[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 140 (Friday, July 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43924-43926]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15661]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95306; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2022-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend
the Current Pilot Program Related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous
Executions)

July 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 13, 2022, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' 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 extend the current pilot program related
to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on
October 20, 2022. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current
pilot program related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to
the close of business on October 20, 2022. The pilot program is
currently due to expire on July 20, 2022.
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Rule 11.19 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) that, among other
things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous
execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more
securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate
from the objective standards set forth in the rule.\4\ In 2013, the
Exchange adopted a provision designed to address the operation of the
Plan.\5\ Finally, in 2014, the Exchange adopted two additional
provisions providing that: (i) a series of transactions in a particular
security on one or more trading days may be viewed as one event if all
such transactions were effected based on the same fundamentally
incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information resulting in a
severe valuation error for all such transactions; and (ii) in the event
of any disruption or malfunction in the operation of the electronic
communications and trading facilities of an Exchange, another SRO, or
responsible single plan processor in connection with the transmittal or
receipt of a trading halt, an Officer, acting on his or her own motion,
shall nullify any transaction that occurs after a trading halt has been
declared by the primary listing market for a security and before such
trading halt has officially ended according to the primary listing
market.\6\ Rule 11.19 is no longer applicable to any securities that
trade on the Exchange and has been replaced with Rule 7.10, which is
substantively identical to Rule 11.19.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (Sept. 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (Sept. 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-07).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68803 (Feb. 1,
2013), 78 FR 9078 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR-NSX-2013-06).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (SR-NSX-2014-08).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23, 2018) (SR-NYSENAT-2018-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot
period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or
``LULD Plan''),\8\ including any extensions to the pilot period for the
LULD Plan.\9\ In April 2019, the Commission approved an amendment to
the LULD Plan for it to operate on a permanent, rather than pilot,
basis.\10\ In light of that change, the Exchange amended Rule 7.10 to
untie the pilot program's effectiveness from that of the LULD Plan and
to extend the pilot's effectiveness to the close of business on October
18, 2019.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71797 (March 25,
2014), 79 FR 18108 (March 31, 2014) (SR-NSX-2014-07).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (approving Eighteenth Amendment
to LULD Plan).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85522 (April 5,
2019), 84 FR 14704 (April 11, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-07).

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

The Exchange later amended Rule 7.10 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness to the close of business on April 20, 2020,\12\ October
20, 2020,\13\ April 20, 2021,\14\ October 20, 2021,\15\ April 20,
2022,\16\ and July 20, 2022.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87352 (October 18,
2019), 84 FR 57063 (October 24, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-24).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88593 (April 8,
2020), 85 FR 20728 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-13).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90157 (October 13,
2020), 85 FR 66393 (October 19, 2020) (SR-NYSENAT-2020-32).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91549 (April 14,
2021), 86 FR 20548 (April 20, 2021) (SR-NYSENAT-2021-08).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93359 (October 15,
2021), 86 FR 58322 (October 21, 2021) (SR-NYSENAT-2021-20).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94638 (April 7,
2022), 87 FR 21938 (April 13, 2022) (SR-NYSENAT-2022-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.10 to extend the pilot's
effectiveness for a further three months to the close of business on
October 20, 2022 while the Commission considers a proposal to make the
pilot program permanent that has been filed by Cboe BZX.\18\ If the
pilot period is not either extended, replaced or approved as permanent,
the prior versions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g) as described
in former Rule 11.19 will be in effect, and the provisions of
paragraphs (i) through (k) shall be null and void.\19\ In such an
event, the remaining sections of Rule 7.10 would continue to apply to
all transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange understands
that the other national securities exchanges and Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') will also file similar proposals to
extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs, the
substance of which are identical to Rule 7.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See SR-CboeBZX-2022-37 (July 8, 2022).
    \19\ See supra notes 4-6. The prior versions of paragraphs (c),
(e)(2), (f), and (g) generally provided greater discretion to the
Exchange with respect to breaking erroneous trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.10.
Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.10 for an additional three months
will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations
additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly
erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade in
that it promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning
review of transactions as clearly erroneous. The Exchange believes that
extending the clearly erroneous execution pilot under Rule 7.10 for an
additional three months would help assure that the determination of
whether a clearly erroneous trade has occurred will be based on clear
and objective criteria, and that the resolution of the incident will
occur promptly through a transparent process. The proposed rule change
would also help assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades
across the U.S. equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly
markets, the protection of investors and the public interest. Based on
the foregoing, the Exchange believes the amended clearly erroneous
executions rule should continue to be in effect on a pilot basis while
the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether
further amendments to these rules are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous
execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and
other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments
to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other
national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar
proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot
programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure
consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive
issues.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \26\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\27\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange asked
that the Commission waive the 30 day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the
30-day operative delay would extend the protections provided by the
current pilot program, without any changes, while a permanent proposal
for clearly erroneous execution reviews is being considered.\28\ For
this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \28\ See SR-CboeBZX-2022-37 (July 8, 2022).
    \29\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2022-13 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-NYSENAT-2022-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2022-13 and should be submitted
on or before August 12, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15661 Filed 7-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33295-33296]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0162; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Marienville, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date and makes a correction
to the direct final rule published in the Federal Register January 30,
2008, that establishes controlled airspace at Marienville, PA (73 FR
5431), Docket No. FAA-2007-0162. In the airspace description, the wrong
name was used for the Airport. This action corrects that error.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia

Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    A direct final rule published in the Federal Register January 30,
2008, established controlled airspace at Marienville, PA (73 FR 5431).
In that rule, airspace was established to serve a landing site at the
local high school to accommodate medical helicopter operations. After
publication, an error was found in the name of the landing area. The
landing area's name was printed as ``East Marien High School
Heliport'', and should have been listed as ``East Forest Junior/Senior
High School Airport''. This action corrects that error.

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment were received within the comment period, the regulation would
become effective on April 10, 2008. The FAA also advised that a
``Confirmation of Effective Date'' docket would be published in the
Federal Register after the comment period ended as verification that no
adverse comments were received and confirming the effective date of the
Rule. No adverse comments were received and this document verifies that
effective date.

Correction

0
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the publication in the
Federal Register dated January 30, 2008 (73 FR 5431), Federal Register
Docket No. FAA-2007-0162, on page 5432, column 2, line 23 and line 31,
is corrected to read:

East Forest Junior/Senior High School Airport

* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, GA on April 25, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-12787 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38935-38937]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0748; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference
exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass
selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor
panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button.
    This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference
which could result in a situation where, during emergency
procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2008.

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.

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 (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2008-0748;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-041-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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
Emergency AD No. 2008-0081-E, dated April 25, 2008, (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference
exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass
selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor
panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button.
    This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference
which could result in a situation where, during emergency
procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Emergency
Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a check of the gap between the
landing gear control button and the floor panel and, if the gap is
found to be insufficient, modification of the floor panel.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

 Relevant Service Information

    EADS SOCATA has issued Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB
70-154, dated April 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 72 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour (no labor cost; work-hour
warranty given by manufacturer until May 31, 2009).
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $5,760 or $80 per product.

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); 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.

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 FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

EADS SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2008-0748; Directorate Identifier 2008-
CE-041-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 7, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 364,
367, and 370 through 439, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    It has been discovered that a risk of mechanical interference
exists in the movement of the emergency landing gear by-pass
selector, due to an insufficient functional gap between a floor
panel attachment lug and the landing gear control button.
    This condition, if not corrected, causes mechanical interference
which could result in a situation where, during emergency
procedures, the landing gear cannot be extended.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Emergency
Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a check of the gap between the
landing gear control button and the floor panel and, if the gap is
found to be insufficient, modification of the floor panel.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) For airplanes that have had the floor panel removed for
maintenance or if it cannot be positively determined that the floor
panel has not been removed at any time, do the following actions,
unless already done:
    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the gap between the landing gear control button and the
floor panel. Do the inspection following paragraph A of the
Accomplishment Instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft
Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008.
    (2) If the gap is below the limits specified in paragraph A of
EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated
April 2008, before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the floor panel following
paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions in EADS SOCATA
Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008.
    (g) For airplanes in which it can be positively determined that
the floor panel has not been removed at any time, within the next 30
days after the effective date of this AD, modify the floor panel
following paragraph C of the Accomplishment Instructions in EADS
SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated
April 2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Special Flight Permit

