[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10537-10540]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3986; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-147-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a
certain fastener type in the fuel tank walls has insufficient bond to
the structure, and an electrical wiring short could cause arcing to
occur at the ends of fasteners in the fuel tanks. This proposed AD
would require the installation of new clamps and
polytetrafluoroethylene (TFE) sleeves on the wire bundles of the front
spars and rear spars of the wings. This proposed AD would also require
inspecting the existing TFE sleeves under the wire bundle clamps for
correct installation, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to prevent potential ignition sources in the fuel tank in the
event of a lightning strike or high-powered short circuit, and
consequent fire or explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3986.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3986; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6505; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-3986;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-147-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The manufacturer has determined that a certain fastener type in the
fuel tank walls has insufficient bond to the structure, and an
electrical wiring short could cause arcing to occur at the ends of
fasteners in the fuel tanks. Potential ignition sources in the fuel
tank in the event of a lightning strike or high-powered short circuit,
if not corrected, could result in a fire or explosion.

Related Rulemaking

    On September 17, 2007, we issued AD 2007-20-01, Amendment 39-15211
(72 FR 54533, September 26, 2007), applicable to certain The Boeing
Company Model 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-
400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SP series airplanes. That AD requires
reconfiguring the clamps of certain wire bundles and applying
insulating sealant to certain fasteners inside the fuel tanks using
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2327, Revision 1,
dated July 10, 2006, on airplane line numbers 696 through 1363.
Airplane line numbers 1364 through 1419 were changed during production.
The actions required by AD 2007-20-01 are intended to prevent arcing
inside the fuel tanks in the event of a lightning strike or high-
powered short circuit, which could result in a fuel tank explosion or
fire.
    Since we issued AD 2007-20-01, Amendment 39-15211 (72 FR 54533,
September 26, 2007), the FAA has determined that for certain The Boeing
Company Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, a
certain fastener type in the fuel tank walls has insufficient bond to
the structure and that an electrical wiring short could cause arcing to
occur at the ends of fasteners in the fuel tanks. We determined that
certain clamp locations need to be changed to prevent possible ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. These clamps were not installed at these
locations during production and were not identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2327, Revision 1, dated July 10,
2006. Therefore, it is necessary to install new clamps and TFE sleeves
at these additional locations on the wire bundles of the front spars
and rear spars of the left and right wings.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324,
Revision 1, dated July 27, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for installing new clamps and TFE sleeves on the wire
bundles of the front spars and rear spars of the wings. The service
information also describes procedures for inspecting TFE sleeves under
the wire bundle clamps that were installed using the procedures
specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324,
dated November 4, 2014, for correct installation, and replacing them if
necessary. 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.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 135 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost       Parts cost       Cost per product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of wire bundle     Up to 7 work-                $138  Up to $733............  Up to $98,955.
 clamps.                         hours x $85 per
                                 hour = $595.
Inspection....................  Up to 5 work-                  $0  Up to $425............  Up to $57,375.
                                 hours x $85 per
                                 hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-3986; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-147-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 15, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400D,
and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324,
Revision 1, dated July 27, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain fastener
type in the fuel tank walls has insufficient bond to the structure,
and an electrical wiring short could cause arcing to occur at the
ends of fasteners in the fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to
prevent potential ignition sources in the fuel tank in the event of
a lightning strike or high-powered short circuit, and consequent
fire or explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Installation/Inspection

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which the modification specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324, dated November 3,
2014, has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Install
new clamps and polytetrafluoroethylene (TFE) sleeves on the wire
bundles of the front spars and rear spars of the wings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324, Revision 1, dated July 27,
2015.
    (2) For airplanes on which the modification specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324, dated November 3,
2014, has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection of the TFE sleeves under the wire bundle clamps
for correct installation, and replace the sleeves if not correctly
installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-28-2324, Revision 1,
dated July 27, 2015.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, alteration, or modification required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to
be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 19, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04292 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20437-20438]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8746]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0182]

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6513).

