[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72422-72423]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1486; Project Identifier AD-2022-01026-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model G-1159A, G-1159B and
all G-IV, and GIV-X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report that the ground spoiler actuator installation allows improper
hydraulic line connections that could result in unintended asymmetrical
spoiler deployment. This proposed AD would require incorporating
corrective actions that physically prevent improper connection of the
hydraulic lines to the ground spoiler actuator. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 9,
2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1486; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Belete, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1486; Project Identifier
AD-2022-01026-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Samuel Belete, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA,
Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<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.

Background

    The FAA has received a report that a Gulfstream Model G-IV airplane
was involved in a fatal accident on December 15, 2021 after spoilers
deployed in an asymmetrical manner. The asymmetrical spoiler deployment
resulted in in-flight loss of control of the airplane. The fatal flight
was the first flight after maintenance actions where the spoiler
hydraulic lines were improperly connected (reversed) to the ground
spoiler actuator. The ground spoiler actuator configuration allows
improper hydraulic line connections during maintenance action as a
result of identically threaded connections in close proximity to each
other. Improper connection of the ground spoiler hydraulic lines, if
not addressed, could result in unintended asymmetrical spoiler
deployment, leading to reduced controllability of the airplane, or loss
of control of the airplane in-flight or upon landing.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require incorporating corrective actions
(includes replacing a ground spoiler actuator hydraulic hose and
associated fittings) that physically prevent improper connection of the
hydraulic lines to the ground spoiler actuator.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 550 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporating corrective actions        16 work-hours x $85 per             $500          $1,860      $1,023,000
 (includes replacing the hydraulic       hour = $1,360.
 hose to the ground spoiler actuator
 and associated fittings).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2022-1486; Project
Identifier AD-2022-01026-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 9, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD,
certificated in any category.
    (1) Model G-1159A airplanes having S/Ns 385, 387, 388, and 390
through 498 inclusive.
    (2) Model G-1159B airplanes having S/Ns 009, 016, 042, 048, 054,
064, 086, 088, 095, 098, 102, 119, 123, 125, 131, 140, 151, 154,
155, 156, 165, 166, 189, 198, 199, 207, 219, 237, 245, 254, 255, and
257
    (3) Model G-IV airplanes, all serial numbers.
    (4) Model GIV-X airplanes, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a Gulfstream Model G-IV
airplane was involved in a fatal accident on December 15, 2021 after
spoilers deployed in an asymmetrical manner. The asymmetrical
spoiler deployment resulted in in-flight loss of control of the
airplane. The fatal flight was the first flight after maintenance
actions where the spoiler hydraulic lines were improperly connected
(reversed) to the ground spoiler actuator. The ground spoiler
actuator configuration allows an incorrect connection of the ground
spoiler hydraulic lines. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
incorrect connection of the hydraulic lines to the ground spoiler
actuator. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
unintended asymmetrical spoiler deployment leading to reduced
controllability of the airplane, or loss of control of the airplane
in-flight or upon landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of
this AD, incorporate corrective actions (includes replacing a ground
spoiler actuator hydraulic hose and associated fittings) that
physically prevent improper connection of the hydraulic lines to the
ground spoiler actuator, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA.
    (1) For Model G-1159A, G-1159B, and G-IV airplanes: Within 18
months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For Model GIV-X airplanes: Within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD.

 (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Atlanta ACO 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 responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Belete,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO
Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-
474-5580; email: [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on November 16, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25693 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48286-48289]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0671; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-124-AD;
Amendment 39-17547; AD 2013-16-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes. This AD requires an inspection to determine
airplane configuration and part numbers of the landing gear control
interface unit and main landing gear (MLG) door actuators; and, for
affected airplanes, repetitive inspections of the opening sequence of
the MLG door actuator, and replacement of the MLG door actuator if
necessary. This AD also provides optional terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by a report of a MLG
failing to extend during landing, and a determination that a certain
configuration of landing gear control interface unit and actuators may
result in masking of centralized fault display system messages that are
necessary to mitigate risks associated with failure of MLG extension or
down-locking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such a
configuration, which could prevent the full extension or down-locking
of the MLG, possibly resulting in MLG collapse during landing and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 23, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by September 23, 2013.

