[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38729-38731]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 126

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0966]
RIN 1625-AB82

Alternate Tonnage Threshold for Oil Spill Response Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing an alternate size threshold
based on the measurement system established under the International
Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, for oil spill
response vessels, which are properly certificated under 46 CFR chapter
I, subchapter L. The present size threshold of 500 gross register tons
is based on the U.S. regulatory measurement system. This final rule
provides an alternative for owners and operators of offshore supply
vessels that may result in an increase in oil spill response capacity
and capability. This final rule adopts, without change, the interim
rule amending 46 CFR part 126 published in the Federal Register on
Monday, December 12, 2011.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2011-0966 and are available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 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. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2011-0966 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this final
rule, call or email Mr. Brian T. Ellis, Coast Guard Marine Safety
Center; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Regulatory History
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
GT ITC Gross Tonnage International Tonnage Convention, 1969
OSV Offshore Supply Vessel
OSRV Oil Spill Response Vessel
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Regulatory History

    On Monday, December 12, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim
rule with request for comments entitled Alternate Tonnage Threshold for
Oil Spill Response Vessels in the Federal Register (76 FR 77128). We
received no comments on the interim rule. No public meeting was
requested and none was held. This rule is considered to be an
interpretive rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.) and, therefore, the 30-day delay of the effective date is not
required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).

III. Basis and Purpose

    The interim final rule published in the Federal Register on Monday,
December 12, 2011 (76 FR 77128) provides a discussion of the basis and
purpose of this rulemaking, but a summary of that discussion follows.
    This final rule establishes an alternate tonnage threshold at 6000
Gross Tonnage International Tonnage Convention (GT ITC) for oil spill
response vessels (OSRVs) that are also certificated as offshore supply
vessels (OSVs). The selected alternate tonnage threshold is consistent
with a 6000 GT ITC alternate threshold established for OSVs in 1996.\1\
This final rule will allow owners of OSVs regulated under the alternate
tonnage framework to also have their vessels certificated as OSRVs,
without the need to meet significantly higher standards applicable to
tank vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Offshore Supply Vessels: Alternate Tonnage, 61 FR 66613
(Dec. 18, 1996), amending 46 CFR 125.160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this final rule provides for optional use of an alternative
approach to meet an existing requirement, there is no mandatory cost to
the public. The authority for this final rule is the 1996 Coast Guard
Authorization Act (the Act) (Pub. L. 104-324), as codified in 46 U.S.C.
3702(f)(2)(A) and 14104(b).

IV. Background

    The interim final rule, published in the Federal Register on
Monday, December 12, 2011 (76 FR 77128), provides a discussion of the
background of this rulemaking. No comments were received on the interim
final rule and,

therefore, this final rule adopts, without change, that interim rule
amending 46 CFR part 126.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has reviewed it under that Order.
    This final rule establishes a tonnage threshold of 6000 GT ITC for
OSRVs under the alternate tonnage framework, which offers a mechanism
for the Coast Guard to regulate vessels under tonnages assigned using
the convention measurement system, instead of the regulatory
measurement system. Therefore, this final rule provides an option to
owners of vessels certificated as OSVs (under 46 CFR subchapter L) to
seek OSRV certification based on this alternate tonnage threshold. We
believe that a vessel owner will opt to use the alternate tonnage
framework described in this final rule only if it will be beneficial to
the owner's business.
    We expect this final rule to be beneficial to the public and to the
maritime industry because it provides the opportunity to increase oil
spill response capacity and capability.
    This final rule provides for optional and voluntary use of an
alternative approach to meet an existing requirement. Accordingly,
there is no mandatory cost to the public.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), this rule
is considered an interpretive rule and is not subject to the
requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) for publication of a general notice
of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 601, it is not a rule
that is subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
    The Coast Guard issued this rule as an interpretive rule on
December 12, 2011, as authorized by section 702 of the Act (Pub. L.
104-324; October 19, 1996). The Conference Report on the Act (H. Rept.
104-854) states that, because this rule is considered to be an
interpretive rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.), the notice of proposed rulemaking and comment requirements
and the 30-day delay of effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553 would not be
required in order to expedite this rulemaking.
    This final rule provides for optional and voluntary use of an
alternative approach to owners of vessels certificated as OSVs to seek
an OSRV certification based on an alternate tonnage threshold. We
believe that a vessel owner will opt to use the alternate tonnage
framework described in this final rule only if it will be beneficial to
the owner's business. We expect this final rule to be beneficial to the
public and to the maritime industry because it provides the opportunity
to increase the availability and capacity of OSRVs.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult Brian T. Ellis, U.S. Coast Guard Marine
Safety Center, Tonnage Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question
or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