DATES: Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before May 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention:
Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Ansley, Recall Management
Division (NVS-215), Room W46-412, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation, see 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: Names and Address of First Purchasers of Motor Vehicles.
    OMB Number: 2127-0044.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses or others for profit.
    Abstract: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30117(b), a manufacturer of a motor
vehicle or tire (except a retread tire) must maintain a record of the
name and address of the first purchasers of each vehicle or tire it
produces and, to the extent prescribed by regulation of the Secretary,
must maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser
of replacement equipment (except a tire) that the manufacturer
produces.
    Vehicle manufacturers presently collect and maintain purchaser
information for business reasons, such as for warranty claims
processing and marketing, and experience with this statutory
requirement has shown that manufacturers have retained this information
in a manner sufficient to enable them to expeditiously notify vehicle
purchasers in the case of a safety recall. Based on industry custom and
this experience, NHTSA therefore determined that the regulation
mentioned in 49 U.S.C. 30117(b) was unnecessary as to vehicle
manufacturers. As an aside, the requirement for maintaining tire
purchaser information are contained in 49 CFR part 574, Tire
Identification and Recordkeeping, and the burden of that information
collection is not part of this information collection.
    Estimated annual burden: Zero. As a practical matter, vehicle
manufacturers are presently collecting from their dealers and then
maintaining first purchaser information for their own commercial
reasons. Therefore, the

statutory requirement does not impose any additional burden.
    Number of respondents: We estimate that there are roughly 1,000
manufacturers of motor vehicles that collect and keep first purchaser
information.
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Issued on: April 6, 2011.
Frank Borris,
Director, Office of Defects Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2011-8746 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44102-44103]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18232]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0276 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302; FRL-9930-91]

Extension of Comment Periods for the Draft Series 810--Product
Performance Test Guidelines and the Proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide
Use Site Index

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment periods.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is hereby extending the comment periods for the following
two notices: the notice that issued in the Federal Register of June 17,
2015, entitled ``Draft Test Guidelines; Series 810--Product Performance
Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability and Request for Comments''
(``Draft Test Guidelines'') and the notice that issued in the Federal
Register of July 1, 2015, entitled ``Proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide
Use Site Index; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment''
(``Proposed Use Site Index''). This document extends the comment
periods for those two notices in response to requests from stakeholders
for additional time to review and provide comments.

DATES: Comments for the Draft Test Guidelines must be identified by
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0276 and must be
received on or before October 1, 2015. Comments for the Proposed Use
Site Index must be identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0302
and must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of either June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34638)
(FRL-9927-37) or July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37610) (FRL-9929-42), as
applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: As listed in the applicable Federal
Register document the contacts for the Draft Test Guidelines are as
follows: For general information contact: Melissa Chun, Regulatory
Coordination Staff (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information contact:
Stephen Tomasino, Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Road, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The contact for the Proposed Use Site Index is Steven Weiss,
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is hereby extending the comment periods
for the following two notices in response to requests for additional
time that were received from stakeholders.
    1. In the notice that issued in the Federal Register of June 17,
2015, entitled ``Draft Test Guidelines; Series 810--Product Performance
Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability and Request for Comments'' (80
FR 34638) (FRL-9927-37), EPA sought public comment on several non-
binding draft test guidelines developed by the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). The test guidelines provide
guidance on conducting testing by the public and companies that are
subject to EPA data submission requirements under OCSPP's major
statutory mandates. The end of the comment period is hereby being
extended from August 17, 2015 to October 1, 2015. See docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0276 at http://www.regulations.gov.
    2. In the notice that issued in the Federal Register of July 1,
2015, entitled ``Proposed Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index;
Notice of Availability and Request for Comment'' (80 FR 37610) (FRL-
9929-42), EPA sought public comment on a proposed guidance document
called the Antimicrobial Pesticide Use Site Index. The Agency developed
this document to provide guidance about antimicrobial pesticide use
sites and general antimicrobial pesticide use patterns. This guidance
document is intended to assist antimicrobial pesticide applicants and
registrants by helping them to identify the 40 CFR part 158 subpart W
data requirements that are necessary to register their product(s), and
will likewise be used by Agency staff evaluating pesticide
applications. The end of the comment period is hereby being extended
from July 31, 2015 to August 31, 2015. See docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2015-0302 at http://www.regulations.gov.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the applicable
Federal Register document of either June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34638) (FRL-
9927-37) for the Draft Test Guidelines or July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37610)
(FRL-9929-42) for the Proposed Use Site Index.
    If you have questions, consult with someone listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: July 20, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-18232 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69969-69973]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22347]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98676; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule To Modify the Options Regulatory Fee

