[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48520-48522]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19143]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70096; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Extending the Pilot Period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program
for an Additional 12 Months, To Expire on July 31, 2014

August 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 30, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's
Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Retail Liquidity Program'' or the
``Program''), which is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2013,
for an additional 12 months, to expire on July 31, 2014. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot period of the
Retail Liquidity Program,\3\ currently scheduled to expire on July 31,
2013, for an additional 12 months, until July 31, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (``RLP Approval Order'') (SR-
NYSE-2011-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In July 2012, the Commission approved the Retail Liquidity Program
on a pilot basis.\4\ The Program is designed to attract retail order
flow to the Exchange, and allows such order flow to receive potential
price improvement. The Program is currently limited to trades occurring
at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Under the Program,
Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') are able to provide potential
price improvement in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced
better than the Exchange's best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''),
called a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI''). When there is an RPI
in a particular security, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known
as the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating such interest exists.
Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail Order to the
Exchange, which would interact, to the extent possible, with available
contra-side RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Retail Liquidity Program was approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(m), the pilot period for the
Program is scheduled to end on July 31, 2013.
Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Program
    The Exchange established the Retail Liquidity Program in an attempt
to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing
price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the
Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange
members to submit RPIs to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition
has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price
discovery process and generating additional investor interest in
trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange
believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow
the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data
regarding the Program that

the Exchange has committed to provide.\5\ As such, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to extend the current operation of the
Program.\6\ Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule
107C(m) and extend the current pilot period of the Program until July
31, 2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id. at 40681.
    \6\ Concurrently with this filing, the Exchange has submitted a
request for an extension of the exemption under Regulation NMS Rule
612 previously granted by the Commission that permits it to accept
and rank the undisplayed RPIs. See Letter from Janet M. McGinness,
EVP & Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 30, 2013.
    \7\ The Exchange is also making a technical, non-substantive
amendment to Rule 107C(m) to fix a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\9\
in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that extending the pilot period for the Retail Liquidity
Program is consistent with these principles because the Program is
reasonably designed to attract retail order flow to the exchange
environment, while helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from
the better price that liquidity providers are willing to give their
orders. Additionally, as previously stated, the competition promoted by
the Program may facilitate the price discovery process and potentially
generate additional investor interest in trading securities. The
extension of the pilot period will allow the Commission and the
Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its potential effects
on public price discovery, and on the broader market structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
simply extends an established pilot program for an additional 12
months, thus allowing the Retail Liquidity Program to enhance
competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price
discovery process.

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

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

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

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

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make

publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2013-48 and should be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19143 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Notice of Filing:  PP#7E7218

Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden;<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP# 7E7218

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 7E7218) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of
methoxyfenozide in or on the raw agricultural commodites avocado,
black-sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, and star
apple at 0.6 parts per million (ppm); guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax
jambu, starfruit, passion fruit, and acerola at 0.4 parts per million
(ppm); green onion, fresh chive leaves, fresh Chinese chive leaves,
Elegans Hosta, Fritillaria leaves, kurrat, Lady’s leek, leek, wild
leek, Beltsville bunching onion, fresh onion, macrostem onion, tree
onion tops, Welsh onion tops, and fresh shallot leaves at 5.0 parts per
million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of methoxyfenozide
residues in plants and animals is adequately understood. Residues in
plants, meat and fat are defined in terms of parent compound only.
Residues in eggs, liver and meat by-products (mbyp) are defined in terms
of combined residues of parent and its glucuronide metabolite, expressed
as parent. More details have been previously published in the Federal
Register of July 5, 2000 (65 FR 41355) (FRL-6497-5).>

<	2. Analytical method. Adequate enforcement methods are available for
determination of methoxyfenozide residues in plant commodities, based on
the Rohm and Haas Company Technical Report No. 34-98-87, “Tolerance
Enforcement Method for Parent RH-2485 in Pome Fruit”.  The available
Analytical Enforcement Methodology was previously reviewed in the
Federal Register of September 20, 2002 (67 FR 59193).>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data for methoxyfenozide on
avocado; guava; and green onions have been submitted by IR-4. The
requested tolerances are adequately supported.   >

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity. The toxicological profile and endpoints for
methoxyfenozide which supports this petition to establish tolerances
were previously published in the Federal Register of August 31, 2005 (70
FRL-7732-3).

>

		1. Acute toxicity.  NA

		2. Genotoxicty.  NA

		3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  NA

		4. Subchronic toxicity. NA

		5. Chronic toxicity. NA

		6. Animal metabolism. NA

		7. Metabolite toxicology. NA

		8. Endocrine disruption.  NA

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U.S. population
subgroups to residues of methoxyfenozide.  These analyses cover all
registered crops, as well as, uses pending with the Agency, active and
proposed section 18 uses, and newly proposed IR-4 minor uses.  There are
no registered residential nonfood uses of methoxyfenozide.

 >

<	i. Food. a. Acute risk.  No appropriate toxicological endpoint
attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available
toxicology studies on methoxyfenozide including the acute neurotoxicity
study in rats, the developmental toxicity study in rats and the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits.  Since no acute toxicological
endpoints were established, the acute aggregate risk is expected to be
negligible.

b. Chronic assessments were conducted to evaluate potential risks due to
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and sensitive population
subgroups to residues of methoxyfenozide.  The tier-1 assessment used
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model™ (DEEM-FCID, ver. 2.14,
Exponent, Inc., Washington, DC-20036) software for conducting the
chronic dietary (food) risk analysis.  DEEM is a dietary exposure
analysis system that is used to estimate exposure to a pesticide
chemical in foods comprising the diets of the U.S. population, including
population subgroups.  DEEM contains food consumption data as reported
by respondents in the USDA Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII) conducted in 1994-1996 and 1998 and food translation
to RACs, as indicated by EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of August, 2002.

None of the currently proposed uses are involving crops commonly used as
feed for livestock. Therefore, an estimated animal dietary burden is not
needed.

