identification and sign the EPA visitor log. Visitors to the EPA/DC
Public Reading Room will be provided with an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times while in the EPA Building and returned to the
guard upon departure. In addition, security personnel will escort
visitors to and from the new EPA/DC Public Reading Room location. Up-
to-date information about the EPA/DC is on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     For technical information contact: Scott Prothero, Economics,
Exposure and Technology Division (7406M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8514; e-mail 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
particular interest to those persons who manufacture, import, process,
or use nanoscale materials that are chemical substances subject to the
jurisdiction of TSCA. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Chemical manufacturers (NAICS code 325), e.g., persons
manufacturing, importing, processing, or using chemicals for commercial
purposes.
     Petroleum and coal product industries (NAICS code 324),
e.g., persons manufacturing, importing, processing, or using chemicals
for commercial purposes.
    Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may have an
interest in this matter. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    Nanoscale materials are chemical substances containing structures
in the length scale of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers, and may have
different molecular organizations and properties than the same chemical
substances in a larger size.
    EPA is considering a stewardship program pertaining to these
nanoscale materials. (See the Federal Register of May 10, 2005 (70 FR
24574-24576) (FRL-7700-7.) Information derived from the stewardship
program would allow EPA and the affected industry to better understand
the issues with respect to potential risks and for EPA to gain
experience in the evaluation of such types of chemical substances.
    EPA has received input from the National Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC) regarding the intended outcomes of a
voluntary program in the form of an Overview Document (Ref.1). The

Overview Document indicates that the program should:
    1. Give EPA and the public a better understanding of the types of
nanoscale materials produced in the United States. Characteristics of
these materials that should be identified include: Physical, chemical,
hazard and exposure characteristics; production volume; and the uses of
the materials.
    2. Help EPA develop a capacity and process for identifying and
assessing risks of engineered nanoscale materials.
    3. Help EPA determine what information it needs about engineered
nanoscale materials and articulate those information needs to industry
and other stakeholder groups.
    4. Help EPA understand what risk management practices are being
employed during production, processing, use and disposal stages, and
what additional risk management practices should be considered for
implementation.
    5. Prompt or reinforce the implementation of risk management
practices.
    6. Provide the information and experience needed to develop an
overall approach to the treatment of nanoscale chemical substances
under TSCA that builds public trust in nanoscale materials while
enabling innovation and responsible development. The Overview Document
indicated that participants in the program should implement basic risk
management practices or other environmental or occupational health
protection controls (e.g., worker training, hazard communication
(including Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)), use of available
engineering controls, provision of personal protective equipment,
product labeling, customer training, waste management practices, etc.).
The Overview Document also suggested that, in developing the program,
EPA should hold one or more public peer consultation meetings. Among
other issues, the meeting(s) would address risk management practices to
be included in a basic program and in an in-depth program, each offered
under the overall program (Ref. 1).
    EPA is holding this public meeting to assist in elaborating
possible risk management practices for the stewardship program. The
public meeting will involve panel discussions of EPA's discussion paper
on possible risk management practices for the basic program, with time
allotted for public comment. EPA will place in the public docket and
the ERG registration website the discussion paper on possible risk
management practices for nanoscale materials as well as an agenda for
the meeting.

III. Issues for EPA and Stakeholders

    EPA is requesting comments on the following risk management
practices for nanoscale materials:
    1. Worker training, including work practices.
    2. Hazard communication.
    3. Engineering controls.
    4. Personal protective equipment.
    5. Product labeling.
    6. Customer training.
    7. Waste management and environmental release management.
    Comments in these specific areas will be particularly helpful:
     Risk management practices currently used for nanoscale
materials.
     Risk management practices that could potentially be used
for nanoscale materials.
     Rationale for the use of these practices and the
effectiveness or efficiency of these practices.
     Issues to consider for determining risk management
practices for nanoscale materials to include in the basic program.
     Comments on EPA's proposed risk management practices for
nanoscale materials in the basic program.
    EPA is also requesting comments on:
    1. Other risk management practices for nanoscale materials that
should be considered.
    2. Consideration for possible additional risk management practices
for nanoscale materials in the in-depth program.

 IV. References

    The following references have been placed in the public docket that
was established under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0122 for this
action as indicated under ADDRESSES.
    1. NPPTAC. November 22, 2005. Overview of Issues for Consideration
by NPPTAC.
    2. Discussion paper for public meeting on risk management practices
for nanoscale materials.
    3. Agenda for public meeting on risk management practices for
nanoscale materials.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Nanoscale materials.