October 3, 2023.
    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 September 29, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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 NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF''). 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 the Fee Schedule to decrease the ORF
from $0.0055 per contract to $0.0038 per contract, effective on January
1, 2024, and to provide for a temporary waiver of the ORF for the three
months leading up to such change, from October 1, 2023 through December
31, 2023 (the ``Waiver Period'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca GENERAL OPTIONS and
TRADING PERMIT (OTP) FEES, Regulatory Fees, Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF''). The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule to
provide for a waiver of ORF from October 1, 2023 until December 31,
2023, and to provide that the ORF rate would be $0.0038 when the
Exchange resumes assessing ORF on January 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As a general matter, the Exchange may only use regulatory funds
such as the ORF ``to fund the legal, regulatory, and surveillance
operations'' of the Exchange.\5\ More specifically, the ORF is designed
to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's costs for
the supervision and regulation of OTP Holders and OTP Firms
(collectively, ``OTP Holders''), including the Exchange's regulatory
program and legal expenses associated with options regulation, such as
the costs related to in-house staff, third-party service providers, and
technology that facilitate regulatory functions such as surveillance,
investigation, examinations and enforcement (collectively, the ``ORF
Costs''). ORF funds may also be used for indirect expenses such as
human resources and other administrative costs. The Exchange monitors
the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that this
revenue, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange considers surveillance operations part of
regulatory operations. The limitation on the use of regulatory funds
also provides that they shall not be distributed. See Bylaws of NYSE
Arca, Inc., Art. II, Sec. 2.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ORF is assessed on OTP Holders for options transactions that
are cleared by the OTP Holder through the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') in the Customer range regardless of the exchange on which the
transaction occurs and is collected from OTP Holder clearing firms by
the OCC on behalf of NYSE Arca.\6\ All options transactions must clear
via a clearing firm and such clearing firms can then choose to pass
through all, a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its
customers, i.e., the entering firms. The Exchange notes that the costs
relating to monitoring OTP Holders with respect to Customer trading
activity are generally higher than the costs associated with monitoring
OTP Holders that do not engage in Customer trading activity, which
tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast,
regulating OTP Holders that engage in Customer trading activity is
generally more labor intensive and requires a greater expenditure of
human and technical resources as the Exchange needs to review not only
the trading activity on behalf of Customers, but also the OTP Holder's
relationship with its Customers via more labor-intensive exam-based
programs.\7\ As a result, the costs associated with administering the
customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are
materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-
customer component (e.g., OTP Holder proprietary transactions) of its
regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca GENERAL OPTIONS and TRADING
PERMIT (OTP) FEES, Regulatory Fees, Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF''). The Exchange uses reports from OCC when assessing and
collecting the ORF. The ORF is not assessed on outbound linkage
trades. An OTP Holder is not assessed the fee until it has satisfied
applicable technological requirements necessary to commence
operations on NYSE Arca. See id.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that many of the Exchange's market
surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate
activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for
position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary
exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. The
Exchange and other options SROs are parties to a 17d-2 agreement
allocating among the SROs regulatory responsibilities relating to
compliance by the common members with rules for expiring exercise
declarations, position limits, OCC trade adjustments, and Large
Option Position Report reviews. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 85097 (February 11, 2019), 84 FR 4871 (February 19,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORF Collections and Monitoring of ORF
    Exchange rules establish that market participants must be notified
of any