The chronic tox-endpoint is the cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day, published in
the Federal Register of August 31, 2005 (70 FRL-7732-3). The published
FQPA SF = 1x for methoxyfenozide and therefore the cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day.
The tier-I exposure was found to occupy up to 19.5% of the chronic
population adjusted dose (PAD) for US-general population and 42.8% of
PAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup, children 1 to 2
years old.  These results should be viewed as conservative (health
protective) risk estimates.  Refinements such as use of percent
crop-treated information and/or anticipated residue values would yield
lower estimates of chronic dietary exposure.

	ii. Drinking water. There are no water-related exposure data from
monitoring to complete a quantitative drinking water exposure analysis
and risk assessment for methoxyfenozide.  Screening level exposure
levels to water were estimated from EPA’s water models. Index Drinking
Water Reservoir model (FIRST) was used to calculate estimated the
environmental concentrations (EECs) for surface water. The screening
concentration in ground water was estimated by using the model Screening
Concentrations in GROund Water (SCI-GROW), an empirical model based upon
actual monitoring data collected for a number of pesticides that serve
as benchmarks. These models take into account the use patterns and the
environmental profile of a pesticide, but do not include consideration
of the impact that processing raw water for distribution as drinking
water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source
water.  The primary use of these models at this stage is to provide a
coarse screen for assessing whether a pesticide likely to be present in
drinking water at concentrations which would exceed human health levels
of concern.>

<

	A drinking water level of comparison (DWLOC) is the concentration of a
pesticide in drinking water that would be acceptable as a theoretical
upper limit in light of total aggregate exposure to that pesticide from
food, water, and residential uses.  HED uses DWLOCs internally in the
risk assessment process as a surrogate measure of potential exposure
associated with pesticide exposure through drinking water.  In the
absence of monitoring data for a pesticide, the DWLOC is used as a point
of comparison against the conservative EECs provided by computer
modeling (SCI-GROW, FIRST, GENEEC, PRZM/EXAMS).  The DWLOCs for
assessing chronic aggregate dietary risk can be back-calculated by
subtracting from the cRfD the amount of the estimated dietary exposure.
The methoxyfenozide’s DWLOC calculated for different sub-population
groups ranged between 0.6 to 2.8 ppm and it is much higher than the
highest EEC’s estimated by conservative tier-1 water models.>

<a.  Acute exposure and risk.  Because no acute dietary endpoint was
established, Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty of no harm from acute exposure from drinking water.

b.  Chronic exposure and risk.   Tier I screening-level exposure
assessments was conducted using the simulation models SCI-GROW and FIRST
to generate EECs for ground and surface water, respectively.  The
modeling was conducted based on the environmental profile and the
maximum seasonal application rate proposed across current and proposed
labels The concentration used for chronic exposure from drinking-water
was estimated by the screening model FIRST as an annual average
concentration EEC = 15.8 parts per billion (ppb).

2. Non-dietary exposure. Methoxyfenozide is not currently registered for
use on any residential non-food sites.  Therefore, there is no
non-dietary acute, chronic, short- or intermediate-term exposure.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<		Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether
methoxyfenozide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances
or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, methoxyfenozide does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that
methoxyfenozide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. Population. Using the DEEM exposure assumptions described in
this unit, Dow AgroSciences has concluded that the aggregate exposure to
methoxyfenozide from the current and proposed new tolerances will
utilize 19.5% of the chronic PAD for the U.S. population.  If potable
water is aggregated to the dietary exposure, at the maximum residue
level estimated by EPA’s model FIRST (0.016 ppm), the aggregate
exposure to US-population is slightly increasing from to 19.8% PAD. EPA
generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the chronic PAD
because the chronic PAD represents the level at or below which daily
aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risks to human health.  Despite the potential for exposure to
methoxyfenozide in drinking water, the aggregate exposure is not
expected to exceed 100% of the chronic PAD.  Therefore, it can be
concluded with a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
US-general population from aggregate exposure to methoxyfenozide
residues.>

<	2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of methoxyfenozide, EPA
considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and
rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat.  The
developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects
on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide exposure
during gestation.  Reproduction studies provide information relating to
effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of
mating animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold
safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects
to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of
the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety
will be safe for infants and children.  Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
margin of exposure (MOE) analysis, or through using uncertainty (safety)
factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to
humans.  EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard
uncertainty factor (UF = 100 for combined interspecies and intraspecies
variability) and no additional safety factor is required for the
calculation of MOE for any population sub-group.

The toxicology data base available for methoxyfenozide included
acceptable developmental toxicity studies in both rats and rabbits as
well as a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats.  The data
provided no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in
utero and/or postnatal exposure to methoxyfenozide.  There is a complete
toxicity data base for methoxyfenozide and the exposure data are
complete or are estimated based on data/assumptions that reasonably
accounts for potential exposures.  Based on the completeness of the data
base and the lack of prenatal and postnatal toxicity, EPA determined
that an additional safety factor was not needed for the protection of
infants and children (FQPA SF = 1x).

Since no acute toxicological endpoints were established, the acute
aggregate risk is considered to be negligible.  Using the exposure
assumptions described in this report, Dow AgroSciences has concluded
that chronic dietary exposure to methoxyfenozide from the existing and
proposed new tolerances will utilize at the most 42.8% of the cPAD for
infants and children.  If exposure from drinking water is aggregated to
the dietary exposure, at the maximum residue level estimated by EPA’s
model FIRST (0.016 ppm), the aggregate exposure to children 1-6 is
slightly increasing to 43.3 % PAD. EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level
at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Short and intermediate term
risks are judged to be negligible due to the lack of significant
toxicological effects observed.  Based on these risk assessments, Dow
AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
methoxyfenozide residues.>

<F. International Tolerances>

œ

ž

µ

¶

h±

y diverse good agricultural practices used for efficacious pest control,
different guidelines for conducting field crop residue studies and
different calculation methods to propose tolerances.   Based on the
current situation, the U.S. tolerance levels cannot be re-considered in
order to harmonize with MRLs from other countries, and therefore the
incompatibility will persist.>


[Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59745]
[DOCID:fr13oc05-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-693-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 5, 2005.

