[Federal Register: November 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 57541-57542]
[DOCID:fr06no09-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60908; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex, LLC Amending Its
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

October 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 27, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Schedule'') by waiving the Cancellation Fee until
February 1, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as
Exhibit 5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal
office 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 Cancellation Fee is currently waived until November 1, 2009.\4\
Due to competitive concerns in the options marketplace and customer
feedback, the Exchange hereby proposes to continue to waive the
Cancellation Fee until February 1, 2010. At that time, the Exchange
will reevaluate its need to implement the fee, in light of current
market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-60452 (August 5,
2009), 74 FR 40861 (August 13, 2009) (SR-AMEX-2009-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in
general, and Section 6(b)(4),\6\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of dues, fees and other charges among its
members and other market participants that use the trading facilities
of NYSE Amex Options. Under this proposal, all similarly situated
members and other Exchange participants of NYSE Amex

Options will be charged the same reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4\8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Amex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-77 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-NYSEAmex-2009-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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 onlyinformation that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-77 and should
be submitted on or before November 27, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26750 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 92 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26377-26378]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0033; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wellsville, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Wellsville Municipal Airport/Tarantine
Field, Wellsville, NY. This action is the result of an airspace review
caused by the decommissioning of the Wellsville VHF omnidirectional
range (VOR) navigation aids as part of the VOR Minimum Operational
Network (MON) Program. The name and geographical coordinates of the
airport are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Wellsville Municipal Airport/Tarantine Field,
Wellsville, NY, to support instrument flight rule operations at this
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 10892; February 23, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0033
to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Wellsville Municipal Airport/Tarantine Field, Wellsville,
NY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 8.6-mile
(increased from a 7.9-mile) radius of Wellsville Municipal Airport/
Tarantine Field, Wellsville, NY; removes the Wellsville VORTAC and
associated extension from the airspace legal description; removes the
HALOS NDB and extension east of the airport from the airspace legal
description as

they are no longer required; adds an extension 2 miles each side of the
269[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 8.6 mile radius to
8.9 miles west of the airport; updates the name (previously Wellsville
Municipal/Tarantine Field Airport, Wellsville, NY) and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database; and removes the city associated with the airport in the
header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA
Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Wellsville VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Wellsville, NY [Amended]

Wellsville Municipal Airport/Tarantine Field, NY
    (Lat. 42[deg]06'34'' N, long. 77[deg]59'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.6-mile radius of Wellsville Municipal Airport/Tarantine
Field, and within 2 miles each side of the 269[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 8.6-mile radius to 8.9 miles west of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 11, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-10208 Filed 5-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54245-54247]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0181]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duluth Ship Canal, Duluth-
Superior Harbor, MN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs Duluth Aerial Lift Bridge for vessels under 300 gross tons. The
City of Duluth has requested that the current summer bridge schedule
(Memorial Day to Labor Day) be extended to include the spring and fall.

DATES: This rule is effective November 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2018-0181 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 LWD Low Water Datum
based on IGLD85
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 3, 2018, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duluth Ship Canal, Duluth-
Superior Harbor, MN in the Federal Register (83 FR 38099). We did not
receive any comments on this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Duluth Aerial Bridge is located 0.25 miles from Duluth Harbor North
Pier Light at the lakeward end of the Duluth Ship Canal. It is a
vertical lift type bridge that provides 15 feet of vertical clearance
in the down position and up to 141 feet in the open position. Currently
the bridge opens on signal except that, from the Friday before Memorial
Day through the Tuesday after Labor Day each year, between the hours of
7 a.m. and 9 p.m., seven days a week, the drawbridge opens on the hour
and half-hour for vessels under 300 gross tons, if needed; and the
bridge will open on signal for all vessels from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven
days a week, and at all times for Federal, state, and local government
vessels, vessels in distress, commercial vessels engaged in rescue or
emergency salvage operations, commercial-assist towing vessels engaged
in towing or port operations, vessels engaged in pilot duties, vessels
seeking shelter from severe weather, and all commercial vessels 300
gross tons or greater. From January 1 through March 15, the draw opens
on signal if at least 12 hour notice is given.
    The City of Duluth, operator of the Duluth Aerial Lift Bridge, has
requested that the current schedule be extended to include the spring
and fall. This is due to increased traffic and community growth in the
region.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and no
comments were received. The regulation only affects recreational
vessels and commercial vessels under 300 gross tons. The drawbridge
will continue to open at all times for commercial vessels over 300
gross tons. The only change to the regulation will be to extend the
dates of the scheduled bridge openings from the Friday before Memorial
Day through the Tuesday after Labor Day to March 16 through December 31
each year.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the expected
improvement to all modes of traffic using the drawbridge, and the
proven improvement realized by the previous change to the bridge
schedule implemented in the last rulemaking.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small
Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small
entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule
would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or
operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the
Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.661 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.661   Duluth Ship Canal (Duluth-Superior Harbor).