change in the ORF via Trader Update at least 30 calendar days prior to
the effective date of the change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Fee Schedule, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the ORF is based on options transactions volume, the amount
of ORF collected is variable. For example, if options transactions
reported to OCC in a given month increase, the ORF collected from OTP
Holders will likely increase as well. Similarly, if options
transactions reported to OCC in a given month decrease, the ORF
collected from OTP Holders will likely decrease as well. Accordingly,
the Exchange monitors the amount of ORF collected to ensure that it
does not exceed the ORF Costs. If the Exchange determines the amount of
ORF collected exceeds ORF Costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by
submitting a fee change filing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'').
Reduction of ORF and Temporary ORF Waiver
    The Exchange currently assesses an ORF of $0.0055 per contract.
Based on the Exchange's recent review of regulatory costs, ORF
collections, and options transaction volume, the Exchange proposes to
decrease the ORF from the current rate of $0.0055 per contract to
$0.0038 per contract effective January 1, 2024 and, in concert with the
proposed reduction of the ORF, to waive the ORF from October 1, 2023
through December 31, 2023 in order to help ensure that the amount
collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and
fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The
Exchange notified OTP Holders of the proposed temporary waiver of the
ORF via Trader Update on September 1, 2023 (which was at least 30
calendar days prior to the proposed operative date of the waiver,
October 1, 2023) \9\ and will also notify OTP Holders of the proposed
change to the ORF rate via Trader Update at least 30 days prior to the
proposed operative date of the new rate, January 1, 2024. The Exchange
believes such notices will ensure that market participants have
sufficient opportunity to configure their systems to account properly
for both the ORF waiver and revised ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.nyse.com/trader-update/history#110000672056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed modification of the ORF and accompanying waiver are
informed by the Exchange's analysis of recent options volumes. The
Exchange proposes to reduce the ORF because it believes that options
transaction volume has increased to a level that if the ORF is not
adjusted, the ORF revenue to the Exchange year-over-year could exceed a
material portion of the Exchange's ORF Costs.\10\ The options industry
has continued to experience extremely high options trading volumes and
volatility, as illustrated in the table below reflecting industry data
from OCC for 2021, 2022, and 2023: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that it last modified the ORF rate in
February 2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71409
(January 27, 2014), 79 FR 5499 (January 31, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-
06). The Exchange also previously filed to waive the ORF from
November 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 96374 (November 22, 2022), 87 FR 73372 (November 29,
2022) (SR-NYSEARCA-2022-78).
    \11\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
The volume discussed in this filing is based on a compilation of OCC
data for monthly volume of equity-based options and monthly volume
of ETF-based options, in contract sides.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2021            2022            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer ADV....................................................      34,730,276      34,091,409      35,957,560
Total ADV.......................................................      74,339,870      76,488,459      81,483,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, although customer average daily volume decreased
slightly from 2021 to 2022, both total average daily volume and
customer average daily volume in 2023 increased over the already
elevated levels in 2021 and 2022.
    The below industry data from OCC demonstrates the high options
trading volumes and volatility that the industry has continued to
experience in 2023:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    April 2023       May 2023        June 2023       July 2023      August 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer ADV....................      32,498,578      34,535,662      37,028,394      35,965,918      35,387,029
Total ADV.......................      73,005,006      78,571,791      83,362,815      80,391,999      81,381,473
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The persisting increased options volumes have, in turn, impacted
the amount of ORF collected. To determine whether ORF fees should be
adjusted, the Exchange reviewed options transaction volume from 2021
through August 2023. Based on the Exchange's review and analysis of
historical options transaction volume and predictions regarding future
options transaction volume, the Exchange projects that options
transaction volume is likely to continue to remain high into 2024.
    The Exchange believes that it has sufficient information based on
recent options transaction volume to determine how to adjust the ORF
for 2024. Taking into consideration both the sustained increase in
options transaction volume, which has persisted into 2023 (and which
has translated to increased ORF collection), the Exchange proposes to
decrease the ORF from $0.0055 to $0.0038 per contract. The Exchange
further proposes to make this change effective on January 1, 2024 and
to not assess any ORF during the Waiver Period, rather than further
adjusting the ORF for the duration of the Waiver Period, as the
Exchange believes this proposal would most efficiently accomplish the
goals of ensuring that ORF collection does not exceed ORF Costs for
2023 and modifying the ORF rate so that the Exchange may assess an ORF
that is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's projected ORF Costs when the Exchange resumes assessing ORF
on January 1, 2024.
    The proposed decrease in ORF is based on the Exchange's estimated
projections for its regulatory costs, balanced with the observed
increase in options volumes. The Exchange cannot predict whether
options volume will remain at the current level going forward and
projections for future regulatory costs are estimated, preliminary, and
may change. However, the Exchange believes that amounts collected from
assessment of the ORF (as modified) will continue to cover a material
portion, but not all, of the