    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-Third Revised Sheet No. 29,
to become effective November 1, 2005.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5632 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17989-17991]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0183]

Third-Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds; Request
for Comments

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting comments
on the use of third-party certification programs for foods and feeds,
including pet foods. An increasing number of firms that sell foods to
the public, such as retailers and food service providers, are
requesting that their suppliers become certified as meeting food (and
feed) safety and quality standards as a condition of doing business.
FDA seeks more information on the existence and use of these types of
programs to better understand how they can help to ensure that food
products are safe, secure, and meet FDA requirements.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments by May 19, 2008.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sharon Lindan Mayl, Office of Policy
(HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ensuring the safety of food for human and animal use is a shared
responsibility between the public and private sectors. FDA has the
authority to establish regulatory standards, inspect facilities, and
take action if there are violations, but it is ultimately the
responsibility of industry to ensure that food and feed intended for
consumption in the United States meet applicable FDA standards. An
increasing number of firms that sell foods and feeds (hereinafter
foods) to the public, such as retailers and food service providers, are
requesting that their suppliers, both foreign and domestic, become
certified as meeting food safety and quality standards as a condition
of doing business. In addition, domestic and foreign suppliers (such as
producers, co-manufacturers, or re-packers) are increasingly looking to
third parties to assist them in meeting U.S. requirements. FDA is
seeking comment on current practices of third-party certification
programs that work with food products and to ensure the supply chain is
safe, secure, and meet FDA requirements.

A. Current Use of Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for
Foods

    A growing number of food firms require their suppliers to ensure
their products are produced using ``best practices'' for food safety,
quality, and security and that the supply chain is safe and secure.
These firms often require their suppliers to meet nationally or
globally recognized food safety standards and to verify that these
standards are met through a third-party certification program. For
example, the Global Food Safety Initiative requires food suppliers to
have a factory audit certification against internationally recognized
standards, which include the Safe Quality Food, British Retail
Consortium, International Food Standard, and GlobalGAP. The Global
Aquaculture Alliance has also established standards for aquaculture
production and processing and created an accrediting body for
certifiers from 30 countries. These types of private sector developed
programs are being used in many foreign countries, as well as the
United States.

B. Interagency Working Group on Import Safety

    On July 18, 2007, the President issued Executive Order 13439 to
establish the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety (Working
Group). On November 6, 2007, the Working Group released an ``Action
Plan for Import Safety: A Roadmap for Continual Improvement'' (Action
Plan) (http://www.importsafety.gov/report/actionplan.pdf). The Action
Plan contains 14 broad recommendations and 50 specific short- and long-
term action steps to better protect consumers and enhance the safety of
the increasing volume of imports entering the United States. The Action
Plan stresses the importance of the private sector's responsibility for
the safety of its products and the importance of ongoing private-sector
mechanisms and experience as a basis for ongoing, substantive public-
private collaboration. The public and private sectors have a shared
interest in import safety, and substantive improvement will require the
careful collaboration of the entire importing community.

    Recommendation 2 of the Action Plan is to ``verify compliance of
foreign producers with United States safety and security standards
through certification.'' Third-party certification can augment the
Federal Government's and the importing community's ability to ensure
that products imported into the United States meet U.S. safety and
security standards. The Action Plan states ``[f]or foreign producers,
the ability to participate in voluntary certification programs could
allow products from firms that comply with U.S. safety and security
standards to enter the United States more quickly. This would
facilitate trade, while allowing federal departments and agencies to
focus their resources on products from non-certified firms or for which
information suggests there may be safety or security concerns. This
would allow federal departments and agencies to more effectively target
their resources. It may not be necessary to establish certification
programs for low-risk products.''
    Action Steps 2.2 and 2.4 of the Action Plan call for the
development of voluntary third-party certification programs based on
risk for foreign producers of certain products who export to the United
States and the creation of incentives for foreign firms to participate
in voluntary certification programs and for importers to purchase only
from certified firms.
    In conjunction with the Action Plan, on November 6, 2007, FDA
released its Food Protection Plan (FPP), a comprehensive initiative
designed to bolster efforts to better protect the Nation's food supply
(http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/food/plan.html).
    Although certification by an independent third party would not
replace an FDA inspection, and FDA would continue to inspect a firm
itself, as appropriate based on risk, third-party certification could
provide additional assurances of safety. In addition, third-party
certification could provide FDA with important information about the
ability of specific food suppliers to meet FDA requirements and to
better focus the use of our resources based on risk. FDA believes that
eligible third parties should include other Federal government, State
government, and foreign government agencies and officials.
    If FDA were to develop or recognize (or accredit) one or more
independent third-party certification programs, we would provide an
opportunity for both foreign and domestic firms to voluntarily
participate. However, FDA would need sufficient confidence in the
quality of the audits performed and the validity of the decisions to
certify by the third parties as well as the independence of the third
parties from the firms they certify before we would consider
recognizing a third-party certification program.
    One action FDA will take to implement the Action Plan and the FPP
is to accredit independent third parties, or to recognize entities that
accredit, to evaluate compliance with FDA requirements. This notice
represents FDA's first step in soliciting public input in the design
and development or recognition of third-party certification programs.

II. Request for Information

    FDA is seeking information on the use of third-party certification
programs. In addition to general information, we are posing several
specific questions related to these types of programs.
1. What domestic and foreign third-party certification programs for
suppliers are currently in use by U.S. companies?
    FDA is aware of several third-party certification programs that are
currently being used in the United States. We would like more
information regarding these and other certification programs, the
standards on which they are based, and who is currently using these
third-party programs. In addition, we would like information on the
standards and procedures used to ensure that the third parties used are
independent (i.e., without conflicts of interest), the standards used
to accredit third parties, who accredits these third parties, and how
and by whom these third parties are audited and evaluated for
performance. We would also like to know how national government bodies
interface with or recognize these certification programs.
2. Do the current third-party certification programs ensure compliance
with FDA requirements?
    Third-party certification programs for foods are used widely in
Europe. These types of certification programs are becoming more popular
in other parts of the world, including the United States. FDA solicits
comment on whether the requirements for certification used by these
programs encompass FDA requirements. If not, what modifications need to
be made for the U.S. marketplace? Should FDA recognize (or accredit)
any of these programs? Should FDA participate in future modifications
to any of these programs? If so, in what capacity?
3. What are the obstacles to private sector participation in these
third-party certification programs?
    Although the use of third-party certification programs is growing,
they are not used by the majority of U.S. food firms. FDA seeks
information about any barriers that may exist to using third-party
certification programs. Are retailers and suppliers aware of these
programs? Are these programs widely available? Are they cost effective?
Are there particular obstacles for small businesses?
4. What incentives would increase participation in these third-party
certification programs?
    FDA recognizes that there are business and legal incentives to
using third-party certification programs. We would like to know what
incentives could increase participation in these certification
programs. For example, would expedited treatment at U.S. ports of entry
significantly encourage foreign suppliers to participate or domestic
firms to make participation by foreign or domestic suppliers a
condition of doing business with them? Would making the names of
certified firms publicly available, such as through a publicly
accessible database, significantly encourage participation in these
programs by foreign or domestic suppliers? Would FDA considering
certification as one factor in determining inspection priorities
provide a significant incentive for foreign or domestic firms to
participate? Are there other incentives that would increase
participation for imported foods? For domestic foods?