    Dated: September 22, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
 Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. E6-16385 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9495-9498]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0827; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-029-AD;
Amendment 39-16552; AD 2010-17-18 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-802 and AT-
802A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA).

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

SUMMARY: This document incorporates the FRFA for Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2010-17-18, which applied to these products: Air
Tractor, Inc. (Air

Tractor) Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes. We have since revised AD
2010-17-18, which requires you to repetitively inspect (using the eddy
current method) the two outboard fastener holes in both of the wing
main spar lower caps at the center splice joint for cracks and repair
or replace any cracked spar, and changes the safe life for certain
serial number (SN) ranges. Our initial analysis indicated that a FRFA
was necessary for AD 2010-17-18. We issued AD 2010-17-18 without the
FRFA to immediately address the unsafe condition. This action presents
the FRFA for AD 2010-17-18, which is required to be published in the
Federal Register.

DATES: This FRFA is effective February 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio,
Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On August 11, 2010, we issued AD 2010-17-18, amendment 39-16412 (75
FR 52255, August 25, 2010), for all Air Tractor Models AT-802 and AT-
802A airplanes. That AD required you to repetitively inspect (using the
eddy current method) the two outboard fastener holes in both of the
wing main spar lower caps at the center splice joint for cracks and
repair or replace any cracked spar, and changes the safe life for
certain SN ranges. That AD resulted from the FAA's evaluation of
service information issued by Air Tractor and our determination that we
needed to add inspections, add modifications, and change the safe life
for certain SN ranges. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracks
in the wing main spar lower cap at the center splice joint, which could
result in failure of the spar cap and lead to wing separation and loss
of control of the airplane.

Reason for This Action

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.
    To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In accordance with Section 608 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency head may waive or delay
completion of some or all of the requirements of Section 603 by
providing a written finding that this final rule is being promulgated
in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance
with the provisions of Section 603 impracticable.
    Our initial analysis indicated that a FRFA was necessary for this
action. We issued AD 2010-17-18 without the FRFA to immediately address
the unsafe condition.
    On December 16, 2010, we issued AD 2010-17-18 R1, amendment 39-
16552 (75 FR 82219, December 30, 2010), for certain Air Tractor Models
AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes. This AD retains the actions of AD 2010-
17-18 and reduces the applicability from all SN beginning with SN-0001
as required by the previous AD to SN-0001 through SN-0269. This AD was
prompted by our evaluation of a comment from David Ligon, Air Tractor,
and our determination that we should reduce the applicability from that
already required by the previous AD.
    This action presents the FRFA, which is required to be published in
the Federal Register.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    On August 25, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
issued Airworthiness Directive (AD 2010-17-18) for Air Tractor Models
AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes. The FAA determined that the final rule
was being issued in response to an emergency and that timely compliance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) was
impracticable. This analysis fulfills the RFA requirements.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    This final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In accordance with the requirements in the
RFA, we have performed this FRFA and address the following
requirements:
    (1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule.
    (2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments.
    (3) A description and an estimate of the number of small entities.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements.
    (5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant adverse economic impact on small entities.
    (6) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final
rule.
    Next, we address each of those individual requirements.
    (1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule.
    This AD will improve the ability of operators flying Models Air
Tractor 802 and 802A airplanes to discover and to correct cracks in the
wing main spar lower cap at the center splice joint, which could result
in the failure of the spar cap and lead to the wing separating from the
airplane body.
    The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United
States and for the safety of U.S.-registered aircraft and U.S.
operations. The FAA is also responsible for issuing rules affecting the
safety of air commerce and national security. The FAA's authority to
issue the rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United
States Code. Subtitle I, section 106(g) describes the authority of the
FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1)
provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest,
among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and
security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Further, the FAA
has broad authority under section 44701(a)(5) to prescribe regulations