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

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism. It is
well settled that States may not establish alternate tonnages for oil
spill response vessels pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3702(f)(2)(A). Therefore,
preemption is not an issue under Executive Order 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This final rule is categorically excluded under section
2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction. Exclusion
under paragraph (34)(d) applies because this final rule pertains to
regulations concerning documentation and admeasurement of vessels. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 126

    Cargo vessels, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

PART 126-INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 46 CFR part 126, which was
published at 76 FR 77128 on December 12, 2011, is adopted as a final
rule without change.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
F. J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-15976 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31860-31863]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0288; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.,
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell), Model 214B and B-1
helicopters, which proposed to require inspecting certain pylon support
spindle assemblies (spindles) for any corrosion, or a nick, scratch,
dent, or crack, and repairing or replacing any unairworthy spindle
before further flight. This SNPRM proposes to revise those requirements
by updating the cost of compliance, revising the recording
requirements, adding a requirement to reduce the retirement life of an
installed spindle, and adding Bell Model 214ST to the applicability.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, Texas 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    On March 3, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to Bell Model 214B and B-1 helicopters with a spindle, part
number (P/N) 214-030-606-005, installed. This proposal was published in
the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March
13, 2008 (73 FR 13513). The NPRM proposed to require creating a
component history card or equivalent for each spindle, inspecting
certain spindles for any corrosion, or a nick, scratch, dent, or crack,
and repairing or replacing any unairworthy spindle before further
flight. That NPRM was prompted by three in-flight failures of the
spindle which resulted in forced landings and one serious injury. The
proposed actions were intended to detect damage in the radii or
cracking of a spindle, and to prevent failure of a spindle and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The proposed actions were
also intended to be interim actions until a retirement life for the
affected spindles could be developed and new replacement spindles
became available.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 13513, March 13, 2008),
Bell conducted further evaluation of the cracked spindles and
determined it necessary to establish a retirement life for the spindles
because the speed at which a crack can propagate is such that a more
frequent inspection interval would not be practical. As a result, Bell
released Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 214-08-70, dated November 11,
2008, now at Revision C, dated April 14, 2009, to establish the
retirement life for the spindles on Model 214B and 214B-1 helicopters.
Due to design similarities, Bell conducted further evaluation of the
spindles on Model 214ST helicopters and published ASB No. 214ST-08-86,
dated November 11, 2008, now at Revision B, dated April 14, 2009, to
revise the retirement life for those spindles. The first actual
reported crack in a Model 214ST spindle, P/N 214-030-606-103, prompted
Bell to release Information Letter 214ST-12-23, dated January 30, 2012.
    This SNPRM proposes the following changes:
     Adding Model 214ST helicopters to the applicability;
     Removing certain previously proposed recording
requirements;
     Removing the previously proposed visual and magnetic
particle inspection requirements and subsequent replacement and repair
requirements;
     Establishing a retirement life of 1,250 hours TIS or total
accumulated retirement index number (RIN) of 20,000, whichever occurs
first, for any spindle, part number (P/N) 214-030-606-005, that is
installed on a Model 214B or Model 214B-1 helicopter;
     Reducing the retirement life to 2,500 hours TIS or total
accumulated RIN of 50,000, whichever occurs first, for any spindle, P/N
214-030-606-103, that is installed on a Model 214ST helicopter;
     Establishing a method of determining the total accumulated
RIN; and
     Replacing any spindle which has reached its airworthiness
retirement life.
    This SNPRM also updates the cost of compliance information of this
AD by correcting the estimated number of work-hours to replace both
spindles from 15 work-hours to 24 work-hours, by updating the estimated
labor cost per work-hour from $80 to $85 per work-hour, and by updating
the cost of required parts to current replacement part costs.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 13513, March 13, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request