III. How to Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except
that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be
identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic

comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.

    Dated: March 27, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-6705 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42487-42489]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18973]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0826; Product Identifier 2016-SW-084-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-22-
53 for Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model AS350B3 helicopters. AD 2015-
22-53 requires revising the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) to perform
the yaw load compensator check after rotor shut-down and to state that
the yaw servo hydraulic switch must be in the ``ON'' position before
taking off. Since we issued AD 2015-22-53, Airbus developed a
modification of the ACCU TST switch. This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2015-22-53 and require modifying the yaw servo
hydraulic switch (collective switch) and replacing the ACCU TST button.
The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0826; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, the economic 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 service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On November 13, 2015, we issued AD 2015-22-53, Amendment 39-18331
(80 FR 74982, December 1, 2015), which was sent previously as an
emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of Airbus
Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopters. AD 2015-22-53 requires revising
the pre-flight and post-flight procedures in the RFM to perform the yaw
load compensator check (ACCU TST switch) after rotor shut-down instead
of during preflight procedures and to state that the yaw servo
hydraulic switch (collective switch) must be in the ``ON'' (forward)
position before taking off. AD 2015-22-53 was prompted by two accidents
and one incident of Model AS350B3 helicopters with a dual hydraulic
system installed, and which also prompted EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to issue EASA AD No.
2015-0178, dated August 26, 2015. EASA advised these occurrences may
have resulted from improperly performing the T/R hydraulic preflight
check (a pilot forgetting to put the yaw servo hydraulic switch
(collective switch) in the ``ON'' position or put the ACCU TST switch
in the ``OFF'' position before flight)--and not from equipment failure.
According to EASA, these conditions significantly increase the control
load necessary to generate sufficient tail rotor thrust for take-off.

Actions Since AD 2015-22-53 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-22-53, Airbus Helicopters issued SB No.
AS350-67.00.65, Revision 0, dated August 25, 2016, which specifies
procedures to alter the ACCU TST switch. Subsequently, EASA issued AD
No. 2016-0220, dated November 4, 2016. EASA advises that further

analysis of the incidents resulted in the recognition that a pilot
could forget to activate a switch despite the RFM changes and that the
modifications developed by Airbus Helicopters are necessary.
Accordingly, EASA AD No. 2016-0220 requires installing a caution
indication to the pilot when the yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective
switch) is in the ``OFF'' position, installing an additional indicator
light on the caution and warning panel, and replacing the bistable push
button (push-on, push-off) ACCU TST switch with a monostable push
button (push-on, timer-off) switch.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.64, Revision 0,
dated February 25, 2015, which specifies procedures to install a timer
relay and an additional indicator light on the caution and warning
panel. This modification provides an ``OFF'' status indication of the
yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) by flashing a newly
installed ``HYD2'' indicator light on the caution and warning panel.
Airbus Helicopters identifies performance of this SB as modification
074622. This modification was available when AD 2015-22-53 was issued;
however, it was determined unnecessary to address the unsafe condition
at that time.
    We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.65, Revision
0, dated August 25, 2016, which specifies procedures to replace the
bistable push button ACCU TST switch with a monostable push button
switch. Airbus Helicopters identifies performance of this SB as
modification 074719.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus SB No. AS350-67.00.66, Revision 1, dated October
22, 2015, which specifies inserting specific pages of the SB into the
rotorcraft flight manual. These pages revise the preflight and post-
flight hydraulic checks by moving the tail rotor yaw load compensator
check from preflight to post-flight. These pages also revise
terminology within the flight manuals for the different engine
configurations.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the RFM revision that moves the yaw
load compensator check (ACCU TST switch) from preflight procedures to
post-flight procedures after rotor shut-down. This proposed AD would
also retain the RFM revision that requires the yaw servo hydraulic
switch (collective switch) to be in the ``ON'' (forward) position
before taking off.
    Additionally, this proposed AD would require, within 350 hours
time-in-service, installing a timer relay for the yaw servo hydraulic
switch (collective switch) and installing an additional light on the
caution and warning panel. This proposed AD would also require
replacing the bistable ACCU TST button with a monostable button.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 86 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per
work-hour.
    Revising an RFM would take about 0.5 work-hour for a cost of $43
per helicopter and $3,698 for the U.S. fleet. Installing a timer relay
for the yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) and an indicator
light would take about 9 work-hours and parts would cost about $2,224.
Replacing the ACCU TST button would take about 1 work-hour and parts
would cost about $2,244.
    Based on these figures, we estimate a total cost of $5,361 per
helicopter and $461,046 for the U.S. fleet.

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 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed 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.

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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2015-22-53, Amendment 39-18331 (80 FR 74982, December 1, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2017-0826; Product Identifier
2016-SW-084-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AS350B3 helicopters with a dual
hydraulic system installed, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD: The dual hydraulic system
for Model AS350B3 helicopters is referred to as Airbus modification
OP 3082 or OP 3346.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as lack of hydraulic
pressure in a tail rotor (T/R) hydraulic system. This condition
could result in loss of T/R flight control and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2015-22-53, Amendment 39-18331 (80 FR
74982, December 1, 2015).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 7, 2017.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, insert a copy of this AD into the
rotorcraft flight manual, Section 4 Normal Operating Procedures, or
make pen and ink changes to the preflight and post-flight procedures
as follows:
    (i) Stop performing the yaw load compensator check (ACCU TST
switch) during preflight procedures, and instead perform the yaw
load compensator check during post-flight procedures after rotor
shut-down.
    (ii) The yaw servo hydraulic switch (collective switch) must be
in the ``ON'' (forward) position before takeoff.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD: The yaw servo
hydraulic switch is also called the hydraulic pressure switch or
hydraulic cut off switch in various Airbus Helicopters rotorcraft
flight manuals.