Exchange's ORF Costs. In addition, because of the sustained impact of
the elevated trading volumes that have persisted into 2023, along with
the difficulty of predicting when volumes may return to more normal
levels, the Exchange believes that waiving ORF from October 1, 2023 to
December 31, 2023 and implementing the reduced ORF rate of $0.0038 on
January 1, 2024 (rather than reducing ORF more drastically in the
interim) would lessen the potential for generating excess funds and
help ensure that the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but
not all, of the Exchange's projected ORF Costs. The Exchange will
continue monitoring ORF Costs in advance of the resumption of the ORF
and when it resumes assessing ORF on January 1, 2024, and, if the
Exchange determines that, in light of projected volumes and ORF Costs,
the ORF rate should be further modified to help ensure that ORF
collections would not exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, adjust
the ORF by submitting a proposed rule change and notifying OTP Holders
of such change by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act, in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) and (5) \13\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes the proposed reduction of ORF and
accompanying temporary waiver of the ORF is reasonable because it would
help ensure that collections from the ORF do not exceed a material
portion of the Exchange's ORF Costs. As noted above, the ORF is
designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
ORF Costs.
    Although there can be no assurance that the Exchange's final costs
for 2023 will not differ materially from its expectations and prior
practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options
volume will remain at current or similar levels going forward, the
Exchange believes that the amount collected based on the current ORF
rate, when combined with regulatory fees and fines, may result in
collections in excess of the estimated ORF Costs for the year and going
forward. Particularly, as noted above, the options market has continued
to experience elevated volumes and volatility in 2023, thereby
resulting in substantially higher ORF collections than projected. The
Exchange therefore believes that it would be reasonable to decrease the
ORF from $0.0055 per contract to $0.0038 per contract effective January
1, 2024, and, in connection with that change, to waive ORF from October
1, 2023 through December 31, 2023. The Exchange believes the proposed
change is reasonable because it would help the Exchange ensure that ORF
collection does not exceed a material portion of the ORF Costs for 2023
and facilitate the efficient implementation of a revised ORF rate
designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
projected ORF Costs. The Exchange proposes to make the new ORF rate
effective on January 1, 2024 and to not assess any ORF during the
Waiver Period, rather than further adjusting the ORF for the duration
of the Waiver Period, as the Exchange believes this proposal would most
efficiently accomplish these objectives. The Exchange believes that not
assessing ORF during the Waiver Period and taking into account all of
the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines would allow the Exchange
to continue covering a material portion of ORF Costs, while lessening
the potential for generating excess funds that may otherwise occur
using the current rate. The Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable to resume ORF at the decreased rate of $0.0038 on January 1,
2024. The proposed rate of $0.0038 per contract is based on the
Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory costs, balanced
with the increase in options volumes that has persisted into 2023 and
that is likely to continue into 2024; the Exchange thus believes that
resumption of the ORF at this rate on January 1, 2024 is reasonable
because it would permit the Exchange to resume assessing an ORF that is
designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
projected ORF Costs. The Exchange would continue monitoring ORF Costs
in advance of the resumption of the ORF and when it resumes assessing
ORF on January 1, 2024 and, if the Exchange determines that, in light
of projected volumes and ORF Costs, the ORF rate should be further
modified to help ensure that ORF collections would not exceed a
material portion of ORF Costs, further adjust the ORF by submitting a
proposed rule change and notifying OTP Holders of such change by Trader
Update.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes its proposal is an equitable allocation of
fees among its market participants. The Exchange believes that the
proposed waiver would not place certain market participants at an
unfair disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a
clearing firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all,
a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. As noted above, the ORF is collected from OTP Holder
clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE Arca and is assessed on all
options transactions that are cleared at the OCC in the Customer range.
In addition, the Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring
OTP Holders with respect to Customer trading activity are generally
higher than the costs associated with monitoring OTP Holders that do
not engage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more
automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating OTP Holders
that engage in Customer trading activity is generally more labor
intensive and requires a greater expenditure of human and technical
resources as the Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity
on behalf of Customers, but also the OTP Holder's relationship with its
Customers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result,
the costs associated with administering the customer component of the
Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the
costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g.,
OTP Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. The
Exchange believes that the proposed reduction of ORF from $0.0055 per
contract to $0.0038 per contract effective January 1, 2024, along with
a temporary waiver of the ORF for the three months prior to such
change, is an equitable allocation of fees because the new ORF rate
would apply equally to all OTP Holders on all their transactions that
clear in the Customer range at the OCC, and the Exchange would not
assess the ORF on any such transactions during the Waiver Period. The
proposed change also would permit the Exchange to efficiently adjust
the ORF, which is applicable to all OTP Holders' transactions that
clear in the Customer range at the OCC, to an amount designed to
recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's projected
ORF Costs. The Exchange also believes

that recommencing the ORF at the decreased rate of $0.0038 per contract
effective January 1, 2024, unless the Exchange determines it necessary
to further adjust the ORF to ensure that ORF collections do not exceed
a material portion of ORF Costs, is equitable because the ORF would
resume applying equally to all OTP Holders on options transactions in
the Customer range, at a rate designed to recover a material portion,
but not all, of the Exchange's projected ORF Costs.
The Proposed Fee Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the
ORF would not place certain market participants at an unfair
disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a clearing
firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all, a
portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. As noted above, the ORF is collected from OTP Holder
clearing firms by the OCC on behalf of NYSE Arca and is assessed on
options transactions that are cleared at the OCC in the Customer range.
In addition, the Exchange notes that the costs relating to monitoring
OTP Holders with respect to Customer trading activity are generally
higher than the costs associated with monitoring OTP Holders that do
not engage in Customer trading activity, which tends to be more
automated and less labor-intensive. By contrast, regulating OTP Holders
that engage in Customer trading activity is generally more labor
intensive and requires a greater expenditure of human and technical
resources as the Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity
on behalf of Customers, but also the OTP Holder's relationship with its
Customers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result,
the costs associated with administering the customer component of the
Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the
costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g.,
OTP Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed reduction of ORF and accompanying
temporary waiver of the ORF is not unfairly discriminatory because the
changes would apply to all OTP Holders subject to the ORF and the
Exchange would provide all such OTP Holders with 30 days' advance
notice of planned changes to the ORF. The Exchange also believes that
recommencing the ORF on January 1, 2024 at $0.0038, unless the Exchange
determines it necessary to further adjust the ORF to ensure that ORF
collections do not exceed a material portion of ORF Costs, is not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would resume assessing an
ORF designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's projected ORF Costs, and the ORF would resume applying
equally to all OTP Holders based on their transactions that clear in
the Customer range at the OCC.