governing the practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. The
FAA finds this action necessary to prevent a potential hazard to Air
Tractor Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes engaged primarily in
agricultural and firefighting operations.
    (2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments.
    The FAA received one comment on this final rule. Air Tractor
commented that there should be no additional inspections required for
their AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes with serial numbers greater than
0269. We concurred and on December 30, 2010, issued AD 2010-17-18 R1 to
reduce the applicability of AD 2010-17-18 only to Models AT-802 and AT-
802A serial numbers 0001 through 0269.
    (3) A description and an estimate of the number of small entities.
    There are 52 of these affected Air Tractor airplanes operating in
the United States. Of these 52 airplanes, 46 are operated by the
private sector and 6 are operated by the United States State
Department. Of the 46 operated by the 34 entities in the private
sector, 25 operate only 1 airplane, 1 operates 2 airplanes, 5 operate 3
airplanes, and 1 operates 4 airplanes. The Small Business
Administration classifies operators with less than 1,500 employees as
small businesses. All of the private entities are small entities with
fewer than 1,500 employees.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements.
    This final rule changes the existing requirement that any
inspection finding a crack must be reported to the FAA by requiring the
operator to use a specific one-page reporting form that has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget for that report.
    The final rule requires operators of Air Tractor serial numbers AT-
802-0092 through 0101 and AT-802A-0092 through 0101:
     To perform, using the eddy current method, two inspections
at 1,700 time-in-service (TIS) hours, at 2,500 TIS hours, and at 3,300
TIS hours (at a cost of $650 an inspection) of the two outboard
fastener holes in both of the wing main spar lower caps at the center
splice joint for cracks and to repair or replace any cracked spar.
     To install at 4,100 TIS hours a center web plate and
splice blocks (at a cost of $25,500).
    Operators of Air Tractor serial numbers AT-802-0102 through 0178
and AT-802A-0102 through 0178 to perform using the eddy current method,
two inspections at 5,500 TIS hours and at 6,600 TIS hours (at a cost of
$650 an inspection) of the two outboard fastener holes in both of the
wing main spar lower caps at the center splice joint for cracks and to
repair or replace any cracked spar.
    We determined that an average AT-802 or AT-802A lasts 40 years
before it leaves service in the United States. We also determined that
it flies an average of 450 hours a year. Thus, an AT-802 or AT-802A
accumulates an average of 18,000 TIS hours before it leaves service in
the United States. All of the affected airplanes (AT-802 0092-0178 and
AT-802A 0092-0178) were built between 2000 and 2004.
    The baseline from which the FAA calculated the incremental costs to
comply with Air Tractor AD 2010-17-18 is compliance with the previous
Air Tractor AD (AD 2010-13-08) published in the Federal Register on
June 23, 2010. This earlier AD addressed Air Tractor Airplane Model AT-
802 serial numbers 0001 through 0091 and Model AT-802A serial numbers
0001 through 0091.
    This AD imposed no new requirements beyond those in AD 2010-13-08
on Air Tractor Models AT-802 serial numbers 0001 through 0091 and Model
AT-802A serial numbers 0001 through 0091.
    As previously noted, this AD also addressed Air Tractor Model AT-
802 serial numbers 0179 forward and Model AT-802A serial numbers 0179
forward. However, the December 30, 2010, AD removed these airplanes
from compliance with this AD.
    Thus, in comparison with AD 2010-13-08, this AD affects Model AT-
802 serial numbers 0092 through 0178 and Model AT-802A serial numbers
0092 through 0178 in service in the United States.
    For the purposes of this analysis, there are two different
categories within each of these two models. Category 1 consists of
Model AT-802 serial numbers 0092 through 0101 and Model AT-802A serial
numbers 0092 through 0101, which were manufactured in 2000. Category 2
consists of Model AT-802 serial numbers 0102 through 0178 and Model AT-
802A serial numbers 0102 through 0178 manufactured between 2000 through
2004. As seen in Table 1, there are only 6 category 1 airplanes and 40
category 2 airplanes.