    (2) Within 350 hours time-in-service:
    (i) Install a timer relay for the yaw servo hydraulic switch
(collective switch) by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.B.2.b.1, 3.B.2.b.2, 3.B.2.b.3, 3.B.2.b.4, 3.B.2.b.5, or
3.B.2.b.6, as applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of
Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. AS350-67.00.64,
Revision 0, dated February 25, 2015 (AS350-67.00.64). If your
helicopter has an automatic pilot system, also comply with paragraph
3.B.2.b.7 of AS350-67.00.64.
    (ii) Install an indicator light on the caution and warning panel
by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.c.1 or
3.B.2.c.2, as applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of
AS350-67.00.64.
    (iii) Replace the bistable ACCU TST button on the control panel
with a monostable button as depicted in Figure 1 or Figure 3, as
applicable to the configuration of your helicopter, of Airbus
Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.65, Revision 0, dated August 25,
2016.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a
bistable ACCU TST button on any helicopter.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    A special flight permit may be issued for paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD only.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters SB No. AS350-67.00.66, Revision 1, dated
October 22, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701
N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(800) 232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html.
You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0220, dated November 4, 2016. You
may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in the AD Docket.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910, Main
Hydraulic System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 29, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18973 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulatory initiatives discussed in this SNPRM would have some
impact on small carriers and some indirect impact on small ticket
agents. However, based on our small entity economic evaluation, I
certify that they would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We invite comment to facilitate
our assessment of the potential impact of these initiatives on small
entities.
    This SNPRM would require small U.S. carriers that own, lease, or
operate proprietary or shared-use automated kiosks at U.S. airports
with 10,000 or more annual enplanements to begin ordering and
installing accessible models when adding or replacing automated kiosks
in the normal course of business operations. The same requirement would
apply to operators of airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements
that own, lease, or operate shared-use automated kiosks. Based on our
preliminary research, however, it appears that no small airports or
small U.S. carriers own, lease, or operate shared-use automated kiosks,
and that no small U.S. carriers own, lease, or operate proprietary
automated airport kiosks at covered U.S. airports. At this time,
therefore, it appears that neither small airports nor small carriers
would incur any costs associated with the kiosk requirements. We are
seeking public comment on these findings.
    There are 50 U.S. carriers meeting the DOT definition of ``small
carrier'' that would have to comply with the proposed Web site
accessibility requirements at a cost of $37,800 to $61,200 over the
two-year implementation period, depending on the number of pages on the
site. The annual revenues for these carriers appear to range from $10
million to over $100 million, indicating that the cost impact on small
carriers would not be significant. Although the proposal would not
require small ticket agents that sell air transportation to ensure that
their Web sites are accessible, it would require carriers to ensure
that their agents that are small business entities provide Web-based
fares and other Web-based amenities to passengers who self-identify as
being unable to use the agents' Web sites due to a disability. Carriers
already must provide this service to passengers who cannot use their
Web sites due to a disability under the current rule, but they would be
required to ensure that their agents that are small business entities
do so for the first time under the proposed rule. We anticipate that
there will be some indirect compliance costs on 1,704 small travel
agencies and 384 small tour operators that have Web sites with online
booking capability, and on as many as 9,921 small travel agencies and
2,336 small tour operators without online sales capability that will
have to make any discounted fares advertised on their Web sites and any
other amenities that may be offered on these Web sites available upon
request to passengers who are unable to use the agents' Web sites due
to their disabilities. Our research indicates that about 90% of these
small entities employ less than ten people, and 80% employ less than
five. Given that the requirement would rely largely on existing
employee skills to find and book Web-based discount fares and
amenities, and considering the small number of employees in the
majority of these businesses, we believe the economic impact on most
covered entities to implement the requirements would not be
significant. We also request public comment on the cost impact of this
proposed requirement.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This SNPRM proposes a new collection of information that would
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a
proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal
Register providing notice of and a 60-day comment period on the
proposed collection of information. This SNPRM proposes to require
airlines and U.S. airport operators to enter into agreements outlining
their joint responsibilities for implementing the accessibility
requirements for shared-use automated kiosks. These agreements will
help ensure that the accessibility requirements for shared-use
automated airport kiosks are effectively implemented by the parties at
each U.S. airport and provide information to assist the Department in
assessing carrier compliance with these requirements. The Department
intends to publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies to comment on this
new information collection requirement. As prescribed by the PRA, the
requirements will not go into effect until OMB has approved them and
the Department has published a notice announcing the effective date of
the information collection requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which does not apply to
nondiscrimination civil rights requirements, do not apply to this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 382

    Air carriers, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 27

    Airports, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued this 15th day of September, 2011, at Washington, DC.
Raymond H. LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes
to amend 14 CFR part 382 and 49 CFR part 27 as follows:

TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

PART 382--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR
TRAVEL

    1. The authority citation for Part 382 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 41705, 41712, and 41310.

    2. Section 382.3 is amended by adding definitions for ``automated
airport kiosk'', ``flight-related services'' and ``shared-use automated
airport kiosk'' In alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  382.3  What do the terms in this rule mean?

* * * * *
    Automated airport kiosk means a self-service transaction machine
that a carrier owns, leases, or controls and makes available at a U.S.
airport to enable customers to independently obtain flight-related
services.
* * * * *
    Flight-related services mean functions related to air travel
including, but not limited to, ticket purchase, rebooking cancelled
flights, seat selection, and obtaining boarding passes or bag tags.
* * * * *
    Shared-use automated airport kiosk means a self-service transaction
machine provided by an airport, a carrier, or an independent service
provider with which any carrier having a compliant data set can
collaborate to enable its customers to independently access the flight-
related services it offers.
* * * * *

Sec.  382.31  [Amended]

    3. Section 382.31(c) is removed.
    4. Section 382.43 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding paragraphs (c) through (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  382.43  Must information and reservation services of carriers be
accessible to individuals with visual, hearing, and other disabilities?