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.
    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
would not impose an undue burden on intramarket competition because the
ORF is charged to all OTP Holders on all their transactions that clear
in the Customer range at the OCC; thus, the amount of ORF imposed is
based on the amount of Customer volume transacted. The Exchange
believes that the proposed reduction of the ORF rate and temporary
waiver of the ORF would not place certain market participants at an
unfair disadvantage because all options transactions must clear via a
clearing firm. Such clearing firms can then choose to pass through all,
a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers, i.e., the
entering firms. The ORF is collected from OTP Holder clearing firms by
the OCC on behalf of NYSE Arca and is assessed on all options
transactions cleared at the OCC in the Customer range. The Exchange
also believes recommencing the ORF on January 1, 2024 at $0.0038
(unless the Exchange determines it necessary at that time to adjust the
ORF to ensure that ORF collections do not exceed a material portion of
ORF Costs) would not impose an undue burden on competition because the
proposed decreased rate would apply equally to all OTP Holders subject
to ORF and would permit the Exchange to resume assessing an ORF that is
designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's
projected ORF Costs and the ORF would, as currently, apply to all OTP
Holders on their options transactions that clear in the Customer range
at the OCC. The Exchange will continue to provide advance notice of
changes to the ORF to all OTP Holders via Trader Update to provide OTP
Holders with sufficient opportunity to configure their systems to
account properly for both the Waiver Period and resumption of ORF at a
new, lower rate on January 1, 2024.
    Intermarket Competition. The proposed fee change is not designed to
address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed change is designed
to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory activities while
seeking to ensure that total collections from regulatory fees do not
exceed total regulatory costs.

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) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-68 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-NYSEARCA-2023-68. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-68 and should
be submitted on or before October 31, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22347 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39710-39711]
[DOCID:fr12jy10-74]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Rule 303, SEC File No. 270-450, OMB Control No. 3235-0505]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 303, SEC File No. 270-450, OMB Control No. 3235-0505.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 303 (17 CFR 242.303) of
Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.300 et seq.) under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for ``alternative
trading systems'' (``ATSs''), which are entities that carry out
exchange functions but which are not required to register as national
securities exchanges under the Act. In lieu of exchange registration,
an ATS can instead opt to register with the Commission as a broker-
dealer and, as a condition to not having to register as an exchange,
must instead comply with Regulation ATS. Rule 303 of Regulation ATS (17
CFR 242.303) describes the record preservation requirements for ATSs.
Rule 303 also describes how such records must be maintained, what
entities may perform this function, and how long records must be
preserved.
    Under Rule 303, ATSs are required to preserve all records made
pursuant to Rule 302, which includes information relating to
subscribers, trading summaries, and time-sequenced order information.
Rule 303 also requires ATSs to preserve any notices provided to
subscribers, including, but not limited to, notices regarding the ATSs
operations and subscriber access. For an ATS subject to the fair access
requirements described in Rule 301(b)(5)(ii) of Regulation ATS, Rule
303 further requires the ATS to preserve at least one copy of its
standards for access to trading, all documents relevant to the ATS's
decision to grant, deny, or limit access to any person, and all other
documents made or received by the ATS in the course of complying with
Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS. For an ATS subject to the capacity,
integrity, and security requirements for automated systems under Rule
301(b)(6) of Regulation ATS, Rule 303 requires an ATS to preserve all
documents made or received by the ATS related to its compliance,
including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices,
accounts, reports, test scripts, test results, and other similar
records. As provided in Rule 303(a)(1), ATSs are required to keep all
of these records, as applicable, for a period of at least three years,
the first two in an easily accessible place. In addition, Rule 303
requires ATSs to preserve records of partnership articles, articles of
incorporation or charter, minute books, stock certificate books, copies
of reports filed pursuant to Rule 301(b)(2), and records made pursuant
to Rule 301(b)(5) for the life of the ATS.
    The information contained in the records required to be preserved
by Rule 303 will be used by examiners and other representatives of the
Commission, State securities regulatory authorities, and the self-
regulatory organizations to ensure that ATSs are in compliance with
Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules and regulations.
Without the data required by the Rule, regulators would be limited in
their ability to comply with their statutory obligations, provide for
the protection of investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and
orderly markets.
    Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to register as broker-
dealers and comply with the requirements of Regulation ATS. There are
currently 81 respondents. To comply with the record preservation
requirements of Rule 303, these respondents will spend approximately
1,215 hours per year (81 respondents at 15 burden hours/respondent). At
an average cost per burden hour of $106, the resultant total related
cost of compliance for these respondents is $128,790 per year (1,215
burden hours multiplied by $106/hour).
    Written comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Boucher, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 29, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16841 Filed 7-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38209-38211]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0302; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01596-R;
Amendment 39-21618; AD 2021-13-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all

Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters. This AD was prompted by the
identification of misleading information in the emergency procedure for
the ``1(2) FUEL LOW'' caution message. This AD requires revising the
existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 24, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of August 24,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. 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. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0302.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0302; 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 final rule, the
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for Docket Operations is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitch Soth, Flight Test Engineer,
Southwest Section, Flight Test Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Leonardo S.p.a. Model
AW189 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
19, 2021 (86 FR 20336). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
revising page 3-118 of Section 3, Emergency and Malfunction Procedures,
of the existing RFM for your helicopter to add remaining flight times
(minutes) based on TQ value (%) and conditions that further reduce the
remaining flight times. The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2019-0136,
dated June 11, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0136), issued by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct
an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly Finmeccanica
Helicopter Division, AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA
advises of the identification of misleading information in the AW189
RFM Emergency procedure associated with the ``1(2) FUEL LOW'' caution
message. In particular, the procedure at issue instructs the pilot to
land as soon as practicable within 20 minutes. However, this remaining
flight time is guaranteed only if a constant torque value of 50% is
maintained. The correct time limit depends on the fuel consumption at
different engine power settings. Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0136
requires amending section 3 of the AW189 RFM, ``Emergency and
malfunction procedures,'' informing all flight crews, and thereafter,
operating the helicopter accordingly. This condition, if not addressed,
could result in the wrong estimation of the remaining flight time in a
low fuel condition, possibly resulting in an uncommanded engine in-
flight shut-down and forced landing, with consequent damage to the
helicopter or injury to occupants.
    EASA initially issued EASA AD 2019-0103, dated May 9, 2019 (EASA AD
2019-0103), to address this unsafe condition. EASA issued EASA AD 2019-
0136 to supersede EASA AD 2019-0103 to require using the corrected
amendment of the AW189 RFM.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the
website address for Leonardo S.p.a. has changed. This AD updates that
contact information to obtain service documentation. Additionally, the
FAA made edits to clarify that AW189--RFM, Document No. 189G0290X002,
Record of Temporary Revisions, TR No. 3-1, Revision A, dated May 24,
2019 (TR 3-1 Rev A) is included in Annex A of Leonardo Helicopters
Document No. 189G0257A061, ``AW189--MAF for EASA RFM Issue 2 TR 3-1,
Low Fuel Caution Procedure,'' Issue B, dated May 22, 2019. This AD is
otherwise adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed TR 3-1 Rev A, which specifies remaining flight
times (minutes) based on TQ value (%) if the XFEED is closed or if the
XFEED is open with both fuel pumps ON. TR 3-1 Rev A also specifies that
the remaining flight times (minutes) are further reduced if the XFEED
is open, both fuel pumps are ON and one tank has emptied, and the 2
engines are supplied from the remaining tank.
    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.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2019-0136 requires revising the existing RFM for your
helicopter within 14 days, whereas this AD requires that action within
14 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD instead.
EASA AD 2019-0136 requires removing the RFM changes previously required
by EASA AD 2019-0103, whereas this AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter takes about 0.25
work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $84 for the
U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in
more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-13-13 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21618; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0302; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01596-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 24, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7300, Engine fuel
and control.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the identification of misleading
information in the emergency procedure for the ``1(2) FUEL LOW''
caution message. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the wrong
estimation of the remaining flight time in a low fuel condition. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncommanded
engine in-flight shut-down and forced landing, with subsequent
damage to the helicopter or injury to the occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 14 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this
AD, revise page 3-118 of Section 3, Emergency and Malfunction
Procedures, of the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual for your
helicopter by adding page 3-118, Temporary Revision 3-1 Rev. A, of
AW189--RFM, Document No. 189G0290X002, Record of Temporary
Revisions, dated May 24, 2019, as contained in Annex A of Leonardo
Helicopters Document No. 189G0257A061, ``AW189--MAF for EASA RFM
Issue 2 TR 3-1, Low Fuel Caution Procedure,'' Issue B, dated May 22,
2019 (TR 3-1 Rev A). Using a different document with information
identical to the information in page 3-118 of TR 3-1 Rev A is
acceptable for compliance with the requirement of this paragraph.
This action may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding
at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the
aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with
Sec.  43.9(a)(1) through (4) and Sec.  91.417(a)(2)(v). The record
must be maintained as required by Sec.  91.417, Sec.  121.380, or
Sec.  135.439.