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, 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 Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 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 EASA
Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0132-E, dated June 25, 2013
(referred to after this as the ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Some operators reported slow operation of the main landing gear
(MLG) door opening/closing sequence, leading to the generation of
Centralized Fault Display System (CFDS) messages/ECAM [electronic
centralized aircraft monitor] warnings during the landing gear
retraction or extension sequence. Investigations showed that the
damping ring and associated retaining ring of the MLG door actuator
deteriorate. The resultant debris increases the friction inside the
actuator which can be sufficiently high to restrict opening of the
MLG door by gravity, during operation of the landing gear alternate
(free-fall) extension system.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the
full extension and/or down-locking of the MLG, possibly resulting in
MLG collapse during landing and consequent damage to the aeroplane
and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued [EASA]
AD 2011-0069 (currently at R1) [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0069_R1.pdf/AD_2011-0069R1_1] [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June 27, 2011)] to
require an amendment of the applicable Airplane Flight Manual (AFM),
repetitive checks of specific CFDS messages, and repetitive
inspections of the opening sequence of the MLG door actuator and,
depending on findings, corrective action.
    Since that AD [EASA AD 2011-0069R1] was issued, following a
recent occurrence with a gear extension problem, additional analyses
by Airbus have revealed that the CFDS expected specific messages may
be not generated and as a result, repetitive checks of messages are
not effective for aeroplanes fitted with landing gear control
interface unit (LGCIU) interlink communication ARINC 429 (applied in
production through Airbus Modification (mod.) 39303, or in service
through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1409), in combination
with certain LGCIUs and MLG door actuators installed.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] Emergency AD
requires identification of the affected aeroplanes to establish the
configuration and, for those aeroplanes, repetitive inspections of
the opening sequence of the MLG door actuator and, depending on
findings, replacement of the MLG door actuator.
    This [EASA] AD also provides optional terminating action by
disconnection of the interlink for certain LGCIUs, or in-service
modification of the aeroplane by installation of MLG actuator Part
Number (P/N) 114122014 through Airbus SB A320-32-1407 (Airbus
production mod. 153655).

    Doing an inspection of the door opening sequence of the left-hand
and right-hand doors of the MLG of an airplane, as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, is an acceptable alternative method to comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (j) and (l) of AD 2011-13-11,
Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June 27, 2011), for that airplane.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32N001-13,
dated June 24, 2013; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1407, dated
May 14, 2013. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

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. Since the
issuance of FAA AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June
27, 2011), we have received a report of a MLG failing to extend during
landing. We have also been notified that a certain configuration of
LGCIU and actuators may result in masking of CFDS messages that are
necessary to mitigate risks associated with failure of MLG

extension or down-locking. This condition could possibly result in MLG
collapse during landing and consequent damage to the airplane and
injury to occupants. 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-2013-0671; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-124-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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Configuration and part number      1 work-hour x $85              $0  $85.................  $72,335.
 determination.                     per hour = $85.
MLG door repetitive inspection...  2 work-hours x $85             $0  $170 per inspection   $144,670 per
                                    per hour = $170 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared 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

    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:

2013-16-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-17547. Docket No. FAA-2013-0671;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-124-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 23,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR 37241,
June 27, 2011), by providing an alternative method to comply with
the requirements of paragraphs (j) and (l) of AD 2011-13-11.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and
(c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear (MLG)
failing to extend during landing, and a determination that a certain
configuration of landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU) and
actuators may result in masking of centralized fault display system
messages that are necessary to mitigate risks associated with
failure of MLG extension or down-locking. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct such a configuration, which could prevent the
full extension or down-locking of the MLG, possibly resulting in MLG
collapse during landing and consequent damage to the airplane and
injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Configuration and Part Number (P/N) Determination

    At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do an inspection to determine the
configuration (modification status) of the airplane and identify the
part number of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) LGCIU and MLG
door actuators. A review of the airplane delivery or maintenance
records is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph provided the airplane configuration and installed
components can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 800 total flight cycles since
first flight of the airplane.
    (2) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) MLG Door Opening Sequence Repetitive Inspections

    If, during the determination and identification required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, the configuration of the airplane is
determined to be Airbus post-modification 39303 or post-Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-32-1409 (Interlink Communication ARINC 429
installed), and both an LGCIU and a MLG door actuator are installed
with a part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:
Except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD, at the later of the
compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8 days or 5 flight
cycles, whichever occurs later, do an inspection of the door opening
sequence of the LH and RH MLG doors, in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32N001-
13, dated June 24, 2013.