* * * * *
    (c) As a U.S. or foreign carrier that owns or controls a primary
Web site that markets air transportation, you must ensure the public-
facing Web pages on your Web site are accessible to individuals with
disabilities in accordance with this section. As a foreign carrier,
only Web pages on your Web site involved in marketing covered air
transportation to the general public in the U.S. must be accessible to
individuals with disabilities. Covered Web pages and Web sites must
conform to all Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and all
Conformance Requirements from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Recommendation 11 December 2008, Web site Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3)
of this section:
    (1) A new or completely redesigned primary Web site placed online
on or after [insert date 180 days from the effective date of the final
rule] shall be conformant. A complete redesign means technical changes
affecting a substantial portion of the site such as its visual design
(the site's ``look and feel''), upgrading the site to ensure its
overall compliance with technical standards, or reorganizing the site's
information architecture. Updating the information content of one or
more Web pages alone would not constitute a Web site redesign.
    (2) Web pages on an existing Web site associated with obtaining the
following services and information shall either be directly conformant
on your primary Web site or have accessible links from the non-
conforming pages on your primary Web site to corresponding pages on
your mobile Web site that are conformant by [insert date one year from
the effective date of the final rule]:
    (i) Booking or changing a reservation;
    (ii) Checking-in for a flight;
    (iii) Accessing a personal travel itinerary;
    (iv) Accessing the status of a flight;
    (v) Accessing a personal frequent flyer account;
    (vi) Accessing flight schedules; and
    (vii) Accessing carrier contact information.
    (3) All covered Web pages on your primary Web site, including those
made conformant during the second phase by a link to a conformant page
on your mobile Web site, shall be conformant by [insert date two years
from the effective date of this rule].
    (d) As a carrier, when marketing your airline tickets on the Web
site of a ticket agent whose annual receipts exceed the maximum
established in 13 CFR 121.201, you must ensure that the Web pages on
which such tickets are marketed conform to all WCAG 2.0 Level A and
Level AA Success Criteria and all Conformance Requirements by [insert
date two years from the effective date of the final rule]. You are not
required to apply this requirement with respect to ticket agents whose
annual receipts do not exceed the maximum established in 13 CFR
121.201; however, you must ensure that Web-based fare discounts and
other Web-based amenities provided to customers by such agents on your
behalf are made available to a person with a disability who indicates
that he or she cannot use the agents' Web sites and who purchases a
ticket using another method.
    (e) As a carrier, until your Web sites are fully accessible in
accordance with the requirements of this section, you must assist a
prospective passenger who contacts you through another channel (e.g.,
telephone or walk-in) and indicates that he or she is unable to use
your inaccessible Web site due to a disability as follows:
    (1) Disclose Web-based discount fares, if his or her itinerary
qualifies for the discounted fare.
    (2) Waive any applicable fee to make a reservation or purchase a
ticket using a method other than your Web site (e.g., by phone).
    (f) As a carrier, you must assist a prospective passenger who
indicates that he or she is unable to use your accessible Web site due
to a disability and contacts you through another channel (e.g.,
telephone or walk-in) in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section.
    5. Section 382.57 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  382.57  What accessibility requirements apply to automated
airport kiosks?

    (a) As a carrier, you must ensure that the requirements set forth
below are followed for any automated airport kiosk you own, lease, or
control for which an order is initiated after [insert date 60 days
after the effective date of the rule] for installation at a U.S.
airport with 10,000 or more enplanements per year.
    (1) You shall ensure that all new orders for automated airport
kiosks are for models that meet the design specifications set forth in
paragraph (c) of this section. You are not required to retrofit
existing kiosks.
    (2) Until all automated airport kiosks you own, lease, or control
at an airport location meet the design specifications in paragraph (c)
of this section, you must ensure that each such kiosk you order is:
    (i) Visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible
(e.g., a raised ADA-compliant international symbol of

accessibility affixed to the front of the device).
    (ii) Maintained in proper working condition.
    (b) As a carrier, you must ensure that the requirements set forth
below are followed for any shared-use automated airport kiosk you
jointly own, lease, or control with the airport operator for which an
order is initiated after [insert date 60 days after the effective date
of the rule] for installation at a U.S. airport with 10,000 or more
enplanements per year.
    (1) By [insert 60 days after the effective date of the rule], you
must have a written, signed agreement with the airport operator
allocating responsibility for ensuring that the shared-use automated
airport kiosks meet the design specifications set forth in paragraph
(c) in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) through
(3) of this section. Carriers and airport operators are jointly and
severally responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the
agreement provisions.
    (2) You shall ensure that all new orders for shared-use automated
airport kiosks are for models that meet the design specifications set
forth in paragraph (c) of this section. You are not required to
retrofit existing kiosks.
    (3) Until all shared-use automated airport kiosks meet the design
specifications in paragraph (c) of this section, you must ensure that
each such kiosk you order is:
    (i) Visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible
(e.g., a raised ADA-compliant international symbol of accessibility
affixed to the front of the device).
    (ii) Maintained in proper working condition.
    (c) You must ensure that the automated airport kiosks provided in
accordance with this section conform to the following technical
accessibility standards with respect to their physical design and the
functions they perform:
    (1) Self Contained. Except for personal headsets and audio loops,
automated kiosks shall be operable without requiring the user to attach
assistive technology.
    (2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A clear floor or ground space
complying with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 305 of the U.S.
Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design shall
be provided.
    (3) Operable Parts. Operable parts shall comply with subsection
(c)(3) and 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 309 of the 2010 ADA
Standards.
    (i) Identification. Operable parts shall be tactilely discernible
without activation.
    (ii) Timing. Where a timed response is required, the user shall be
alerted by touch or sound and shall be given the opportunity to
indicate that more time is required.
    (iii) Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all locking
or toggle controls or keys, shall be discernible either through touch
or sound.
    (iv) Color. Color coding shall not be used as the only means of
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
distinguishing a visual element.
    (4) Privacy. Automated airport kiosks shall provide the opportunity
for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all
individuals.
    (5) Output. Automated airport kiosks shall comply with this
paragraph (c)(5).
    (i) Speech Enabled.
    (A) Automated airport kiosks shall be speech enabled. Operating
instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input
verification, error messages, and all displayed information for full
use shall be accessible to and independently usable by individuals with
vision impairments. Speech shall be delivered through a mechanism that
is readily available to all users, including but not limited to, an
industry standard connector or a telephone handset. Speech shall be
recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech shall be
coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
    (B) Audible tones shall be permitted instead of speech for visible
output that is not displayed for security purposes, including but not
limited to, asterisks representing personal identification numbers.
    (C) Advertisements and other similar information shall not be
required to be audible unless they convey information that can be used
in the transaction being conducted.
    (D) Speech for any single function shall be automatically
interrupted when a transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of
being repeated and paused.
    (E) Where receipts, tickets, or other outputs are provided as a
result of a transaction, speech output shall include all information
necessary to complete or verify the transaction, except that:
    (1) Automated airport kiosk location, date and time of transaction,
customer account numbers, and the kiosk identifier shall not be
required to be audible.
    (2) Information that duplicates information available on-screen and
already presented audibly shall not be required to be repeated.
    (3) Printed copies of a carrier's contract of carriage, applicable
fare rules, itineraries and other similar supplemental information that
may be included with a boarding pass shall not be required to be
audible.
    (F) The information necessary to complete or verify a transaction
depends on the nature of the transaction and the automated kiosk type.
Where automated kiosks provide boarding passes and other similar
transactional outputs, information such as concourse, gate number, seat
number, and boarding group is necessary to complete and verify a
transaction.
    (G) Receipts, tickets, and similar transactional output usually are
printed, but this is not always the case. For example, a boarding pass
might be transferred to a smart phone or personal digital assistant.
Regardless of the delivery method, the automated kiosk must convey to
the user the information provided in receipts, tickets and other
similar transactional outputs that is necessary to complete and verify
a transaction.
    (ii) Volume Control. Automated kiosks shall provide volume control
complying with paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Private Listening. Where speech required by paragraph (c)(5)(i)
of this section is delivered through a mechanism for private listening,
the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume.
    (B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is delivered through speakers on
the automated kiosk, incremental volume control shall be provided with
output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the
ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, a volume
gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user
selectable. A function shall be provided to automatically reset the
volume to the default level after every use.
    (iii) Captioning. Multimedia content that contains speech or other
audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall
be open or closed captioned. Advertisements and other similar
information shall not be required to be captioned unless they convey
information that can be used in the transaction being conducted.
    (iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. Where tickets or boarding passes
are provided, tickets and boarding passes shall have an orientation
that is tactilely discernable if orientation is important to further
use of the ticket or boarding pass.

