[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74719-74722]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30321]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68405; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-137]

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

December 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 3, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
and to Make the Fee Change Operative on December 1, 2012. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) reorganize
transaction fees, (ii) raise the take rate for certain electronic
executions in Penny Pilot issues, (iii) revise the Customer monthly
posting credit tiers, (iv) replace the Market Maker monthly posting
credit tiers with one Super Tier, (v) lower the base credit applied to
posted electronic Market Maker executions in SPY, (vi) revise the fees
for Electronic Complex Order executions, and (vii) include days when
the Exchange closes early in the calculations for qualifications for
monthly posting credits. The Exchange proposes to make the fee change
operative on December 1, 2012.
Transaction Fees
    Currently, the Exchange groups transaction fees for manual
executions and electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues together on
the Fee Schedule and transaction fees for electronic executions in non-
Penny Pilot issues together on the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes
to reorganize the presentation of transaction fees on the Fee Schedule
so that manual execution fees are grouped together and electronic
executions in Penny Pilot issues and non-Penny Pilot issues are grouped
together. The Exchange believes that this is a clearer way to present
these transaction fees. In addition, the Exchange proposes to separate
the take liquidity rate for electronic executions in Penny Pilots
issues into two subcategories: Against a Customer and against a non-
Customer.
    For NYSE Arca Market Maker and Firm and Broker Dealer orders, the
Exchange proposes to increase the take liquidity rate for executions in
Penny Pilot issues against a Customer from $0.45 per contract to $0.47
per contract. The Exchange does not propose to change any of the other
current transaction fees in these categories.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes to amend endnote 5 accordingly to
reflect the proposed reorganization of transaction fees and to
replace the term ``Standard Executions'' with descriptions of
``manual'' and ``electronic'' executions. The Exchange notes that it
has filed a separate proposed rule change that modifies endnote 5.
The text of endnote 5 in the Exhibit 5 assumes that the previously
filed proposed rule change is operative. See File No. SR-NYSEArca-
2012-134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer Monthly Posing Credit Tiers
    Currently, the Exchange provides a credit for OTP Holders and OTP
Firms that meet certain customer monthly posting tiers for executions
in Penny Pilot issues. These credits are generally based on meeting
certain combined thresholds in contracts from Customer posted orders in
Penny Pilot issues and Electronic Complex Orders.\5\ The Exchange
proposes not to count Electronic Complex Orders toward the Customer
monthly posting credit tiers. The Exchange does not propose to amend
any other credits or other requirements for these Customer monthly
posting credit tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Customer Monthly Posting Tier 4 also can be met if the OTP
Holder or OTP Firm has average electronic executions per day of
65,000 contracts combined from Customer posted orders in Penny Pilot
issues and Electronic Complex Orders, including all account types
and issues, plus 0.3% of U.S. Equity Market Share posted and
executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market, including transaction volume
from the OTP Holder's or OTP Firm's affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Monthly Posting Credit Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers three Market Maker monthly posting
credit tiers based on contracts from posted orders in Penny Pilot
issues:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier                                   Qualification basis (Average electronic    Credit applied  Credit applied
                                                 executions per day)                   to posted       to posted
                                                                                electronic      electronic
                                                                                market maker    market maker
                                                                                executions in   executions in
                                                                                penny pilot             SPY
                                                                                issues (except
                                                                                SPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base..............................  .....................  .....................         ($0.32)         ($0.34)
Tier 1............................  30,000 Contracts from  .....................         ($0.34)         ($0.36)
                                     Market Maker Posted
                                     Orders in Penny
                                     Pilot Issues.