    The draw of the Duluth Ship Canal Aerial bridge, mile 0.25 at
Duluth, shall open on signal; except that, from March 16 through
December 31, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., seven days a week,
the drawbridge shall open on the hour and half-hour for vessels under
300 gross tons, if needed; and the bridge will open on signal for all
vessels from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven days a week, and at all times for
Federal, state, and local government vessels, vessels in distress,
commercial vessels engaged in rescue or

emergency salvage operations, commercial-assist towing vessels engaged
in towing or port operations, vessels engaged in pilot duties, vessels
seeking shelter from severe weather, and all commercial vessels 300
gross tons or greater. From January 1 through March 15, the draw shall
open on signal if at least 12 hour notice is given. The opening signal
is one prolonged blast, one short blast, one prolonged blast, one short
blast. If the drawbridge is disabled, the bridge authorities shall give
incoming and outgoing vessels timely and dependable notice, by tug
service if necessary, so that the vessels do not attempt to enter the
canal.

    Dated: October 22, 2018.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-23504 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11315-11319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1123; Product Identifier 2017-SW-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposal for Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model
MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This action revises the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) by changing one of the required actions. The FAA is
proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional
burden over that proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the comment
period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed
changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 5, 2017 (82 FR 57390), is reopened. The FAA must
receive comments on this SNPRM by April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://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 https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1123; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above. 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 https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view 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: Matt Fuller, Senior 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

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites 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.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the
comments received.

Discussion

    The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2017-
02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10, 2017) (``AD 2017-
02-07'') and add a new AD. AD 2017-02-07 applies to Airbus Helicopters
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including
9750, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and
including 20110, with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number
B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed. AD 2017-
02-07 requires a repetitive inspection and a one-time torque of the
hydraulic module plate assembly attachment points (attachment points).
The actions in AD 2017-02-07 are intended to prevent failure of an
attachment point, loss of the hydraulic module plate, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2017 (82
FR 57390). The NPRM proposed to retain the initial inspection and
torque requirements of AD 2017-02-07 and require replacing the single
locking attachment mechanisms with double locking attachment
mechanisms. The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2017-0047, dated March
13, 2017, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)
Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK117 D-2 and MBB-BK117 D-2m
helicopters. EASA advises that the hydraulic plate assembly on certain
MBB-BK117 models has four attachment points on the fuselage secured by
a single locking mechanism. According to EASA, a design reassessment
revealed stiffness of the hydraulic plate may be insufficient to
withstand the in-service loads in the event one of the four single
locking attachment points fails. The EASA AD requires a repetitive
inspection and one-time torque tightening of the attachment points
until replacement of the single locking attachment hardware with double
locking attachment hardware.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the NPRM was issued, Airbus Helicopters revised its service
information by adding a requirement to reposition the aft grounding
straps and inspect the clamping effect of the aft attachment points
when the double locking attachment hardware is installed. The revised
service information also has an alternative clamp effect inspection for
helicopters that have previously installed the double locking
attachment hardware. These additional actions address the unsafe
condition by ensuring the correct torque is applied and the bolts do
not loosen. The FAA is proposing this SNPRM to include these additional
actions.
    Further, the FAA has corrected an error in the NPRM proposing to
apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand and right-hand nuts of
each attachment point. This torque adjustment is only necessary for
each forward (not aft) attachment point.
    Lastly, the website address for Airbus Helicopters has also
changed. This website address has been updated throughout this SNPRM.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the original
NPRM (82 FR 57390, December 5, 2017). The FAA received no comments on
that NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this SNPRM
after evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of these same type designs. Certain changes described above
expand the scope of the original NPRM. As a result, the FAA has
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and
ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters,
both Revision 3 and dated December 19, 2017. Until the attachment
points are modified with double locking attachment mechanisms, this
service information specifies a repetitive visual inspection for
condition and correct installation of the attachment points and
replacing the affected parts if there is a crack. This service
information also

specifies a tightening torque check of the forward attachment points
after the initial inspection and replacing the affected parts if torque
cannot be applied. This service information specifies procedures to
replace the single locking attachment hardware with double locking
attachment hardware.
    For certain helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly with
the double locking attachment hardware installed, this revision of the
service information contains procedures to inspect the clamping effect
of the aft attachment points and torque tightening the screw joints
(bolts). If a bolt can be turned while applying this torque, the
service information specifies instructions to replace the split pin,
washer, and self-locking castellated nut, check the bolt for wear and
replace it if necessary, change the position of the aft grounding
strap, check the electrical bonding, and apply PU-Lacquer to the
grounding connection.
    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