    Bell stated that results from analysis and review of the pylon
spindle assembly, P/N 214-030-606-005, identified the requirement to
assign an airworthiness retirement life to that assembly. They also
stated that alert service bulletins would detail the retirement life of
the spindle. We agree and have revised this SNPRM accordingly.
    Bell commented that the previous NPRM (73 FR 13513, March 13, 2008)
did not address conversion of torque events to RIN. We agree and have
revised this SNPRM accordingly.
    Bell also stated that the previous NPRM mis-identified the visual
inspection requirements of using a magnifying glass on each outer
radius of the spindle; that this visual inspection requirement is for
the main rotor hub spindle, not the transmission spindle. They also
stated that once cracks start, they progress very rapidly and visual
inspection at a frequency designed to discover cracking would not be
manageable. We agree. With

establishment of a maximum airworthiness life limit for the spindle and
after further review, we determined that deleting the previously
proposed visual inspections will not impact the overall level of
safety.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of these same type
designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM (73 FR 13513, March 13, 2008). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed Bell ASB No. 214-08-70, Revision C, dated April
14, 2009 (214-08-70), which establishes a maximum airworthiness limit
of 1,250 hours TIS or a total accumulated RIN of 20,000, whichever
occurs first, for any spindle, P/N 214-030-606-005, that is installed
on a Model 214B or Model 214B-1 helicopter. ASB 214-08-70 was prompted
by three reported incidents of a cracked spindle, P/N 214-030-606-005.
We have also reviewed Bell ASB No. 214ST-08-86, Revision B, dated April
14, 2009 (214ST-08-86), which reduces the maximum airworthiness life
limit from 5,000 hours TIS to 2,500 hours TIS or a total accumulated
RIN of 50,000, whichever occurs first, for any spindle, P/N 214-030-
606-103, that is installed on a Model 214ST helicopter. ASB 214ST-08-86
was published after further evaluation of spindle, P/N 214-030-606-103,
which was prompted by design similarities to spindle, P/N 214-030-606-
005. The ASBs also specify determining the accumulated RIN by
calculating a RIN factor of 1 for each lift or takeoff performed during
normal operation and of 2 for each lift or takeoff performed during
logging operation. When actual lift events are unknown or cannot be
determined, both ASBs specify calculating RIN at 30 lift events per
flight hour; ASB No. 214-08-70 further specifies calculating flight
hours at a rate of 900 hours per year. Both ASBs specify replacing any
spindle that has reached its maximum airworthiness limit.
    Additionally, we reviewed Bell Information Letter 214ST-12-23,
dated January 30, 2012, which was issued to advise owners and operators
of the first actual reported crack in a Model 214ST spindle, P/N 214-
030-606-103.

Proposed Requirements of the SNPRM

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours TIS:
     Creating a component history card or equivalent record for
each affected spindle;
     Determining total hours TIS, if not already recorded;
     Determining total accumulated RIN;
     Recording the RIN and hours TIS on the spindle's component
history card or equivalent record;
     Establishing a new retirement life for spindle, P/N 214-
030-606-005, of 1,250 hours TIS or a total accumulated RIN of 20,000,
whichever occurs first, for Models 214B and 214B-1, and reducing the
retirement life for spindle, P/N 214-030-606-103, from 5,000 hours TIS
to 2,500 hours TIS or an accumulated RIN of 50,000, whichever occurs
first, for Model 214ST; and
     Replacing any spindle which has reached its airworthiness
retirement life.