  Table 1--Numbers of Affected AT-802 and AT-802A Airplanes in Private
            Operations by Category and by Year of Manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Category
               Manufacture year               ------------------  Total
                                                  1        2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.........................................        6        4       10
2001.........................................  .......       10       10
2002.........................................  .......        6        6
2003.........................................  .......       13       13
2004.........................................  .......        7        7
                                              --------------------------
    Total....................................        6       40       46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For category 1 airplanes, this AD requires that the operator must
perform three eddy current inspections (at 1,700 TIS hours, at 2,500
TIS hours, and at 3,300 TIS hours), each inspection costing $650.
However, as all of these airplanes were manufactured in 2000 and, given
an average of 450 annual TIS hours, they are already, on average, at
4,050 TIS hours. Nevertheless, the FAA assumes that these six airplanes
will need one inspection, which will be taken in 2011.
    The AD also reduced their spar cap maximum safe life from 8,163 TIS
hours to 4,100 TIS hours. However, the operator can extend the spar cap
maximum safe life from 4,100 hours to 8,000 hours by spending $25,500
to install a center web plate and splice blocks. The FAA assumes that
all of these installations will occur in 2012. Finally, although the
spar cap has to be replaced (at a cost of $81,175) by 8,000 TIS hours,
this is required under AD 2010-13-08.
    For category 2 airplanes, this AD reduced their spar cap maximum
safe life from 8,163 TIS hours to 5,500 TIS hours. However, if the
operator performs two eddy current inspections (at 5,500 TIS hours and
at 6,600 TIS hours), each inspection costing $650, the spar cap maximum
safe life can be extended to 8,000 TIS hours. Given an average of 450
annual TIS hours, these airplanes will have their first inspection (at
5,500 TIS hours) 12 years after they were manufactured and will have
their second inspection 3 years later (after having an average of 1,350
TIS hours during those 3 years). As these airplanes were manufactured
between late 2000 and 2004, the FAA assumes that the 2000 airplanes
will have their first inspection in 2012 and the second inspection in
2015; the 2001 airplanes will have their first inspection in 2013 and
the second inspection in 2016, etc.
    The FAA uses a 10-year period of analysis (2011-2020) because that
is when nearly all of the compliance

expenditures will be made. The FAA also uses a 7 percent discount rate
to calculate the present values of the costs.
    The AD does not require any additional inspections after the
replacement spar has been installed because the replacement spars are
higher quality than the original equipment.
    Thus, the AD will impose two types of compliance costs. The first
are the costs from the inspections. The second are the costs to the
category 1 Air Tractor operators that will need to install a center web
plate and splice blocks at 4,100 TIS hours.
    As seen in Table 2, the cost to comply with the AD requirements for
inspections during the ten-year period would be $55,900, which, using a
7 percent discount rate, has a present value of $39,260.

                           Table 2--Total and Present Value Compliance Costs To Comply With the Inspections Required by the AD
                                                                       [2011-2020]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Number of inspections by year
             Manufacture year             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                             2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 (Cat 1).............................         6         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0          6
2000 (Cat 2).............................         0         4         0         0         4         0         0         0         0         0          8
2001.....................................         0         0        10         0         0        10         0         0         0         0         20
2002.....................................         0         0         0         6         0         0         6         0         0         0         12
2003.....................................         0         0         0         0        13         0         0        13         0         0         26
2004.....................................         0         0         0         0         0         7         0         0         7         0         14
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................         6         4        10         6        17        17         6        13         7         0         86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Cost...........................    $3,900    $2,600    $6,500    $3,900   $11,050   $11,050    $3,900    $8,450    $4,550        $0    $55,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Present Value........................    $3,645    $2,271    $5,306    $2,975    $7,878    $7,363    $2,429    $4,918    $2,475        $0    $39,260
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the 6 category 1 Air Tractor airplane operators will need
to spend $25,500 to install the center web plate and splice blocks in
2012, which has a present value of $22,273 using a 7 percent discount
rate. The total cost to install this equipment on these 6 airplanes is
$153,000, which has a present value of $133,638 using a 7 percent
discount rate.
    Thus, the total cost would be $208,900, which has a present value
of $172,898 using a 7 percent discount rate.
    However, these costs are unequally distributed across the 34
operators. The six category 1 Air Tractor airplane operators will need
to spend $26,150 an airplane while the category 2 Air Tractor airplane
operators will need to spend between $650 and $1,300 an airplane.
    (5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact of the final rule on small entities.
    The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S.-registered aircraft
and U.S. operators. The FAA has not identified any significant
alternatives to this final rule that accomplish the stated objectives
of applicable statutes, and which minimize any significant economic
impact of the final rule SFAR on small entities.
    (6) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final
rule.
    The FAA knows of no other Federal rules which duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the final rule.

Determination of Significant Impact

    As discussed in the compliance cost section, all of these operators
are small businesses. Further, nearly all of them are privately held
businesses that do not file reports that the FAA can access to
determine annual revenues. However, the FAA can determine that the
average value of an Air Tractor Model AT-800A serial number 0091-0101
is about $650,000. This rule requires the 6 operators of these
airplanes to spend about 4 percent ($25,500) of the value of the
airplane on a repair. The FAA believes that this magnitude of an
expenditure could place these six operators in some financial
difficulty.
    Therefore, this final rule will have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 11, 2011.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-3653 Filed 2-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15875-15877]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0345; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-017-AD;
Amendment 39-15443; AD 2008-07-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MORAVAN a.s. Model Z-143L Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Z 43 series
aeroplanes has revealed that certain aeroplanes, during aerobatic

manoeuvres, exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the
certification.
    As a consequence, to restore the safety margins on aeroplanes
operated in Utility (``U'') category, this AD mandates a
modification of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) so as to change and
limit the permissible manoeuvres in ``U'' category flights.