    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-
29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117
D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 1 and
dated October 14, 2016, and both Revision 2 and dated February 1, 2017.
Revisions 1 and 2 of this service information contain the same visual
inspection and torque tightening check procedures as Revision 3.
Revision 2 of this service information adds the procedures to replace
the single locking attachment hardware with double locking attachment
hardware and contains the same forward locking attachment hardware
replacement procedures as Revision 3.

Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM

    For helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly with the
single locking attachment hardware installed, this proposed AD would
require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), performing a visual
inspection of each attachment point of the hydraulic module plate
assembly for a crack and proper installation, and applying torque to
the nuts of each forward attachment point. Within 300 hours TIS, this
proposed AD would require replacing each single locking attachment
point mechanism with a double locking attachment point mechanism.
    For helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly with double
locking attachment hardware installed in accordance with Airbus
Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117
D-2-29A-001, both Revision 2 and dated February 1, 2017, this proposed
AD would require, within 300 hours TIS, inspecting the clamping effect
of the aft joints and torque tightening the bolts. If a bolt can be
turned while applying torque, this proposed AD would require removing
the split pin and self-locking castellated nut from service, inspecting
the bolt for wear and replacing it if necessary, repositioning the aft
grounding strap to the opposite side of the attachment point, replacing
the washer, installing a new self-locking castellated nut, inspecting
the electrical bonding, installing a new split pin, and applying
lacquer to the grounding connection.

Differences Between This SNPRM and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD specifies performing the visual inspection of each
attachment point at intervals not exceeding 400 flight hours. This
proposed AD would not require a repetitive inspection. This proposed AD
would require the replacement of each single locking attachment point
mechanism with a double locking attachment point mechanism within 300
hours TIS instead, which would make subsequent inspections unnecessary.
Since EASA has not revised or superseded its AD to incorporate Revision
3 of the service information, the EASA AD does not require inspecting
the clamping effect of the aft joints, torque tightening the bolts, and
corrective action if necessary for helicopters with a hydraulic module
plate assembly with double locking attachment hardware installed in
accordance with Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or
ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 2 and dated February
1, 2017.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 167 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. The FAA estimates the cost of
labor at $85 per work-hour.
    Visually inspecting the four attachment points would take about
0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $10,688
for the U.S. fleet. Inspecting the torque of the four attachment points
would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per
helicopter and $3,507 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing any of the
attachment point parts would take a minimal amount of time and parts
would cost about $48 per attachment point. Installing four double
locking attachment point mechanisms would take a minimal amount of time
and parts would cost about $400 per helicopter and $66,800 for the U.S.
fleet.
    For certain double locking attachment hardware aft joints,
inspecting the clamping effect and applying torque would take about 1
work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter. If required,
inspecting and replacing parts, repositioning the aft grounding strap,
inspecting the electrical bonding, and applying lacquer to the
grounding connection would take about 0.5 work-hour and parts would
cost about $15 for an estimated cost of $58 per helicopter.
    According to Airbus Helicopters' service information, some of the
costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby
reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not
control warranty coverage by Airbus Helicopters. Accordingly, the FAA
has included all costs in this cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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)
2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2017-1123;
Product Identifier 2017-SW-013-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 9750,
and Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-2
helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 20110, certificated
in any category, with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number
B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed or
with a double locking attachment point installed before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Helicopters
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 (ASB MBB-
BK117 C-2-29A-003 Rev 2) or ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 (ASB
MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 Rev 2), both Revision 2 and dated February 1,
2017, as applicable to your model helicopter.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic
module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This
condition could result in loss of the hydraulic module plate and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces 2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267,
February 10, 2017).

(d) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 27, 2020.