Differences Between this SNPRM and the Service Information

    The service information specifies, as part of determining the life
of a currently installed spindle, accumulating a RIN factor of 2 for
each lift or takeoff performed during a logging operation. This SNPRM
would instead require using a RIN factor of 2 for any external load
lift or takeoff in which the helicopter achieves a vertical altitude
difference of greater than 200 feet indicated altitude between the
pick-up and drop-off point. We have determined that other external load
lift operations with the specified vertical altitude difference or
greater would experience the same double torque cycle as in logging
operations, and that a RIN factor of 2 would need to be used for those
type of operations as well. Also, the service information for Models
214B and 214B-1 specify an initial compliance time of 150 flight hours.
We are retaining the initial compliance time of 50 hours TIS from the
previous NPRM in this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 12 Model 214B/B-1
and 24 Model 214ST helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that
operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this
AD. It would take about 1 work-hour for the record keeping requirements
of this proposed AD, and about 24 work-hours to replace both spindles.
Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour and the cost of parts
would be about $39,806 for both spindles for a Model 214B or 214B-1,
and $40,802 for both spindles for a Model 214ST. Based on these
estimates, for record keeping and the replacement of a pair of
spindles, the total per helicopter cost would be $41,931 for a Model
214B or 214B-1 and $42,927 for a Model 214ST. The total cost of
recordkeeping would be about $3,060.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2008-
0288; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-25-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell), Model
214B, 214B-1, and 214ST helicopters, with pylon support spindle
assembly (spindle), part number (P/N) 214-030-606-005 or -103,
installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking of a
spindle. This condition could result in failure of the spindle and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

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

(d) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Create a component history card or equivalent record for
each spindle, P/N 214-030-606-005 and 214-030-606-103, recording the
spindle's P/N and serial number (S/N).
    (ii) Review the helicopter records to determine the hours TIS of
each spindle, if the hours TIS are not already recorded for your
model helicopter. For each month for which the hours TIS is unknown,
record 75 hours TIS.
    (iii) Determine the total accumulated retirement index number
(RIN) for each spindle. For the purpose of this AD, count 1 RIN for
each takeoff and 2 RIN for each external load lift in which the
helicopter achieves a vertical altitude difference of greater than
200 feet indicated altitude between the pick-up and drop-off point.
For any time period for which the accumulated RIN cannot be
determined while the spindle was installed on a helicopter, multiply
the hours TIS by 30 to calculate the spindle's accumulated RIN.
    (iv) Record the hours TIS and total accumulated RIN for each
spindle on the component history card or equivalent record.
    (2) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
applicable maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness as follows:
    (i) By establishing a new retirement life for the spindle, P/N
214-030-606-005, of 1,250 hours TIS or a total accumulated RIN of
20,000, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) By reducing the retirement life for the spindle, P/N 214-
030-606-103, from 5,000 hours TIS to 2,500 hours TIS or a total
accumulated RIN of 50,000, whichever occurs first.
    (3) Replace any spindle, P/N 214-030-606-005, that has been in
service for 1,250 or more hours TIS, or a total accumulated RIN of
20,000 or more, whichever occurs first.
    (4) Replace any spindle, P/N 214-030-606-103, that has been in
service for 2,500 or more hours TIS, or a total accumulated RIN of
50,000 or more, whichever occurs first.
    (5) Continue to count and record the accumulated RIN count and
hours TIS for each spindle on its component history card or
equivalent record.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin Crane,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6330, Transmission
Mount.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 17, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12522 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37299-37301]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0077]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Alcohol-Impaired Driving Segmentation Study