    This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 31, 2008.
    On March 31, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No: 2008-0046, dated February 28, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Z 43 series
aeroplanes has revealed that certain aeroplanes, during aerobatic
manoeuvres, exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the
certification.
    As a consequence, to restore the safety margins on aeroplanes
operated in Utility (``U'') category, this AD mandates a
modification of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) so as to change and
limit the permissible manoeuvres in ``U'' category flights.

    This AD requires you to modify the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating AFM, revision 11, dated
November 24, 2006.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD.

Relevant Service Information

    Moravan Aviation s.r.o. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin
Z143L/29a, dated February 15, 2007, which incorporates the AFM revision
11, dated November 24, 2006, which limits certain maneuvers in the
Utility Category. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might have also required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements take
precedence over those copied from the MCAI.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule, because
there is a risk of structural damage in the wing area if the currently
allowed maneuvers in the Utility Category are continued. It is
imperative that the required limitations take effect immediately so the
operator is aware of these changes and does not exceed the new limits
needed in order to maintain the integrity of the structure. Therefore,
we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before
issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0345; Directorate
Identifier 2008-CE-017-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations

for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that
is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory 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

0
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 AD:

2008-07-02 MORAVAN a.s.: Amendment 39-15443; Docket No. FAA-2008-
0345; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-017-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
31, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model Z-143L airplanes, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time
Limits.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Installation of G-load monitoring units on some Z 43 series
aeroplanes has revealed that certain aeroplanes, during aerobatic
manoeuvres, exceeded the limit loads initially defined for the
certification.
    As a consequence, to restore the safety margins on aeroplanes
operated in Utility (``U'') category, this AD mandates a
modification of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) so as to change and
limit the permissible manoeuvres in ``U'' category flights.

    This AD requires you to modify the Limitations section of the
airplane flight manual (AFM) by incorporating AFM, revision 11,
dated November 24, 2006.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 10 days after March 31, 2008
(the effective date of this AD) modify the Limitations section of
the AFM following Moravan Aviation s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin
Z143L/29a, dated February 15, 2007, by incorporating AFM, revision
11, dated November 24, 2006. The owner/operator holding at least a
private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do this action. Make
an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance with this
portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2008-0046, dated February 28, 2008; and Moravan Aviation s.r.o.
Mandatory Service Bulletin Z143L/29a, dated February 15, 2007, for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Moravan Aviation s.r.o. Mandatory Service
Bulletin Z143L/29a, dated February 15, 2007, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Moravan Aviation s.r.o., ZLIN Service, 765 81 Otrokovice, Czech
Republic.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on March 17, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6037 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6424]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket FAA No. FAA-2007-28649; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wheatland, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register January 8, 2008 (73 FR 1271), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28649. In that rule, an error was made in the
legal description for Wheatland, WY. Specifically, the latitude
referencing Wheatland, Phifer Airfield, WY stated ``* * * lat.
43[deg]03[min]20[sec] N.'' instead of ``* * * lat.
42[deg]03[min]20[sec] N.'' This action corrects that error.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 8, 2008, a final rule for Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28649 was published in the Federal Register (73
FR 1271), establishing Class E airspace in Wheatland, WY. The latitude
referencing Wheatland, Phifer Airfield, WY was incorrect in that the
latitude stated ``* * * lat. 43[deg]03[min]20[sec] N.'' instead of ``*
* * lat. 42[deg]03[min]20[sec] N.'' This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description as published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2008 (73
FR 1271), Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-10, FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28649,
and incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
On page 1271, correct the legal description for Wheatland, WY, to read
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Wheatland, WY [New]

Wheatland, Phifer Airfield, WY
    (Lat. 42[deg]03[min]20[sec] N., long. 104[deg]55[min]43[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9-mile radius of Phifer Airfield, WY and within 4 miles
north and 4 miles south of the Phifer Airfield, WY 080[deg] radial
extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.90 miles east of the Phifer
Airfield, WY.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 14, 2008.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-1846 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 72038]
[DOCID:fr26no08-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