    (6) Input. Input devices shall comply with paragraphs (c)(6)(i)
through (c)(6)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Input Controls. At least one tactilely discernible input
control shall be provided for each function. Where provided, key
surfaces not on active areas of display screens shall be raised above
surrounding surfaces. Where touch or membrane keys are the only method
of input, each shall be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces
and adjacent keys.
    (ii) Numeric Keys. Numeric keys shall be arranged in a 12-key
ascending or descending telephone keypad layout. The number five key
shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys.
    (iii) Function Keys. Function keys shall comply with paragraphs
(c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Contrast. Function keys shall contrast visually from background
surfaces. Characters and symbols on key surfaces shall contrast
visually from key surfaces. Visual contrast shall be either light-on-
dark or dark-on-light. However, tactile symbols required by paragraph
(c)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to comply with paragraph
(c)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (B) Tactile Symbols. Function key surfaces shall have tactile
symbols as follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised circle; Clear or
Correct key: raised left arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add Value
key: raised plus sign; Decrease Value key: raised minus sign.
    (7) Display Screen. The display screen shall comply with paragraphs
(c)(7)(i) and (c)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Visibility. The display screen shall be visible from a point
located 40 inches (1015 mm) above the center of the clear floor space
in front of the automated kiosk.
    (ii) Characters. Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a
sans serif font. Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high minimum
based on the uppercase letter ``I.'' Characters shall contrast with
their background with either light characters on a dark background or
dark characters on a light background.
    (8) Braille Instructions. Braille instructions for initiating the
speech mode shall be provided. Braille shall comply with 36 CFR part
1191, appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards.
    (9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user
identification or control, except that where at least two biometric
options that use different biological characteristics are provided,
automated kiosks shall be permitted to use biometrics as the only means
for user identification or control.
    (d) Until you have met the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b),
and (c) of this section, you must provide equivalent service upon
request to passengers with a disability who cannot readily use your
automated airport kiosks (e.g., by directing a passenger who is blind
to an accessible automated kiosk, assisting a passenger in using an
inaccessible automated kiosk, or allowing the passenger to come to the
front of the line at the check-in counter).
    (e) You must provide appropriate equivalent service as described in
paragraph (d) of this section upon request to any passenger, who due to
his or her disability, cannot readily use an accessible automated kiosk
that you own, lease, or control at a U.S. airport.

TITLE 49--TRANSPORATION

PART 27--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN PROGRAMS
OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

    6. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 16(a) and (d) of the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310(a) and (f); sec. 165(b) of
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142 nt.).

    7. Section 27.71 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) and (k) as
follows:

Sec.  27.71  Airport facilities.

* * * * *
    (j) Shared-use automated airport kiosks. This paragraph (j) applies
to U.S. airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements.
    (1) With respect to shared-use automated airport kiosks that are
jointly owned, leased, or controlled with carriers, the airport
operator must ensure that all automated kiosks installed at each
airport location are accessible to passengers with disabilities by
following the design specifications set forth in paragraph (k) of this
section.
    (2) No later than [insert date 60 days after the effective date of
the rule], the airport operator shall have a written, signed agreement
with the carriers at that airport that are subject to 14 CFR 382.57(b)
allocating responsibility for ensuring that shared-use automated kiosks
meet the design specifications set forth in paragraph (k) in accordance
with the requirements of paragraphs (k)(1), (3), and (4) of this
section.
    (i) The agreements must ensure that accessible shared-use automated
airport kiosks are maintained in proper working condition until all
automated kiosks installed at each airport location are accessible to
passengers with disabilities.
    (ii) Airport operators and carriers are jointly and severally
responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the agreement
provisions.
    (3) Airport operators that jointly own, lease, or control automated
airport kiosks with carriers shall ensure that all new orders for
shared-use automated kiosks initiated [insert date 60 days after the
effective date of the rule] meet the design specifications set forth in
paragraph (k) of this section. There is no requirement to retrofit
existing kiosks.
    (4) Until all automated airport kiosks meet the design
specifications in paragraph (k), each shared-use automated kiosk that
meets the design specifications in paragraph (k) of this section shall
be visually and tactilely identifiable to users as accessible (e.g., a
raised ADA-compliant international symbol of accessibility affixed to
the front of the device).
    (k) Technical standards for shared-use automated kiosks. Shared-use
automated airport kiosks provided in accordance with paragraph (j) of
this section must conform to the following technical accessibility
standards with respect to their physical design and the functions they
perform:
    (1) Self Contained. Except for personal headsets and audio loops,
automated kiosks shall be operable without requiring the user to attach
assistive technology.
    (2) Clear Floor or Ground Space. A clear floor or ground space
complying with 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 305 of the U.S.
Department of Justice's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design shall
be provided.
    (3) Operable Parts. Operable parts shall comply with subsection
(c)(3) and 36 CFR Part 1191, appendix D, section 309 of the 2010 ADA
Standards.
    (i) Identification. Operable parts shall be tactilely discernible
without activation.
    (ii) Timing. Where a timed response is required, the user shall be
alerted by touch or sound and shall be given the opportunity to
indicate that more time is required.
    (iii) Status Indicators. Status indicators, including all locking
or toggle controls or keys, shall be discernible either through touch
or sound.
    (iv) Color. Color coding shall not be used as the only means of
conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
distinguishing a visual element.