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA invites public comments about our intention to request
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new
information collection. Before a federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB. Under
procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before
seeking OMB approval, federal agencies must solicit public comment on
proposed collections of information, including extensions and
reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document
describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek
OMB approval on a segmentation study related to alcohol-impaired
driving and riding (motorcycles). This study's objective is to better
understand alcohol-consumption behaviors and how they relate to
potential alcohol-impaired driving/riding. The results of this study
will help NHTSA inform its consumer messages to reduce fatalities and
injuries on US roadways.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2022-0077 through any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Kil-Jae Hong, Marketing Specialist,
Office of Communications and Consumer Information (NCO-0200), (202)
493-0524, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, W52-232, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
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 (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following: (a)
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; (b) 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; (c) how to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) 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 proposed collection of information for which the agency
is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Segmentation Study.
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Type of Request: Comments on a new information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    NHTSA is seeking approval to conduct a nationwide alcohol-impaired
driving segmentation study to learn about alcohol-consumption behaviors
and how they relate to potential impaired driving. The one-time
voluntary study will be used to obtain information to better understand
attitudes and behaviors related to alcohol-impaired driving that will
be used to enhance and refine communication strategy and tactics (i.e.,
more effectively target and message at-risk drivers and motorcycle
riders). The study will survey drivers and motorcycle riders ages 21-
to 54-years-old because this age range represents the greatest number
of alcohol-related driving/riding fatalities according to NHTSA's
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 2020 Alcohol Impaired Driving (Traffic Safety Facts. Report
No. DOT HS 813 294).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The research study will include two components, both being one-time
collections. The first component will involve a series of online webcam
interviews that will collect qualitative information that will serve as
a cognitive test to improve the quantitative survey that will be
administered in the second component. The quantitative survey will be
administered online and by phone. After collecting the data,
segmentation analysis will be done to classify drivers and motorcycle
riders according to segments based on common demographics, drinking
behaviors, attitudes about drinking and driving/motorcycle riding, and
lifestyle characteristics.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: This alcohol-impaired driving segmentation study will help
NHTSA better understand its impaired driving campaign audience to
communicate messages most effectively about being safe and decreasing
impaired driving.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), under
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), was established to
reduce the number of deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting
from motor vehicle crashes on the nation's highways. In keeping with
this mission and to fulfill a congressional mandate to improve highway
traffic safety, NHTSA's Office of Communications and Consumer
Information (OCCI) is dedicated to eliminating risky behaviors on our
nation's roads through public awareness campaigns. One of the most
significant NHTSA's OCCI seeks to address through these efforts is
drunk driving.
    Drunk driving is a significant cause of highway fatalities,
injuries and economic losses. Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities
totaled 11,654 in 2020, accounting for 30% of all motor-vehicle-crash
fatalities.\2\ On average, in 2020, there was an alcohol-impaired
driving fatality every 45 minutes.\3\ Among motorcycle riders, in
particular, 27% of riders in fatal crashes were legally drunk--a rate
exceeding that of passenger car drivers (23%) and the highest among all
vehicle types measured.\4\ Aside from the fatalities, alcohol-impaired
driving crashes carried an economic cost of an estimated $44 billion in
2010 (the most recent year for which cost data is available).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 2020 Alcohol Impaired Driving (Traffic Safety Facts. Report
No. DOT HS 813 294).
    \3\ Ibid.
    \4\ Ibid.
    \5\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2015, July).
Overview: 2013 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812
169). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for NHTSA's public awareness campaigns on drunk driving to
be effective they must effectively ``compete'' for audience attention
in the public domain among hundreds of other major marketers, including
those in the alcoholic beverage industry that strategically target
messages to

particular groups of the public marketplace. In the consumer marketing
context and environment, NHTSA must work to convince members of the
driving/riding public not to operate vehicles when impaired by alcohol.
Accordingly, NHTSA finds that it is necessary to conduct research, as
authorized by the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to conduct
research that will allow NHTSA to better tailor its communication
strategies.
    Specifically, NHTSA believes a segmentation analysis such as the
one described above would be especially useful to NHTSA. More closely
understanding and segmenting drunk drivers and motorcycle riders will
enable more effective communications programs. Insights about drunk
drivers'/motorcycle riders' lifestyle characteristics, alcohol-
consumption behaviors and attitudes towards drunk driving will provide
useful, pragmatic information for NHTSA's continuing efforts to address
the drunk driving/motorcycle riding issue responsible for so many
deaths.
    The segmentation profiles will be used by NHTSA's Office of
Communications and Consumer Information (OCCI) to better target and
reach intended audiences with communications messages and techniques
that are relevant and meaningful to people within the target market.
    Affected Public: Vehicle Drivers and Motorcycle Riders ages 21-54
(English and Spanish-speaking).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,400.
    Frequency: One time.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,574.67.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $119,250.99.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) 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.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