November 20, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP96-331-019.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. submits Eighth Revised
Sheet No. 12 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1 etc., to
be effective 12/1/08.
    Filed Date: 11/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081119-0366.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-83-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. submits Twenty-
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume
No. 2, to be effective 11/17/08.
    Filed Date: 11/17/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081118-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-86-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 4 to
its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective 12/22/08.
    Filed Date: 11/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081119-0370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: CP07-367-004.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits
abbreviated application for authorization to amend its certificate.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081118-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28022 Filed 11-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79081-79084]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79242; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-97]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New Rules To
Reflect the Implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading
Technology

November 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 25, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') 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 adopt new rules to reflect the
implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's new trading technology. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of
Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to
use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options
markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'') and New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\4\ NYSE
Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities), which operates the equities
trading platform for NYSE Arca, was the first trading system to migrate
to Pillar.\5\ In connection with the NYSE Arca implementation of
Pillar, NYSE Arca filed four rule proposals relating to Pillar.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Trader Update dated January 29, 2015, available here:
http://www1.nyse.com/pdfs/Pillar_Trader_Update_Jan_2015.pdf.
    \5\ NYSE Arca Equities is a wholly-owned corporation of NYSE
Arca and operates as a facility of NYSE Arca.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74951 (May 13,
2015), 80 FR 28721 (May 19, 2015) (Notice) and 75494 (July 20,
2015), 80 FR 44170 (July 24, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-38) (Approval
Order of NYSE Arca Pillar I Filing, adopting rules for Trading
Sessions, Order Ranking and Display, and Order Execution);
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 75497 (July 21, 2015), 80 FR
45022 (July 28, 2015) (Notice) and 76267 (October 26, 2015), 80 FR
66951 (October 30, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-56) (Approval Order of
NYSE Arca Pillar II Filing, adopting rules for Orders and Modifiers
and the Retail Liquidity Program); Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 75467 (July 16, 2015), 80 FR 43515 (July 22, 2015) (Notice) and
76198 (October 20, 2015), 80 FR 65274 (October 26, 2015) (SR-
NYSEArca-2015-58) (Approval Order of NYSE Arca Pillar III Filing,
adopting rules for Trading Halts, Short Sales, Limit Up-Limit Down,
and Odd Lots and Mixed Lots); and Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 76085 (October 6, 2015), 80 FR 61513 (October 13, 2015)
(Notice) and 76869 (January 11, 2016), 81 FR 2276 (January 15, 2016)
(Approval Order of NYSE Arca Pillar IV Filing, adopting rules for
Auctions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To streamline and simplify trading across the Exchange, NYSE Arca,
and NYSE, the Exchange proposes to adopt the rule numbering framework
of the NYSE Arca Equities rules for Exchange trading on the Pillar
trading platform. The Exchange believes that if it and its affiliates
are operating on the same trading platform, using the same rule
numbering scheme across all markets will make it easier for members,
the public, and the Commission to navigate the rules of each market.
The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt a framework of rule numbering
that is based on the current NYSE Arca Equities rules. The Exchange
proposes to place this framework of rules following current Rule 0--
Equities. As proposed, this framework would use the current rule
numbering scheme of NYSE Arca Equities, and would consist of proposed
Rules 1E-13E. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a new heading
following Rule 0 that would provide ``Pillar Platform Rules (Rules 1E-
Rule 13E).''
    To explain that the proposed rules would only be applicable to
trading in a security once that security is trading on the Pillar
platform, the Exchange proposes to state that Rules 1E-13E would be
operative for securities that are trading on the Pillar equities
trading platform. The Exchange would further provide that the Exchange
would announce by Trader Update when securities are trading on the
Pillar trading platform. Because there will be a period when specified
securities that trade on the Exchange would continue to trade on the
current trading platform, while other securities would be trading on
the Pillar platform, the Exchange would not delete current Exchange
rules when it adopts Pillar rules that cover the same topic as a
current Exchange rule. Unless specified in this list of rules, current
Exchange rules would continue to be applicable to trading in a security
on the Pillar platform.
    The Exchange proposes to denote the Pillar rules with the letter
``E'' to distinguish such rules from current Exchange rules with the
same numbering. Except as described below, at this time, the Exchange
would be adopting the framework for only these rule numbers and would
designate the proposed rules as ``Reserved.'' Through a series of
subsequent rule filings, the Exchange will propose to populate the
individual rules with the rule text to