                   Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Component name                          Part No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LGCIU (LH and RH)....................................    80-178-02-88012
LGCIU (LH and RH)....................................    80-178-03-88013
MLG door actuator....................................          114122006
MLG door actuator....................................          114122007
MLG door actuator....................................          114122009
MLG door actuator....................................          114122010
MLG door actuator....................................          114122011
MLG door actuator....................................          114122012
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) MLG Door Opening Sequence Corrective Action

    If a slow door operation or restricted extension is found during
any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further
flight, replace the affected MLG door actuator with a new or
serviceable actuator, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
AOT A32N001-13, dated June 24, 2013.

(j) Repetitive Inspection--Terminating Action

    Replacement of a MLG door actuator, as required by paragraph (i)
of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, unless
MLG door actuators having P/N 114122014 are installed on both LH and
RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1407, dated May 14, 2013.

(k) Repetitive Inspection Exception

    Airplanes on which the LGCIU interlink is disconnected (Airbus
modification 155522 applied in production, or modified in-service in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A32N001-13, dated
June 24, 2013), or on which MLG door actuators having P/N 114122014
are installed on both LH and RH sides (Airbus modification 153655
applied in production, or modified in-service in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1407,
dated May 14, 2013), are not required to do the actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that the airplane is not modified
to a configuration as defined in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Action for AD 2011-13-11, Amendment 39-16734 (76 FR
37241, June 27, 2011)

    Doing an inspection of the door opening sequence of the LH and
RH doors of the MLG of an airplane, as required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, is an acceptable alternative method to comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (j) and (l) of AD 2011-13-11, Amendment
39-16734 (76 FR 37241, June 27, 2011), for that airplane.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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.

(n) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections
21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane
can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the MLG
remains extended and locked, and that no MLG recycle is done.

(o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information European
Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0132-
E, dated June 25, 2013, for related information, which can be found
in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

(p) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A32N001-13, dated June
24, 2013.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1407, dated May 14, 2013.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-19023 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59083-59085]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0822]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Coast Guard Exercise, Hood Canal, Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
vessels involved in a Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise in Hood
Canal, WA that will take place between Oct 16, 2012 and Oct 18, 2012. A
safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public
during the exercise and will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel
from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) or his Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 4:00 a.m. Oct 16, 2012 until 11:59
p.m. on Oct 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0822. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger; Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    FR Federal Register
    NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, since the
event requiring the establishment of this safety zone would be over
before a comment period would end. The vessels involved in the Coast
Guard Ready for Operations exercise have an important and urgent need
to perform this training in order to be ready to protect U.S. persons,
assets, and waters; it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM before
the date of the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For reasons described above,
publication of an NPRM would be impracticable. The vessels involved in
this Coast Guard exercise have an important and urgent need to perform
this training in order to be ready to protect U.S. persons, assets, and
waters; and it is not possible to publish an NPRM before the date of
the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard will be conducting a Ready for Operations (RFO)
exercise in the northern part of Hood Canal, WA. During the exercise,
tactical vessels will be maneuvering through the Hood Canal from the
entrance of Dabob Bay to Foul Weather Bluff. This exercise will include
fast moving surface vessels, smoke machines, and pyrotechnics. Blank
ammunition, flares and LA51 warning munitions will be used during the
exercise. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the
maritime public and vessels participating in the exercise by preventing
collisions between exercising vessels and the maritime public, and by
keeping the maritime public a safe distance away from potentially
startling or disorienting smoke, bright flashes, and loud noises.

C. Discussion of the Rule

    The temporary safety zone established by this rule will prohibit
any person or vessel from entering or remaining