    Issued on June 1, 2023.
Juliette Marie Vallese,
Associate Administrator, Office of Communications and Consumer
Information.
[FR Doc. 2023-12102 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 65740]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4030-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4030-DR), dated September
12, 2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective October 15, 2011.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

    Dated: October 18, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-27466 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71215-71217]
[DOCID:fr08de06-145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54856; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fees Charged to Member Organizations for Transactions in
Equity Securities

December 1, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 30, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. NYSE has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by NYSE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise the fees it charges to its member
organizations for transactions in equity securities by eliminating the
$750,000 monthly fee cap and establishing a flat fee of $0.000275 per
share. The Exchange will also begin charging the standard Exchange
Traded Fund (``ETF'') fee of $0.0030 per share on transactions in ETFs
traded on an unlisted trading privilege basis. The Exchange also is
eliminating the specialist trading privilege fee and the specialist
allocation fee. In addition, simultaneously with the implementation of
the revised trading fees, the Exchange intends, by means of a separate
filing (the ``Commission Elimination Filing''), to eliminate specialist
commissions.\5\ The proposed rule changes will take effect as of
December 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54850 (November 30,
2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2006-
105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the

Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to revise the fees it charges to its member
organizations for transactions in equity securities by eliminating the
$750,000 monthly fee cap and establishing a flat fee of $0.000275 per
share. The Exchange will also begin charging the standard ETF fee of
$0.0030 per share on transactions in ETFs traded on an unlisted trading
privileges basis. In addition, simultaneously with the implementation
of the revised trading fees, the Exchange proposes in the Commission
Elimination Filing to eliminate specialist commissions. The proposed
fee changes will take effect as of December 1, 2006. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission make the