(h) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Mitch Soth,
Flight Test Engineer, Southwest Section, Flight Test Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0136, dated June 11, 2019. You
may view the EASA AD at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FAA-2021-0302.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) AW189--RFM, Document No. 189G0290X002, Record of Temporary
Revisions, dated May 24, 2019, as contained in Annex A of Leonardo
Helicopters Document No. 189G0257A061, ``AW189--MAF for EASA RFM
Issue 2 TR 3-1, Low Fuel Caution Procedure,'' Issue B, dated May 22,
2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 9, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15300 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59969-59971]
[DOCID:fr23oc07-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0074; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-151-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This proposed
AD would require replacement of the wire harness of the auxiliary
hydraulic pump with a new wire harness, and routing the new wire
harness outside of the tire burst area. This proposed AD results from
fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer, as well as reports
of shorted wires in the right wheel well and evidence of arcing on the
power cables of the auxiliary hydraulic pump. We are proposing this AD
to prevent shorted wires or electrical arcing at the auxiliary
hydraulic pump, which could result in a fire in the wheel well. We are
also proposing this AD to reduce the potential of an ignition source
adjacent to the fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 7,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management,
Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheyenne Del Carmen, Aerospace
Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562)
627-5338; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0074;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-151-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    We have received three reports indicating that operators found
shorted wires in the right wheel well and evidence of arcing on the
power cables of the auxiliary hydraulic pump, on three McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes. One incident resulted in a
fire in the wheel well. Investigation revealed that damage to the power
cables was caused by structural chafing. In addition, SFAR 88 analysis
determined that extra protection is required on the wire harness of the
auxiliary hydraulic pump where it comes in close proximity to the
center fuel tank; Model MD-90-30 airplanes have a similar installation.
Boeing analysis also determined that the existing wire harness of the
auxiliary hydraulic pump for Model MD-90-30 airplanes is routed within
the ``tire burst'' area. Installing a new and longer wire harness for
the auxiliary hydraulic pump and routing it outside of the tire burst
area will minimize the possibility of chafing and wire arcing damage.
Shorted wires or electrical arcing at the auxiliary hydraulic pump, if
not corrected, could result in a fire in the wheel well. A potential
ignition source adjacent to the fuel tanks, if not corrected, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors could result in a

fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
    The installation of the auxiliary hydraulic pump wire harness on
Model DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes is similar to that on the affected
Model MD-90-30 airplanes. Therefore, all of these models are subject to
the same unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-29A021, dated
May 15, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing
the wire harness of the auxiliary hydraulic pump with a new wire
harness, and routing the new wire harness outside of the tire burst
area. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 110 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 16 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 7 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
would cost about $3,997 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $72,912, or
$4,557 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2007-0074; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-151-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December
7, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-29A021, dated May 15, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer, as well as reports of shorted wires in the right wheel
well and evidence of arcing on the power cables of the auxiliary
hydraulic pump. We are issuing this AD to prevent shorted wires or
electrical arcing at the auxiliary hydraulic pump, which could
result in a fire in the wheel well. We are also issuing this AD to
reduce the potential of an ignition source adjacent to the fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Replacement

    (f) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the wire harness of the auxiliary hydraulic pump with a new
wire harness and route the new wire harness outside of the tire
burst area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-29A021, dated May 15, 2007.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20823 Filed 10-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24772-24773]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-469-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 15, 2019, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Tennessee's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000, for authorization to

replace a turbine on an existing compressor unit C1, at its existing
Compressor Station (CS) 321 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and to
increase firm transportation capacity in a portion of Tennessee's 300
Line by up to 10,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d), all as more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Ben J. Carranza, Director of Regulatory for Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002,
or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, Tennessee proposes to replace existing Solar Turbine
Taurus 70-10302S compressor unit at CS 321 with a Taurus 70-10802S
compressor unit. The new turbine engine will have 9 ppm
SoLoNOX controls, which will result in lower oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions from Unit C1. The planned
replacement of the existing turbine engine will increase the horsepower
of Unit C1 by 800 ISO horsepower, which will create an incremental
year-round transportation capacity of approximately 10,000 Dth/d in
Segments 320 and 321 of Tennessee's 300 Line. Tennessee states that
this additional capacity will be made available pursuant to the terms
and conditions of Tennessee's Gas Tariff. The estimated cost of the
project is $2.4 million.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: May 22, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11174 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P