    (4) Privacy. Automated airport kiosks shall provide the opportunity
for the same degree of privacy of input and output available to all
individuals.
    (5) Output. Automated airport kiosks shall comply with this
paragraph (k)(5).
    (i) Speech Enabled.
    (A) Automated airport kiosks shall be speech enabled. Operating
instructions and orientation, visible transaction prompts, user input
verification, error messages, and all displayed information for full
use shall be accessible to and independently usable by individuals with
vision impairments. Speech shall be delivered through a mechanism that
is readily available to all users, including but not limited to, an
industry standard connector or a telephone handset. Speech shall be
recorded or digitized human, or synthesized. Speech shall be
coordinated with information displayed on the screen.
    (B) Audible tones shall be permitted instead of speech for visible
output that is not displayed for security purposes, including but not
limited to, asterisks representing personal identification numbers.
    (C) Advertisements and other similar information shall not be
required to be audible unless they convey information that can be used
in the transaction being conducted.
    (D) Speech for any single function shall be automatically
interrupted when a transaction is selected. Speech shall be capable of
being repeated and paused.
    (E) Where receipts, tickets, or other outputs are provided as a
result of a transaction, speech output shall include all information
necessary to complete or verify the transaction, except that:
    (1) Automated airport kiosk location, date and time of transaction,
customer account numbers, and the kiosk identifier shall not be
required to be audible.
    (2) Information that duplicates information available on-screen and
already presented audibly shall not be required to be repeated.
    (3) Printed copies of a carrier's contract of carriage, applicable
fare rules, itineraries and other similar supplemental information that
may be included with a boarding pass shall not be required to be
audible.
    (F) The information necessary to complete or verify a transaction
depends on the nature of the transaction and the automated kiosk type.
Where automated kiosks provide boarding passes and other similar
transactional outputs, information such as concourse, gate number, seat
number, and boarding group is necessary to complete and verify a
transaction.
    (G) Receipts, tickets, and similar transactional output usually are
printed, but this is not always the case. For example, a boarding pass
might be transferred to a smart phone or personal digital assistant.
Regardless of the delivery method, the automated kiosk must convey to
the user the information provided in receipts, tickets and other
similar transactional outputs that is necessary to complete and verify
a transaction.
    (ii) Volume Control. Automated kiosks shall provide volume control
complying with paragraphs (k)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Private Listening. Where speech required by paragraph (k)(5)(i)
of this section is delivered through a mechanism for private listening,
the automated kiosk shall provide a means for controlling the volume.
    (B) Speaker Volume. Where sound is delivered through speakers on
the automated kiosk, incremental volume control shall be provided with
output amplification up to a level of at least 65 dB SPL. Where the
ambient noise level of the environment is above 45 dB SPL, a volume
gain of at least 20 dB above the ambient level shall be user
selectable. A function shall be provided to automatically reset the
volume to the default level after every use.
    (iii) Captioning. Multimedia content that contains speech or other
audio information necessary for the comprehension of the content shall
be open or closed captioned. Advertisements and other similar
information shall not be required to be captioned unless they convey
information that can be used in the transaction being conducted.
    (iv) Tickets and Boarding Passes. Where tickets or boarding passes
are provided, tickets and boarding passes shall have an orientation
that is tactilely discernable if orientation is important to further
use of the ticket or boarding pass.
    (6) Input. Input devices shall comply with paragraphs (k)(6)(i)
through (k)(6)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Input Controls. At least one tactilely discernible input
control shall be provided for each function. Where provided, key
surfaces not on active areas of display screens shall be raised above
surrounding surfaces. Where touch or membrane keys are the only method
of input, each shall be tactilely discernible from surrounding surfaces
and adjacent keys.
    (ii) Numeric Keys. Numeric keys shall be arranged in a 12-key
ascending or descending telephone keypad layout. The number five key
shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys.
    (iii) Function Keys. Function keys shall comply with paragraphs
(k)(6)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (A) Contrast. Function keys shall contrast visually from background
surfaces. Characters and symbols on key surfaces shall contrast
visually from key surfaces. Visual contrast shall be either light-on-
dark or dark-on-light. However, tactile symbols required by paragraph
(k)(6)(iii)(B) shall not be required to comply with paragraph
(k)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (B) Tactile Symbols. Function key surfaces shall have tactile
symbols as follows: Enter or Proceed key: raised circle; Clear or
Correct key: raised left arrow; Cancel key: raised letter ex; Add Value
key: raised plus sign; Decrease Value key: raised minus sign.
    (7) Display Screen. The display screen shall comply with paragraphs
(k)(7)(i) and (k)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Visibility. The display screen shall be visible from a point
located 40 inches (1015 mm) above the center of the clear floor space
in front of the automated kiosk.
    (ii) Characters. Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a
sans serif font. Characters shall be \3/16\ inch (4.8 mm) high minimum
based on the uppercase letter ``I.'' Characters shall contrast with
their background with either light characters on a dark background or
dark characters on a light background.
    (8) Braille Instructions. Braille instructions for initiating the
speech mode shall be provided. Braille shall comply with 36 CFR part
1191, appendix D, section 703.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards.
    (9) Biometrics. Biometrics shall not be the only means for user
identification or control, except that where at least two biometric
options that use different biological characteristics are provided,
automated kiosks shall be permitted to use biometrics as the only means
for user identification or control.

[FR Doc. 2011-24298 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P