effectiveness of the Commission Elimination Filing operative on
December 1, 2006, the same day the changes contained in this filing
take effect.
    The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.00025 per share on
equity transactions, subject to a monthly fee cap of $750,000 per
member organization. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the monthly fee
cap and raise the equity transaction fee to $0.000275 per share. Under
the current fee structure, the member organizations with the highest
trading volume on the Exchange benefit from a lower effective fee level
than member organizations sending smaller volumes to the Exchange,
because they benefit from the monthly cap. After the elimination of the
monthly cap, the effective fee rate will be the same for all member
organizations regardless of how much volume they send to the
Exchange.\6\ Moreover, while the transaction fee is increasing from
$0.00025 to $0.000275, the prohibition of specialist commissions
referenced above will lead to a lower effective trading cost when
compared to the combined costs of transaction fees and specialist
commissions under the current structure. As such, the Exchange believes
that the combined effect of the fee change and the prohibition of
specialist commissions will be to make its pricing structure more
competitive, more equitable, more transparent and easier to understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange's $80 per transaction cap on fees will continue
to be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike transactions in listed ETFs, on which the Exchange charges a
$0.0030 per share fee, the Exchange does not currently charge fees on
transactions in ETFs traded on an unlisted trading privileges basis. As
of December 1, 2006, the Exchange proposes to charge the same fee on
transactions in ETF securities traded on a UTP basis as it charges on
listed ETFs.
    In order to partially offset the specialists' loss of commissions,
the Exchange is eliminating the specialist trading privilege fee and
the specialist allocation fee. The specialist allocation fee is charged
to the specialist allocated a new equity listing and for any specific
allocation the fee payable is an amount equal to the difference between
the initial listing fee the company is required to pay subject to the
Exchange's $250,000 cap on initial listing fees and the amount the
company would have to pay if the listing fee cap was $500,000.\7\
Initial listing fees payable by companies will continue to be capped at
$250,000, notwithstanding the elimination of the specialist allocation
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-43700 (December 11, 2000);
65 FR 79147 (December 18, 2000) (SR-NYSE-00-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also instituting a program of revenue sharing with
Exchange specialists. Revenue sharing payments to specialists will be
made from the Exchange's general revenues and will not be limited to a
particular revenue source. Given the uncertainties faced by specialists
in light of the complete implementation of the Exchange's hybrid market
initiative over the next several months coupled with the loss of
commission income, in order to provide to the specialist firms a source
of payments in lieu of commissions for a transitional period, the
Exchange will distribute a fixed amount of $53 million among the
specialists with respect to the six-month period commencing on December
1, 2006. This fixed amount will be allocated among the specialist firms
based on their performance in October 2006, and will be allocated in
proportion to the rebates each of the specialist firms would be
entitled to under the formulas set forth in items (2) and (3) (but not
item (1)) of the next paragraph. The transitional rebate will be paid
in six equal monthly installments.
    Commencing June 1, 2007, the Exchange intends to institute a
revenue sharing program that will provide variable payments to the
specialist firms depending on performance. The Exchange will file a
rule filing with the Commission pursuant to the Act and the rules
thereunder in relation to such revenue sharing program prior to its
implementation. While the nature of the revenue sharing program that
the Exchange will ultimately propose may change depending on market
conditions in the intervening period, it is currently anticipated that
the revenue sharing program will have the following three components:
    (1) Specialists would receive a rebate (calculated on a monthly
basis) of $0.000275 per share for each share of their specialty
securities they either buy or sell on the Exchange.
    (2) Specialists would receive a rebate each month relating to their
absolute market share in each of their specialty stocks if that market
share exceeds 35%. A market share in a stock that is equal to or
exceeds 35% would entitle a specialist to a rebate of (i) $15 for each
percentage point above or equal to 35% up to and including 50%, (ii)
$25 for each percentage point above 50% up to and including 65%, (iii)
$35 for each percentage point above 65% up to and including 80%, and
(iv) $45 for each percentage point above 80%. The following are
examples of how this rebate would be paid:
     If Specialist X trades XYZ stock in which the Exchange has
a 50% market share, it would receive $225 per month, which is 15%
multiplied by $15.
     If Specialist X trades XYZ stock in which the Exchange has
a 65% market share, it would receive $600 per month, which is 15%
multiplied by $15, plus 15% multiplied by $25.
    (3) Specialists would receive a volume-weighted rebate each month
for every share traded in a stock in which the Exchange has a greater
than 35% market share. If the Exchange has a market share:
     Equal to or greater than 35% up to and including 50%, the
rebate would be $0.00013 per share.
     Greater than 50% up to and including 65%, the rebate would
be $0.00014 per share.
     Greater than 65% up to and including 80%, the rebate would
be $0.00015 per share.
     Greater than 80% the rebate would be $0.00016 per share.
    The following are examples of how the volume-weighted rebate would
be paid:
     If Specialist X trades XYZ stock in which the Exchange has
a 50% market share, it would receive a rebate of $0.00013 for every
share traded above the 35% market share threshold.
     If Specialist X trades XYZ stock in which the Exchange has
a 65% market share, it would receive a rebate of $0.00013 per share for
every share traded above the 35% market share threshold up to and
including a 50% market share, and then would receive $0.00014 for every
share above the 50% level.
    The Exchange may alter the provisions of the revenue sharing
program in the future in response to its experience with its
application over time, in particular in light of the Exchange's full
implementation of its hybrid market initiative.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange will file a rule filing with the Commission
pursuant to the Act and the rules thereunder in relation to any such
changes prior to their implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act \9\ in general and furthers
the objectives of

Section 6(b)(4) \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
\12\ thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NYSE-2006-106 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-106. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2006-106 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20872 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P