within 500 yards of any vessel involved in the Coast Guard Ready for
Operations exercise. Members of the maritime public will be able to
identify participating vessels as those flying the Coast Guard Ensign.
The COTP may also be assisted in the enforcement of the zone by other
federal, state, or local agencies.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases
this finding on the fact that the safety zone will be in place for a
limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit
through the zone from the COTP, Puget Sound or his Designated
Representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels
intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it
is in effect. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the safety zone will be in
place for a limited period of time and maritime traffic will still be
able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also
request permission to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget
Sound or his Designated Representative.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety
zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-228 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-228  Safety Zone; Coast Guard Exercise, Hood Canal,
Washington.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
encompassed within 500 yards of any vessel that is involved in the
Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise while such vessel is
transiting Hood Canal, WA between Foul Weather Bluff and the entrance
to Dabob Bay. Vessels involved will be various sizes and can be
identified as those flying the Coast Guard Ensign.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, Subpart C, no person may enter or remain in the safety
zone created in this rule unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
or his Designated Representative. See 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart C, for
additional information and requirements. Vessel operators wishing to
enter the zone during the enforcement period must request permission
for entry by contacting the on-scene patrol commander on VHF channel 13
or 16, or the Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center at
(206) 217-6001.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced on 4:00 a.m. Oct
16, 2012 until 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 18, 2012 unless canceled sooner by
the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-23653 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49360-49364]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18949]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92798; File No. SR-PEARL-2021-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Suspension of and
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee
Schedule To Increase the Monthly Fees for MIAX Express Network Full
Service Ports

August 27, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change (File Number SR-PEARL-2021-33) to amend the MIAX
Pearl Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to increase monthly fees
for the Exchange's MIAX Express Network Full Service MEO Ports.\3\ The
proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
15, 2021.\5\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the
proposed rule change. Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission is hereby: (i) Temporarily suspending File Number SR-PEARL-
2021-33; and (ii) instituting proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove File Number SR-PEARL-2021-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ ``MEO Interface'' or ``MEO'' means a binary order interface
for certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the MIAX Pearl
System. See Notice, infra note 5, at 37347 n.3.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92365 (July 9,
2021), 86 FR 37347 (``Notice'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    MIAX Pearl proposes to increase the monthly fees for Full Service
MEO Ports, which fee increases became effective July 1, 2021.\7\ The
Exchange states that Full Service MEO Ports are used for by options
Members to submit

quotes and orders and allow for a higher throughput rates than other
ports offered by the Exchange, such as FIX ports.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37347.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Full Service MEO Ports are of two types: Bulk and Single.\9\ An
options Member using Full Service MEO Ports may be allocated up to two
(2) Full Service MEO Ports for each Matching Engine to which it
connects (two Bulk, two Single, or one of each), and the monthly fee
for Full Service MEO Port use will be determined by volume, according
to tiered schedules.\10\ More specifically, the Exchange assesses
Members Full Service MEO Port fees based upon the monthly total volume
executed by a Member and its Affiliates \11\ on the Exchange across all
origin types, not including Excluded Contracts,\12\ as compared to the
Total Consolidated Volume (``TCV''),\13\ in all MIAX Pearl-listed
options, with separate schedules for Bulk and Single.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37348 n. 5-6. ``Full Service
MEO Port--Bulk'' means an MEO port that supports all MEO input
message types and binary bulk order entry ``Full Service MEO Port--
Single'' means an MEO port that supports all MEO input message types
and binary order entry on a single order-by-order basis, but not
bulk orders.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37348. The Exchange states
that it currently has twelve matching engines, which means that for
a single monthly fee, a Member may receive up to twenty-four Full
Service MEO Ports for that single fee. Id.
    \11\ ``Affiliate'' means (i) an affiliate of a Member of at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A, or (ii) the Appointed Market Maker of an
Appointed EEM (or, conversely, the Appointed EEM of an Appointed
Market Maker). See Notice, supra note 5, at 37348 n.11.
    \12\ ``Excluded Contracts'' means any contracts routed to an
away market for execution. See Notice, supra note 5, at 37348 n.12.
    \13\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
total national volume in those classes listed on MIAX Pearl for the
month for which the fees apply, excluding consolidated volume
executed during the period of time in which the Exchange experiences
an Exchange System Disruption (solely in the option classes of the
affected Matching Engine). See Notice, supra note 5, at 37348 n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase fees for all Full Service MEO
Port as follows:
    For Full Service MEO Ports--Bulk, if the Member's relevant monthly
volume falls within the parameters of:
     Tier 1 (up to 0.30% TCV): The monthly fee would increase
from $3,000 to $5,000;
     Tier 2 (above 0.30%, up to 0.60% TCV): The monthly fee
would increase from $4,500 to $7,500; and
     Tier 3 (above 0.60% TCV): The monthly fee would increase
from $5,000 to $10,000.
    For Full Service MEO Ports--Single, if the Member's relevant
monthly volume falls within the parameters of:
     Tier 1 (up to 0.30% TCV): The monthly fee would increase
from $2,000 to $2,500;
     Tier 2 (above 0.30%, up to 0.60% TCV): The monthly fee
would increase from $3,375 to $3,500; and
     Tier 3 (above 0.60% TCV): The monthly fee would increase
from $3,750 to $4,500.