(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

    Comply with either paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, or
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable to your helicopter.
    (1) For helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly with
a single locking attachment hardware installed, within 100 hours
time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Visually inspect the split pins, castellated nuts, plugs,
nuts, and hexagon bolts of each attachment point for a crack and for
proper installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 3.B.1.3.a. through 3.B.1.3.d., of Airbus Helicopters ASB
No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 Rev 3) or
Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 (ASB MBB-BK117
D-2-29A-001 Rev 3), both Revision 3 and dated December 19, 2017, as
applicable to your model helicopter. Replace any part that has a
crack before further flight. If the split pins, castellated nuts, or
hexagon bolts are not as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 of ASB MBB-
BK117 C-2-29A-003 Rev 3 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 Rev 3, before
further flight, properly install them.
    (ii) Apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand (LH) and
right-hand (RH) nuts of each forward attachment point. If a torque
of 9 to 10 Nm cannot be applied, replace the affected nut before
further flight.
    (2) For helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly with
a single locking attachment hardware installed, within 300 hours
TIS:
    (i) Replace each forward single locking attachment hardware with
double locking attachment hardware by following the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.3.3. through 3.B.3.6. on page 11 of ASB
MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 Rev 3 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 Rev 3, as
applicable to your model helicopter, except you are not required to
discard old parts.
    (ii) Replace each aft single locking attachment hardware with
double locking attachment hardware and reposition the LH and RH aft
grounding straps by following the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 3.B.3.1. through 3.B.3.7. on page 13 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-
2-29A-003 Rev 3 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 Rev 3, as applicable to
your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard old
parts.
    (3) If you have replaced the attachment hardware with double
locking attachment hardware before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 Rev 2 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-
2-29A-001 Rev 2, as applicable to your model helicopter: Within 300
hours TIS, inspect the clamping effect of the LH and RH aft screw
joints (bolts) of the hydraulic module plate by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.5., of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-
29A-003 Rev 3 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 Rev 3, as applicable to
your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard old
parts.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(3) of this AD: Airbus Helicopters refers
to bolts as ``screw joints.''

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the procedures specified in the following are
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD:
    (1) AD 2017-02-07, Amendment 39-18786 (82 FR 10267, February 10,
2017).
    (2) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003,
Revision 1, dated October 14, 2016.
    (3) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003,
Revision 2, dated February 1, 2017.
    (4) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001,
Revision 1, dated October 14, 2016.
    (5) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001,
Revision 2, dated February 1, 2017.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
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 ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 and ASB
No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 1 and dated October 14,
2016, and both Revision 2 and dated February 1, 2017, which are not
incorporated by reference, contain 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<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view a copy of the 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. 2017-0047, dated March 13, 2017. You may
view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2017-1123.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900, Hydraulic
Power System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 14, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03932 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58550-58553]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0028; Notice 2]

Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Ruling on petition.

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

SUMMARY: Tireco, Inc. (Tireco) determined that certain Milestar brand
medium truck tires do not comply with paragraph S6.5(j), and in some
cases also paragraph S6.5(d), of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles with a GVWR of More
Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Tireco filed a
report dated February 5, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Tireco then petitioned NHTSA
under 49 CFR part 556 for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has decided to deny
Tireco's petition in part and grant it in part.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz,

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Tireco submitted a petition for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. In a letter dated May 7, 2015, Tireco also
submitted a supplement to its petition.
    Notice of receipt of the Tireco's petition was published by NHTSA
in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36406) with a 30-day
public comment period. No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0028.''
    II. Replacement Tires Involved: Affected are approximately 31,316
Milestar brand medium truck tires that were imported by Tireco and
manufactured by Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LTD. in China between
June 3, 2013 and January 25, 2015. Refer to Tireco's 49 CFR part 573
report in docket NHTSA-2015-0028 for detailed descriptions of the
affected tires.
    III. Noncompliance: Tireco states that the subject tires do not
comply with paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 because the affected
tires are either not marked with the tire's load range letter, or
incorrectly marked with the letter ``J'' instead of the letter ``L'' to
designate the tire's load range. In addition, some of the affected
tires also do not comply with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119
because, the maximum load ratings and pressures specified on the
sidewalls for both single and dual applications are both identified as
``DUAL.'' The first rating should have been identified as ``SINGLE.''
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each
tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. . . .
    (d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure
of the tire, shown as follows:
    (Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single
_kg (_lb) at _kPa (_psi) cold. Max load dual _kg (_lb) at _kPa
(_psi) cold.
    (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load _kg (_lb)
at _kPa (_psi) cold. . . .
    (j) The letter designating the tire load range.