operate the Exchange on the Pillar platform.
    In addition to adopting a framework of rule numbering, the Exchange
also proposes to adopt specified rules that would be operative to
trading on Pillar. The proposed rules would be based on NYSE Arca
Equities rules, but with non-substantive differences to use the term
``Exchange'' instead of the terms ``NYSE Arca Marketplace'' or
``Corporation,'' and to use the terms ``mean'' or ``have the meaning''
instead of the terms ``shall mean'' or ``shall have the meaning.'' The
Exchange has selected these rules because they are either definitional
or the same substantively across all markets today and would not change
when the Exchange migrates to Pillar.
    First, the Exchange proposes certain definitions in Rule 1.1E. The
terms defined in these proposed rules, unless the context requires
otherwise, would have the meaning specified.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(h) would define the term ``BBO'' as the
best bid or offer on the Exchange and the term ``BB'' to mean the best
bid on the Exchange and the term ``BO'' to mean the best offer on the
Exchange. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
1.1(h) and current Exchange Rule 7, which defines the term ``Exchange
BBO'' as the best bid or offer disseminated to the Consolidated
Quotation System (``CQS'') by the Exchange.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(l) would define the term ``Eligible
Security'' as any equity security (i) either listed on the Exchange or
traded on the Exchange pursuant to a grant of unlisted trading
privileges under Section 12(f) of the Exchange Act and (ii) specified
by the Exchange to be traded on the Exchange or other facility, as the
case may be. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 1.1(l). The term Eligible Security is not currently used in
Exchange rules.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(o) would define the term ``FINRA'' as
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. This proposed rule
text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(o). The term ``FINRA'' is
used in current Exchange rules, but is not defined separately.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(dd) would define the term ``NBBO'' as
the national best bid or offer, the term ``NBB'' as the national best
bid, the term ``NBO'' as the national best offer, the terms ``Best
Protected Bid'' or ``PBB'' as the highest Protected Bid, the terms
``Best Protected Offer'' or ``PBO'' as the lowest Protected Offer, and
the term ``Protected Best Bid and Offer'' (``PBBO'') as the Best
Protected Bid and Best Protected Offer. This proposed rule text is
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(dd). These terms are used in
current Exchange rules, but are not defined separately.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(ff) would define the term ``Away
Market'' as any exchange, alternative trading system (``ATS'') or other
broker-dealer (1) with which the Exchange maintains an electronic
linkage and (2) that provides instantaneous responses to orders routed
from the Exchange. As further proposed, the Exchange would designate
from time to time those ATSs or other broker-dealers that qualify as
Away Markets. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 1.1(ff). This term is not currently defined in Exchange rules
because, on the current trading platform, the Exchange only maintains
electronic linkage with those markets that display protected
quotations.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(ii) would define the term ``UTP
Security'' as a security that is listed on a national securities
exchange other than the Exchange and that trades on the Exchange
pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. This proposed rule text is
based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(ii). This term is not currently
defined in Exchange rules.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(jj) would define the term ``UTP Listing
Market'' as the primary listing market for a UTP Security. This
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(jj).
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(ddd) would define the term ``NMS
Stock'' as any security, other than an option, for which transaction
reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan. This proposed rule text is based
on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(ddd). This term is not currently defined
in Exchange rules.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(eee) would define the terms ``Protected
Bid'' or ``Protected Offer'' as a quotation in an NMS stock that is (i)
displayed by an Automated Trading Center; (ii) disseminated pursuant to
an effective national market system plan; and (iii) an Automated
Quotation that is the best bid or best offer of a national securities
exchange or the best bid or best offer of a national securities
association. The proposed rule would further define the term
``Protected Quotation'' as a quotation that is a Protected Bid or
Protected Offer and would provide that, for purposes of the foregoing
definitions, the terms ``Automated Trading Center,'' ``Automated
Quotation,'' ``Manual Quotation,'' ``Best Bid,'' and ``Best Offer,''
would have the meanings ascribed to them in Rule 600(b) of Regulation
NMS under the Securities Exchange Act. This proposed rule text is based
on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(eee). These terms are used in current
Exchange rules, but not separately defined.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(fff) would define the term ``trade-
through'' as the purchase or sale of an NMS stock during regular
trading hours, either as principal or agent, at a price that is lower
than a Protected Bid or higher than a Protected Offer. This proposed
rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(fff). This term is
not currently defined in Exchange rules.
     Proposed Rule 1.1E(hhh) would define the terms ``effective
national market system plan'' and ``regular trading hours'' as having
the meanings set forth in Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This proposed rule text is based on
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(hhh). These terms are not currently defined
in Exchange rules.
    The Exchange proposes the remaining rule numbers that correspond to
the sub-numbering of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1E on a ``reserved''
basis.
    Next, the Exchange proposes rules that would be grouped under
proposed Rule 7E--EQUITIES TRADING. With the exception of Rules 7.5E,
7.6E, and 7.12E the Exchange proposes Rules 7.1E-Rule 7.46E on a
``Reserved'' basis.
     Proposed Rule 7.5E would be entitled ``Trading Units'' and
would specify that the unit of trading in stocks is 1 share. The rule
would further provide that a ``round lot'' is 100 shares, unless
specified by the primary listing market to be fewer than 100 shares.
The rule would also provide that any amount less than a round lot would
constitute an ``odd lot'' and any amount greater than a round lot that
is not a multiple of a round lot would constitute a ``mixed lot.'' This
proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.5 without any
differences. The substance of this proposed rule is currently set forth
in Rules 55 and 56. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference
to use the term ``mixed lot'' instead of ``partial round lot'' or
``PRL.''
     Proposed Rule 7.6E would be entitled ``Trading
Differentials'' and would provide that the minimum price variation
(``MPV'') for quoting and entry of securities traded on the Exchange
would be $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less
than $1.00 for which the MPV for quoting and entry of orders would be
$0.0001. This proposed rule text is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.6 without any differences. The substance of this proposed rule is
currently set forth in Rule 62.