    (i) A single ferry flight of the airplane with landing gear
extended is allowed in order to reach the nearest maintenance
facility where the inspection and modification is to be done.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Emergency AD No. 2008-0081-E, dated April 25, 2008; and EADS SOCATA
Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-154, dated April 2008
for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 1, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-15461 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66731-66732]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0025]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted May 13, 2016. The exemptions expire
on May 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 12, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (81 FR 21647). That notice listed case histories of 11
applicants. The 11 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 11 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 11
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision, corneal opacity,
decreased vision, macular atrophy, macular degeneration, macular scar,
optic atrophy, and pigment epithelia detachment. In most cases, their
eye conditions were not recently developed. Six of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The 5 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had them for a range of 4 to 34 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 11 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 2 to 40
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
no drivers were convicted of moving violations in CMVs.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 12, 2016
notice (81 FR 21647).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence

that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision
deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 11 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers
were convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 11 applicants listed in the notice of April
12, 2016 (81 FR 21647.
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 11 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comments in this proceeding. Susan Vaulet stated
that she is in favor of granting the exemptions.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Jose R. Arroyo (CA)
Ronald H. Carey (PA)
Valentin S. Chernyy (NE)
Danny R. Floyd (OH)
Claudia E. Gerez-Bentacourt (TX)
Andy R. Junod (TX)
Roger W. Kerns III (IA)
Gary C. Maxwell (OH)
Scott A. Palmer (NY)
Richard G. Roberts (CA)
Michael R. Tipton (IL)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: September 15, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-23362 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 28, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1501

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AVEMEX, S.A. de C.V.
                                 Date Filed: November 10, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  November 25, 2002, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Lee A. Bauer,<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT analyst:
Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
           Action date:  November 28, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  November 28, 2003, through
November 30, 2004.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not
a瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩
景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩
敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡
慩楴湯愮灳


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 2XX, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2005-21335

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated

(no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  VOLGA-DNEPR J.S. CARGO AIRLINE (Volga-Dnepr)						Date
Filed:  May 26, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate one round-trip       all--cargo charter flight
between Denver, Colorado and Cape Canaveral, Florida within during the
period of June 6-14, 2005, using it’s AN-124-100 aircraft to transport
twoone CcLockheed Martin Space System Centaur tTank each way Upper
Stages on behalf of Lockheed Martin Space Systems (LMSS). The applicant
statesd that LMSSockheed Martin needsed urgent delivery of the
equipmentthe subject lift in order to meet an aggressive integration and
launch schedules that include subsequent launch integration activities
and launch processing; that the cargo is too large for transportation by
U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that a technical evaluation conducted by
Lockheed Martin determined that surface transportation is not feasible
because of the delicate nature of the cargowould place the cargo in
conditions that are unsuitable to maintaining system integrity.

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Daniel M. Wolfert,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  The applicantVolga-Dnepr served its application
on those U.S. carriers operating large all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier
indicated that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the
proposed operations and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant
of the requested authority to Volga-Dnepr.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49  U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved.
                                                Action date:  June 2XX,
2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 26x, 2005, through June 14,
2005.

Basis for approval:  We are granting Volga-Dnepr Airline’s request to
operate its proposed round-trip operation (described above) between
Denver, Colorado and Cape Canaveral, Floridaon behalf of LMSS, through
June 14, 2005.  We found that this request met all the relevant criteria
of 49  U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an exemption of this
type and that the grant was required in the public interest.
Specifically, we were persuaded of the urgent that the need to move the
cargo promptly in order to meet the shipper’s integration and launch
schedules associated with the cargodelivery schedule, the fact that the
cargo could not be transported by surface transportation because of its
delicate naturethe potential negative impact of delivery delay;, and the
unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency not
arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available which could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that grant of this authority was necessary to
prevent unreasonable hardship to Lockheed MartinMSS.  Finally, we found
that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operation.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions (attached) and to the condition that the
applicant must comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the
authorized flightoperation.

Action taken by:

Karan K. Bhatia

Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                               ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004