    V. Summary of Tireco's Analyses: Tireco believes that the absence
of the load range marking on some of the subject tires causes little or
no risk of overloading of the tires by an end-user because the tires
are marked with the correct number of plies, the correct load index and
the correct maximum load values, which Tireco believes provide
equivalent information. Tireco also states that it has found one
previous inconsequential noncompliance petition (see 79 FR 78562;
December 30, 2014) in which the agency addressed the issue of a missing
load range marking and believes that the agency should apply the same
rationale in the case of its petition.
    In the case of the MILESTAR BS628 315/80R22.5 L/20 tires marked
with the incorrect load range letter ``J,'' Tireco believes there is no
safety consequence since the tires actually were designed and
manufactured to be stronger than load range ``J'' tires by constructing
them with two extra plies than typical load range ``J'' tires would
have. Thus, there is no risk that the incorrect marking would lead to
overloading by an end-user. Moreover, the paper label attached to each
of the tires, which must remain attached until the time of sale,
contains the correct load range information, so Tireco believes there
is little, if any, possibility that a purchaser will be misled.
    In the case of the MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14 tires that can
be used in single or dual configuration, Tireco states the following:
    1. Tireco believes the fact that both of the ratings were labeled
as applicable to ``DUAL'' applications cannot realistically create a
safety problem. Particularly since the tires are correctly marked with
the correct maximum load capacity and inflation pressure in accordance
with The Tire and Rim Association 2014 Year Book. Tireco also believes
that any prospective purchaser of these tires, any operator of a truck
equipped with these tires, and any tire retailer would immediately
recognize that the first rating, ``1800Kg (3970LBS) AT 760 KPa (110
PSI) COLD,'' applies to the ``single'' configuration, and the second
rating, ``1700Kg (3750LBS) AT 760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD,'' applies to the
``dual'' configuration. Such persons are fully aware that for all
medium truck tires designed to be used in both single and dual
configurations, the maximum load and corresponding pressure applicable
to the single configuration is listed above the information applicable
to the dual configuration. Such persons also would be aware that there
could be no valid reason to have two different maximum loads for the
dual configuration, and thus would immediately understand that the
first load rating was meant to apply when the tire was utilized in a
single configuration. Moreover, since the applicable inflation pressure
is the same for both configurations, there is no risk that the
mismarking would cause an operator to improperly inflate any of the
tires.
    2. Tireco states that when a tire is designed for use in both
single and dual configurations, FMVSS No. 119 requires that compliance
testing be conducted based on the higher, more punishing tire load.
Accordingly, Tireco believes that the tires will perform safely in both
configurations. Tireco also believes that this principle was relied
upon in grants of two similar petitions filed by Michelin North
America, Inc. (See 71 FR 77092; December 22, 2006) and (69 FR 62512;
October 26, 2004).
    In addition, Tireco stated its belief that all of the tires covered
by this petition meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 119, as well as the other labeling requirements of the standard.
    Tireco is not aware of any crashes, injuries, customer complaints,
or field reports associated with the subject mislabelings.
    Tireco stated that, as soon as they became aware of the
noncompliance, it immediately isolated the noncompliant inventory in
Tireco's warehouses to prevent any additional sales. Tireco will bring
all of the noncompliant tires into full compliance with the
requirements of FMVSS No. 119, or else the tires will be scrapped.
Tireco also stated that the fabricating manufacturer has corrected the
molds at the manufacturing plant, such that no additional tires will be
manufactured with the noncompliance.
    In summation, Tireco believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition should be granted to exempt Tireco from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and from
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA Analysis: The purpose for the load range marking letter
required by FMVSS No. 119 S6.5(j) is to inform the tire purchaser and
end user about the