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\14\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\15\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed fee increases, the Exchange argues
principally that the fees for Full Service MEO Ports are constrained by
competitive forces, and that this is supported by their revenue and
cost analysis. In particular, the Exchange states that there are 16
options markets that are ``highly competitive'' and that reliance on
competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure equitable and
reasonable prices.\16\ In further support of its argument that
competitive forces constrain its proposed Full Service MEO Port fee
increases, the Exchange states that there is no regulatory requirement
that any market participant connect to the Exchange or that any market
participant connect at any specific connection speed.\17\ The Exchange
further states no options market participant is required by rule,
regulation, or competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange, which
the Exchange believes is illustrated by the fact that it is unaware of
any one options exchange whose membership includes every registered
broker-dealer.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. at 37350. The Exchange adds that the Exchange had
combined market share of 5.31% in June 2021 and it is aware of no
evidence that this provides the Exchange with anti-competitive
pricing power.
    \17\ See id. at 37354.
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37454-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also states that the proposed fees are designed to
recover a portion of the costs associated with directly accessing the
Exchange and that the proposed increases are reasonable and appropriate
to allow the Exchange to offset expenses the Exchange has and will
incur in relation to providing the Full Service MEO Ports.\19\ The
Exchange provides an analysis of its revenues, costs, and profitability
associated with these fees, which it references as ``Proposed Access
Fees.'' The Exchange states that this analysis reflects an extensive
cost review in which the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the
Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such
expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did
so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually
supports the access services.\20\ The Exchange states that this
analysis shows fee increase will not result in excessive pricing or
supra-competitive profits when compared to the Exchange's annual
expense associated with providing the MEO Ports versus the annual
revenue for the MEO Ports.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37349.
    \20\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37350. The Exchange also
states that no expense amount is allocated twice and the expenses
only cover the MIAX Pearl options market. Id. at 37354. Expenses
associated with the MIAX Pearl equities market are accounted for
separately and are not within the scope of this filing. See id. at
37384.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that for 2021, the total annual expense for
providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees
for the Exchange is projected to be approximately $897,084.\22\ The
$897,084 in projected total annual expense is comprised of the
following, all of which the Exchange states are directly related to the
access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees: (1) Third-
party expense, relating to fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties
for certain products and services; and (2) internal expense, relating
to the internal costs of the Exchange to provide the services
associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange states that the
$897,084 in projected total annual expense is directly related to the
access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any
other product or service offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the total third-party expense, relating to
fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties for

certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to provide
the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is
projected to be $40,166 for 2021.\23\ The Exchange represents that it
determined whether third-party expenses related to the access services
associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so
relate, determined what portion (or percentage) of such expense
represents the cost to the Exchange to provide access services
associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This includes allocating a
portion of fees paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services
(approximately 1.80% of the Exchange's total applicable Equinix
expense); (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. for network services
(approximately 0.90%); (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure
and various other services providers (approximately 0.90%); and (4)
various other hardware and software providers (approximately 0.90%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37351-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange states that the total internal expense,
relating to the internal costs of the Exchange to provide the access
services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be
$856,918 for 2021.\24\ The Exchange represents that: (1) The Exchange's
employee compensation and benefits expense relating to providing the
access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected
to be $783,513, which is a portion of the Exchange's total projected
expense of $9,163,894 for employee compensation and benefits
(approximately 8.55%); (2) the Exchange's depreciation and amortization
expense relating to providing the access services associated with the
Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $64,456, which is a portion of
the Exchange's total projected expense of $2,864,716 for depreciation
and amortization (approximately 2.25%); \25\ and (3) the Exchange's
occupancy expense relating to providing the access services associated
with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $8,949, which is a
portion of the Exchange's total projected expense of $497,180 for
occupancy (approximately 1.80%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37352-53.
    \25\ The Exchange states that the total projected expense of
$2,864,716 for depreciation and amortization differs from the
projected expense of depreciation and amortization projected by the
Exchange in a different filing (SR-PEARL-2021-32) because the
Exchange factors in the depreciation of its own internally developed
software when assessing costs for Full Service MEO Ports, resulting
in a higher depreciation expense number in this filing. See Notice,
supra note 5, at 37353, n.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that this cost and revenue analysis shows that
the proposed rule change will not result in excessive pricing or supra-
competitive profit.\26\ The Exchange projects that, on a fully-
annualized basis, the Proposed Access Fees will have an expense of
$897,084 per annum and a projected revenue of $1,467,000 per year,
resulting in a projected profit margin of 39% ($1,467,000 in projected
revenue minus $897,084 in projected expense = $578,916 profit per
year). The Exchange states that this estimated profit margin for Full
Service MEO Port fees is well below the operating profit margins of
other competing exchanges based on financial statements filed by them
in 2019 Form 1 amendments.\27\ The Exchange also states that its
proposed increased Full Service MEO Port fees are in line with, or
cheaper than, the similar port fees or similar membership fees charged
by other options exchanges.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37353.
    \27\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37354. The Exchange states
that Nasdaq ISE, LLC's operating profit margin for 2019 was 83% and
Nasdaq PHLX LLC's operating profit margin for 2019 was 67%.
    \28\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37349. See also Notice, supra
note 5, at 37348 n.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further states that its proposed fees are reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange, and its affiliates Miami International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''), are still
recouping the initial expenditures from building out their systems
while ``legacy'' exchanges have already paid for and built their
systems.\29\ The Exchange also notes that its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX
Emerald, also charge fees for their high throughput, low latency MEI
Ports in a similar fashion as the Exchange charges for its MEO
Ports.\30\ Furthermore, the Exchange notes that it has historically
undercharged for Full Service MEO Ports as compared to other options
exchanges and the proposed monthly fee increases for Full Service MEO
Ports would bring the Exchange's fees more in line with that of other
options exchanges, while maintaining a competitive fee structure for
Full Service MEO Ports.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37354.
    \30\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii); MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii).
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the proposed fees are equitably allocated,
not unfairly discriminatory, and do not impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition because the Proposed Access Fees do
not favor certain categories of market participants,\32\ the allocation
of the Proposed Access Fees reflects the network resources consumed by
the various size of the market participants, with the lowest bandwidth
consuming members paying the least, and the highest bandwidth consuming
paying the most; \33\ and options market participants are not forced to
connect to (and purchase MEO Ports from) all options exchanges.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 37354.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 37355.
    \34\ For a more detailed description of the Exchange's
justifications for the proposed rule change, see Notice, supra note
5, at 37349-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\35\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \37\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \38\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase fees for
the Exchange's Full Service MEO Ports is consistent with the statutory
requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the
Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed
rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules
thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons

using its facilities; not permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\42\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \43\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\44\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national
market system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers;'' \46\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange makes various
arguments in support of the proposal. The Commission believes that
there are questions as to whether the Exchange has provided sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposal to increase Full Service
MEO Port fees is consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \48\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\49\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \49\ See id.
    \50\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, specifically, with its
requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; are designed to perfect the operation of a free and open
market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the
public interest; are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act; \51\ as well as any other
provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by September 23, 2021.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 7, 2021. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, including whether the
proposal 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 No. SR-PEARL-2021-33 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-PEARL-2021-33. This file
number should be included on the

subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
PEARL-2021-33 and should be submitted on or before September 23, 2021.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 7, 2021.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\53\ that File Number SR-PEARL-2021-33 be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \54\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\54\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18949 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 7, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-16972

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

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: AEROVIAS de MEXICO, S.A. de C.V.  (Aeromexico)		Date Filed:
May 16, 2006

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to
permit the applicant to conduct foreign air transportation of persons,
property, and mail between: 1) Houston, Texas on the one hand, and
Aguascalientes, Chihuahua, Cozumel, Guadalajara, Merida, Mazatlan, San
Jose del Cabo, Saltillo, Tampico, Torreon, Veracruz, and
Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, on the other hand; 2) New York/Newark, on the one
hand, and Cozumel and San Jose del Cabo on the other hand; and 3) points
in Mexico and points within the United States and Canada beyond
Aeromexico's authorized U.S. gateways.  The applicant proposes to
conduct these operations only pursuant to a code-share arrangement with
Continental Airlines, Inc.