     Proposed Rule 7.12E would be entitled ``Trading Halts Due
to Extraordinary Market Volatility'' and would specify the Exchange's
procedures for halting trading in all stocks. The proposed text is
based on NYSE MKT Rule 80B--Equities without any differences.
    Because trading on Pillar would be under the above-described rules,
the Exchange proposes to specify that Rules 7--Equities, 55--Equities,
56--Equities, 62--Equities, and 80B--Equities would not be applicable
to trading on the Pillar trading platform.
* * * * *
    As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated
with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange will
announce by Trader Update when rules with an ``E'' modifier will become
operative and for which symbols. Accordingly, the Exchange is not
proposing to delete rules applicable to trading on the current platform
until all securities are trading on Pillar.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rules to support Pillar on the Exchange
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market because the proposed rule set would promote transparency in
Exchange rules by using consistent rule numbers with NYSE Arca
Equities, which was the first market to migrate to the Pillar trading
platform. The Exchange believes that using a common framework of rule
numbers for the markets that operate on the Pillar trading platform
will better allow members, regulators, and the public to navigate the
Exchange's rulebook and better understand how equity trading is
conducted on the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges. Adding new
rules with the modifier ``E'' to denote those rules that would be
operative for the Pillar trading platform would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by providing
transparency of which rules govern trading once a symbol has been
migrated to the Pillar platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that adopting specified definitions
in proposed Rule 1E and proposed Rules 7.5E, 7.6E, and 7.12E under
proposed Rule 7E would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and national market system because the
proposed rules are definitional and are based on approved rules of NYSE
Arca Equities without any substantive differences and would be
operative once the Exchange migrates to Pillar.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to adopt new rules
to support the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. As discussed in
detail above, with this rule filing, the Exchange is not proposing to
change its core functionality but rather to adopt a rule numbering
framework based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would promote consistent use of
terminology to support the Pillar trading platform on both the Exchange
and its affiliate NYSE Arca Equities, thus making the Exchange's rules
easier to navigate.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that it believes the proposed rule change will not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest or impose any
significant burden on competition because the proposed rule change is
not designed to make any substantive changes to how the Exchange
operates. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would promote transparency in Exchange rules by adopting a rule-
numbering framework based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities, which was
the first market to migrate to the Pillar trading platform, so that
when the Exchange migrates to the Pillar trading platform, its rules
will follow the same numbering scheme of NYSE Arca Equities. Because
the proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to how the
Exchange operates, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative
delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in

the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii)
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-NYSEMKT-2016-97 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-97. 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-NYSEMKT-2016-97 and should
be submitted on or before December 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27152 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7833]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02791]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9378-01-OA]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC);
Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Farm, Ranch, and Rural
Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) is in the public interest and is
necessary in connection with the performance of EPA's duties.
Accordingly, the FRRCC will be renewed for an additional two-year
period. The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on environmental issues and
policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
Inquiries may be directed to Venus Welch-White, Designated Federal
Officer or Emily Selia, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the
FRRCC, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, or [email protected].

     Dated: January 27, 2022.
Rodney Snyder,
Agriculture Advisor to the EPA Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02791 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P