load carrying capabilities of the tire. In the case of the subject
tires, Tireco states that the information the load range letter is
meant to convey is contained on the tire because the tire is labeled
with correct maximum load values, correct load index, and correct ply
rating. For the MILESTAR brand tires: BS628 295/80R22.5, BS623 245/
70R19.5, BD733 245/70R19.5, BA902 10.00R20, BD733 225/70R19.5, BS623
235/75R17.5, BS628 315/80R22.5, BS625 265/70R19.5, and BS623 215/
75R17.5, Tireco states that the maximum load and maximum permissible
inflation pressure markings conform with The Tire and Rim Association
(TRA) and The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO)
yearbooks.
    NHTSA agrees that the missing load range letter is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety in this case because the information intended
to be conveyed by the missing load range letter is contained in other
markings on the tires, specifically: the maximum load and maximum
permissible inflation pressure marked on the sidewall of the subject
tires correctly correlates to the maximum loads and pressure listed by
either the TRA or ETRTO yearbooks.
    Tireco also submitted a supplemental letter for a group of tires
branded MILESTAR BS628 315/80R22.5 L/20 and describes the noncompliance
as not missing the tire load range letter, but rather having an
incorrect load range letter marked onto the tire sidewall. This group
of tires was marked with the load range letter ``J'', while these tires
should have been marked with the load range letter ``L''.
    NHTSA also agrees with Tireco that the load range marking
noncompliance in the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. In this case if a consumer followed the load range ``J''
designation as marked, they would interpret the labeled recommended
load carrying capacity to be lower than the actual load carrying
capacity. Since the labeled tire load range ``J'' is lower than the
actual load range of the tire as manufactured, Tireco understated the
load carrying capability of the tire. This Tireco tire, in effect, has
more load carrying capability than the marking load range ``J''
indicates.
    Tireco also identified an additional noncompliance affecting only
the MILESTAR BS623 225/70R19.5 G/14 tires. This tire, in addition to
the load range letter missing, was marked with the word ``DUAL''
instead of the word ``SINGLE'' followed by its maximum load rating
marking of ``1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 kPa (110 PSI) COLD'', and Tireco
contends that this marking does not create a safety problem. NHTSA
disagrees for the following reasons:
    1. The purpose of the word ``SINGLE'' marked on a tire, preceding
the maximum load rating, is to ensure that purchasers and end users
understand that the loads and pressures following the word ``SINGLE''
correspond to single tire configuration loading. The same serves for
the word ``DUAL''. Marking the word ``DUAL'' in lieu of the word
``SINGLE'' creates a situation in which the driver or end user of the
vehicle may overload the tires. Specifically, the subject tires are
incorrectly marked, ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa (110
PSI) COLD'' instead of ``MAX LOAD SINGLE 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa
(110 PSI) COLD.'' This creates a scenario where a purchaser or end user
could believe it is appropriate to load the tires in a dual
configuration at the higher of the two marked dual loads. In this case,
the correct dual load of the subject tires is ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1700 Kg
(3750 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110 PSI) COLD'' and the incorrect marking is
``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT 760 KPa (110 PSI) COLD''. The
tires could be overloaded by 220 lbs per tire; in a dual configuration
on a single axle the overloading factor is 4 thereby creating an
overloading condition of 880 lbs per axle. Overloading these tires is a
potential safety issue.
    2. Tireco cites a petition for inconsequential noncompliance filed
by Michelin North America, Inc. (71 FR 77092; December 22, 2006), which
was granted, and Tireco contends that the same ruling should apply to
their petition. In Michelin's case the noncompliance was that the value
of the load following the word ``DUAL'' was incorrectly marked.
However, the load values following the word ``DUAL'' were within the
safety factor range associated for similar radial truck tires of its
size. Furthermore a safety factor could be computed since both
``SINGLE'' AND ``DUAL'' words were marked on the tire. In Tireco's
case, the safety factor cannot be computed since the word ``SINGLE'' is
not marked and information is not readily available to the end user or
purchaser of the tire as to which is the single load. Having marked the
word ``DUAL'' in place of the word ``SINGLE'' eliminates the inclusion
of a safety factor for a dual configuration. This results in a risk to
safety.
    3. Tireco also states that that when a tire is designed for use in
both single and dual configurations, FMVSS No. 119 requires that
compliance testing be done based on the higher, more punishing tire
load. Tireco states that this indicates that the tires will therefore
perform safely in both the single and dual configurations. Tireco
states that this principal is states in two petitions filed by Michelin
North America, Inc. that were granted by the agency. See71 FR 77092
(Dec. 22, 2006); 69 FR 62512 (Oct. 26, 2004). Both petitions cited by
Tireco involved tires for which the maximum load and tire pressure of
the tire for the dual configuration was incorrect but the maximum load
and tire pressure for the single configuration was correctly marked. In
the 2006 petition, NHTSA granted the petition, in part, because the
incorrect stated maximum load of the tire in the dual configuration was
still the safety factor for use in that configuration for that tire.
NHTSA does not believe the facts in the two Michelin petitions cited by
Tireco support a grant of this petition. In the case of the
noncompliant tires that are the subject of this petition, the load
intended to be used in the single configuration is preceded by the word
``DUAL.'' Therefore, the safety factor for the tires is eliminated in
the as used condition, as the tires could be mistakenly loaded to the
maximum load for the single configuration when used in the dual
configuration. This increases the risk to safety for the users of
vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
    4. Tireco also contends that any purchaser of the subject tires and
any operator of a truck equipped with the tires would immediately
recognize that the first rating ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1800 Kg (3970 LBS) AT
760 Kpa (110 PSI) COLD'' applies to the ``SINGLE'' configuration, and
the second rating ``MAX LOAD DUAL 1700 Kg (3750 LBS) AT 760 Kpa (110
PSI) COLD'' applies to the ``DUAL'' configuration. Such persons are
fully aware that for all medium truck tires designed to be used in both
single and dual configurations, the maximum load and corresponding
pressure applicable to the single configuration is listed above the
information applicable to the dual configuration. NHTSA does not agree
with Tireco's reasoning here since a tire purchaser or end user of the
subject tires may not be fully aware that the first rating applies to
single configuration loading unless the word ``SINGLE'' is marked on
the sidewall. As wrongly marked with the word ``DUAL,'' instead of the
word ``SINGLE,'' the possibility for confusion and associated safety
compromise exists.
    5. Additionally on March 15, 2016, Tireco submitted test data to
NHTSA for review. This data consisted of endurance testing conducted by
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., LTD. to