The applicant also requests renewal of its special authorization under
14 CFR Part 216 to permit Aeromexico to provide blind-sector services
between Aeromexico's authorized U.S. gateways and points in Canada.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 2, 2005, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  William C. Evans,<PHONE_NUMBER>	DOT analyst:
Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                     Action date:  July 7, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  July 7, 2006, through July 7,
2007.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached), and to the otherwise-applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Aeromexico’s foreign air carrier permit (Order
91-5-25).

Special conditions/Remarks:  With regard to the applicant’s request to
renew its authorization to carry blind sector traffic, our action will
authorize the blind sector service proposed between Aeromexico’s
authorized U.S. gateways and beyond to points in Canada for the carriage
of Aeromexico’s authorized Mexico-U.S. traffic in combination with
Mexico-third country traffic (no local traffic rights between the United
States and Canada).

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

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) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) 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
                              ATTACHMENT

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, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  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 International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI 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.

												 05/2004

 The June 2, 2005 action also awarded Aeromexico authority to serve
Houston – Leon/Guanajuato, Manzanillo, Morelia, Puerto Vallarta, San
Luis Potosi, and Villahermosa.  Aeromexico’s present application did
not seek renewal of that authority.


[Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55162]
[DOCID:fr27oc09-27]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 220

[Release Nos. 33-9071A; 34-60798A; IC-28943A; File No. S7-25-09]
RIN 3235-AK45

Concept Release on Possible Rescission of Rule 436(g) Under the
Securities Act of 1933

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Concept release; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the file number in the preamble to a
concept release on possible rescission of rule 436(g) under the
Securities Act of 1933 published in the Federal Register of Thursday,
October 15, 2009 (74 FR 53114). The file number should read as set
forth above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this correction
should be directed to Linda Cullen, Office of the Secretary, at (202)
551-5402.

Correction

    In FR Doc. E9-24547 published on October 15, 2009, (74 FR 53114)
beginning on page 53114, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 53114, second column, in the ADDRESSES section, second
bullet under Electronic Comments, 3rd line, revise ``S7-21-09'' to read
``S7-25-09''; and
    2. On page 53114, in the second column, in the ADDRESSES section,
under Paper Comments, 7th line, revise ``S7-21-09'' to read ``S7-25-
09''.

    Dated: October 22, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25811 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Joint Application of

SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE

		and

COMAIR, INC.

for a statement of authorization

(United States-France Blanket Codeshare Authority)

	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket OST-2000-6939

NOTICE OF SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE AND COMAIR, INC. OF

ADDITIONAL CODESHARE POINTS

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Michael F. Goldman

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN

  & BIKOFF L.L.P.

1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120

Washington, D.C.  20007

(202) 944-3305

Counsel for

SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE

	D. Scott Yohe

Senior Vice President -

  Government Affairs

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

1275 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20005

(202) 216-0700

John Varley, Assistant General Counsel

James Coblin, Attorney

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Law Department #981

1030 Delta Boulevard

Atlanta, GA  30320

(404) 715-2872

Robert E. Cohn

Alexander Van der Bellen

Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037-1128

(202) 663-8060

Counsel for

COMAIR, INC.

September 6, 2001

	BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Joint Application of

SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE

		and

COMAIR, INC.

for a statement of authorization

(United States-France Blanket Codeshare Authority)

	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket OST-2000-6939

NOTICE OF SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE AND COMAIR, INC. OF

ADDITIONAL CODESHARE POINTS

Pursuant to the statement of authorization granted to Societé Air France

(“Air France”) and Comair, Inc. (“Comair) by Department Action dated March 3, 2000, Air France and Comair hereby notify the Department that Comair will display the “AF” designator code of Air France on flights operated by Comair between Cincinnati (CVG) and each of the following points:

Buffalo (BUF)

Greensboro (GSO)

South Bend (SBN)

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Michael F. Goldman

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN

  & BIKOFF L.L.P.

1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120

Washington, D.C.  20007

(202) 944-3305

Counsel for

SOCIETÉ AIR FRANCE

________________________________

Robert E. Cohn

Alexander Van der Bellen

Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037-1128

(202) 663-8060

Counsel for

COMAIR, INC.

Footnote continued from previous page

Footnote continued on next page