support its basis that the tires are safe for use. This additional
testing was performed at loads, speeds, and timing greater than the
minimum requirements of FMVSS No. 119 with a duration of 121.6 hours of
testing which is 74.6 hours beyond the minimum requirements. Yet the
agency does not agree that the additional data is sufficient to support
the overload condition in the dual configuration because the tires
would be expected to operate for much longer than 121.6 hours in the
field.
    The subject tires as improperly marked indicate a maximum dual load
rating capacity value above that designed for the tire. A tire loaded
above its designed maximum load rating capacity creates a potential
safety problem for the driver of that motor vehicle and others on the
road.
    For the reasons stated above, NHTSA does not believe that the
``DUAL'' marking noncompliance on the subject MILESTAR BS623 225/
70R19.5 G/14 tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA
Decision: NHTSA has decided to deny Tireco's petition in part and grant
it in part.
    In the case of the subset of the subject tires that were marked
``DUAL'' instead of ``SINGLE,'' Tireco has not met its burden of
persuasion that the noncompliance with paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No.
119 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tireco is
obligated to provide notification of and a free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    In the cases of the described load range letter marking
noncompliances, NHTSA has decided that Tireco has met its burden of
persuasion that the noncompliances with paragraph S6.5(j)of FMVSS No.
119 are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that Tireco is
therefore exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the load range letter marking noncompliances under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
from only the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition applies only to the subject tires that Tireco no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Tireco
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 19, 2016.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20330 Filed 8-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24101-24103]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09440]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91711; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending the New York Stock Exchange Price List

April 29, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 16, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the New York Stock Exchange Price
List (``Price List'') regarding colocation services and fees to add
further specificity as to how monthly fees for dedicated cabinets are
calculated. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List regarding colocation
services and fees \4\ to add further specificity as to how monthly fees
for dedicated cabinets are calculated. The proposed change is not
substantive and would not change the amount or structure of the fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSE-2010-56). The Exchange is an indirect subsidiary of
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''). Through its ICE Data
Services business, ICE operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey,
from which the Exchange provides co-location services to Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers Users \5\ dedicated and partial cabinets to
house their servers and other equipment.\6\ Each dedicated cabinet has
a standard power allocation of either 4 kilowatts (``kW'') or 8 kW, but
additional power can be added if the User requests.\7\ Users may
request that such additional power be allocated to a dedicated cabinet
when it is first set up or later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the Price List,
a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees
for the same co-location service charged by the Exchange's
affiliates NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc.,
and NYSE National, Inc. (together, the ``Affiliate SROs''). Each
Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the same proposed rule
change to propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-22, SR-NYSEArca-2021-26, SR-NYSECHX-2021-08, and SR-NYSENAT-
2021-10.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71122 (December 18,
2013), 78 FR 77739 (December 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-81).
    \7\ Presently, the maximum amount of power that can be allocated
to one dedicated cabinet is 15 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A User pays a monthly fee based on the power allocated to its
dedicated cabinets. As previously indicated,\8\ the tiered fee is based
on the total kWs allocated to all of a User's dedicated cabinets, not
the kWs allocated to an individual dedicated cabinet. For example, a
User that has two dedicated cabinets with a total power allocation of
12 kW has a monthly charge of $1,200 per kW for the first eight kW and
$1,050 per kW for the next four kW (between 9 kW and 12 kW), for a
total of $13,800, irrespective of how the User divides the 12 kW
between its two cabinets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65237 (August 31,
2011), 76 FR 55432 (September 7, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further clarify how the fees are calculated, in a non-
substantive change, the Exchange proposes to make the following edits
to the Price List:
     Revise the title ``Monthly Fee per Cabinet'' to read
``Monthly Fee for Cabinets''; and
     under the heading ``Dedicated Cabinet,'' add the following
text: ``Monthly fee is based on total kWs allocated to all of a User's
dedicated cabinets''.
    The Exchange does not propose to change the fees.
Application and Impact of the Proposed Changes
    The proposed change is not expected to have any impact on Users.
Users are currently subject to the described services and fees, none of
which is new or novel. Current Users would not incur any new or changed
fees and the Exchange does not expect to attract any new Users as a
result of the proposed change. The change would simply add clarity to
the Price List concerning the monthly fee for dedicated cabinets.
    The proposed change is not targeted at, or expected to be limited
in applicability to, a specific segment of market participant, as
colocation is available to any market participant that wishes to be a
User.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange further believes
that the

proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
because it would add clarity to the Price List regarding how the
monthly fee for dedicated cabinets is calculated, clarifying that the
monthly fee for dedicated cabinets is based on the aggregate number of
kW allocated to all the User's dedicated cabinets, and not charged on a
per-cabinet basis. It would add detail previously stated in rule
filings with the Commission \12\ to the Price List. Doing so would
remove impediments to, and perfecting the mechanisms of, a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, protecting
investors and the public interest because the change would add clarity
and transparency to the Exchange rules, alleviating potential investor
or market participant confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 76 FR 55432, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is equitable, as it would add clarity for all
market participants with respect to how the monthly fee for dedicated
cabinets is calculated. At the same time, it is a non-substantive
change that would not impact the services available to Users or the
fees charged for such services. The Exchange does not expect to attract
any new Users as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change
is not expected to have any impact on Users. Users are currently
subject to the described services and fees, none of which is new or
novel.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable colocation fees, requirements,
terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it is ministerial in nature and is not
designed to have any competitive impact. Rather, the change would
simply add clarity to the Price List regarding how the monthly fee for
dedicated cabinets is calculated, clarifying that the monthly fee for
dedicated cabinets is based on the aggregate number of kW allocated to
all the User's dedicated cabinets, and not charged on a per-cabinet
basis. The change would add clarity and transparency to the Exchange
rules, alleviating potential investor or market participant confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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 \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-26 and should be submitted on
or before May 26, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09440 Filed 5-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65727-65729]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21228]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0268; FRL-10015-02-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Franklin
County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan,
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the ``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in
the Franklin County, Pennsylvania area (Franklin County Area). EPA is
approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0268. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 3, 2020 (85 FR 46576), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Franklin County Area through July 25, 2027, in
accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted
by DEP on March 10, 2020.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40746 effective July 25, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from DEP for
the Franklin County Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the
end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation,
the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years. CAA section
175A sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In
addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance that provides further
insight on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining
that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) An attainment
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment
for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of
continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.\1\ DEP's March 10,
2020 submittal fulfills Pennsylvania's obligation to submit a second
maintenance plan and addresses each of the five necessary elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the August 3, 2020 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal
of a less rigorous, limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the CAA
section 175A requirements by demonstrating that the area's design value
\2\ is well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the
area's air quality levels shows that the area is unlikely to violate
the NAAQS in the future. EPA evaluated DEP's March 10, 2020 submittal
for consistency with all applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements.
EPA found that the submittal met CAA section 175A and all CAA
requirements, and proposed approval of the LMP for the Franklin County
Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this action
makes certain commitments related to the maintenance of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS Federally enforceable as part of the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements of DEP's March 10, 2020 submittal and
the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and
will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPRM.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS limited maintenance
plan for the Franklin County as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission

that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because a SIP approval is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's limited maintenance
plan for the Franklin County Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
the entry ``Second Maintenance Plan for the Franklin (Franklin County)
1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Second Maintenance Plan for the    Franklin County.....      3/10/20  10/16/20, [insert     ....................
 Franklin (Franklin County) 1997                                       Federal Register
 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.                                      citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2020-21228 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P