Tier 2............................  80,000 Contracts from  150,000 Contracts             ($0.38)         ($0.40)
                                     Market Maker Posted    Combined from Market
                                     Orders in Penny        Maker Posted Orders
                                     Pilot Issues.          and Customer
                                                            Electronic Posted
                                                            Orders in Penny
                                                            Pilot Issues
                                                            (Includes
                                                            transaction volume
                                                            from the Market
                                                            Maker's affiliates).
Tier 3............................  150,000 Contracts      .....................         ($0.40)         ($0.42)
                                     from Market Maker
                                     Posted Orders in
                                     Penny Pilot Issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace these three tiers with one Super
Tier that would require average electronic executions per day of 80,000
contracts from Market Maker posted orders in all issues or 200,000
liquidity adding and liquidity removing contracts combined from all
orders in Penny Pilot issues, all account types, with at least 100,000
contracts from posted orders in Penny Pilot issues, including
transaction volume from the Market Maker's affiliates. If a Market
Maker meets either of the new Super Tier thresholds, the Market Maker
would receive a credit of $0.37 applied to posted electronic Market
Maker executions in Penny Pilot issues (except SPY) and a credit of
$0.39 applied to posted electronic Market Maker executions in SPY. In
addition, the base credit applied to posted electronic Market Maker
executions in SPY would be reduced from $0.34 to $0.32.
Electronic Complex Order Executions
    Currently, the Exchange charges $0.06 per contract side for
Electronic Complex Order executions. Complex orders in non-Penny Pilot
issues executed against individual orders in the Consolidated Book are
subject to the standard execution rate (``Standard Execution Rate'')
per contract. Complex orders in Penny Pilot issues executed against
individual orders in the Consolidated Book are subject to the take
liquidity rate (``Take Liquidity Rate'') per contract for that issue.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the transaction fees for Electronic
Complex Order executions based on order type: whether it is a Customer
or non-Customer Electronic Complex Order and whether such order is in a
Penny Pilot Issue or a non-Penny Pilot Issue. For a Customer Electronic
Complex Order against a non-Customer Electronic Complex Order in Penny
Pilot issues, the Customer would receive a $0.39 credit per contract
and the non-Customer would pay a $0.50 fee per contract. In non-Penny
Pilot issues, the Customer would receive a $0.75 credit per contract
and the non-Customer would pay a $0.85 fee per contract. For a Customer
Electronic Complex Order against a Customer Electronic Complex Order in
all issues, there would be no transaction fee. For a non-Customer
Electronic Complex Order against a non-Customer Electronic Complex
Order, the non-Customer would pay a $0.50 fee per contract in Penny
Pilot issues and a $0.85 fee per contract in non-Penny Pilot issues.
Early Closing Days
    Currently, the Exchange does not include days when the Exchange
closes early in the calculations for qualifications for the Customer
monthly posting credit tiers and the Market Maker monthly posting
credit tiers, as set forth in endnote 8. The Exchange closes early on a
small number of trading days each year, generally one to three days
each year--July 3, the Friday following Thanksgiving, and December 24--
depending on the day of the week on which those days fall. For example,
if in a given year July 3 and December 24 both fell on weekends, there
would be only one scheduled early closing day for that year. In
addition, when any holiday observed by the Exchange falls on a
Saturday, the Exchange is not open on the preceding Friday and when any
holiday observed by the Exchange falls on a Sunday, the Exchange is not
open on the succeeding Monday. Accordingly, if in a given year July 4
fell on a Saturday, the Exchange would be closed on Friday, July 3,
rather than have an early closing day. When an early closing day
occurs, the Exchange is required to manually back out such day when
calculating the credits described above in the affected months. The
Exchange proposes to amend endnote 8 to include days when the Exchange
closes early in the calculations for qualifications for monthly posting
credits, which would affect the Customer monthly posting credit tiers
and the proposed Market Maker monthly posting credit Super Tier.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes are not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that OTP Holders and OTP Firms would have in complying
with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\7\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest and because it
is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reorganizing its transaction fees is
reasonable because the Exchange believes that grouping the transaction
fees by order type is a clearer way to

present these transaction fees in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is designed to better organize the Fee
Schedule, which will benefit all market participants equally.
    The Exchange believes that raising the take liquidity rate for NYSE
Market Maker, Firm and Broker Dealer electronic executions in Penny
Pilot issues that take liquidity against a Customer is reasonable
because resting Customer orders are considered less sophisticated order
flow than resting non-Customer orders, which in turn attract non-
Customers to take liquidity in such Customer orders rather than non-
Customer orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because it will encourage NYSE Arca Market Makers, Firms,
and Broker Dealers to take resting non-Customer orders. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to charge less for Lead Market Maker
(``LMM'') electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues that take
liquidity against a Customer because LMMs have higher quoting
obligations and often have order flow arrangements with Customers that
they must maintain, therefore it is reasonable to charge a lower fee to
LMMs in order to encourage LMMs to take posted Customer liquidity. In
addition, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge less for LMM electronic executions in Penny
Pilot issues that take liquidity against a Customer because only LMMs
are required to pay a monthly Rights fee per issue, which increases
based on the average national daily customer contracts, and the Rights
fee for Penny Pilot issues are usually higher because such issues are
the most active. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to charge
less for Customer electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues that take
liquidity against a Customer because it would continue to encourage
Customer order flow, which is beneficial to all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because NYSE Market Makers, Firms, and Broker
Dealers can use Arca Book to see if there is a Customer resting order
at the top of the Consolidated Book, and avoid taking liquidity against
such order. In addition, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge a lower fee to LMMs because they make
significant contributions to market quality by providing higher volumes
of liquidity. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge a lower fee to Customers, because
they are less sophisticated than non-Customers and the proposed change
will continue to attract a high level of Customer order flow, which
benefits both Customers and non-Customers.
    The Exchange believes that not counting Electronic Complex Orders
toward Customer monthly posting credit tiers is reasonable because it
is designed to attract higher levels of Customer posted orders in Penny
Pilot issues. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change is reasonable because it is not changing any of the credits
offered. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the credit tiers are open to
all OTP Holders and OTP Firms on an equal basis and would continue to
provide credits that are reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes in Customer
posted orders in Penny Pilot issues.
    The Exchange believes that replacing the Market Maker monthly
posting credit tiers with one Super Tier is reasonable because it
simplifies the monthly posting credit tiers and encourages Market
Makers to post greater volumes in all issues, including non-Penny Pilot
issues. In addition, the proposed change is reasonable because it would
incent OTP Holders and OTP Firms that have a Market Making presence in
addition to a proprietary or agency order flow presence to provide
greater order flow in Penny Pilot issues. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would provide more than one way for Market Makers to achieve
the proposed credits--either by providing high levels of Market Maker
posted orders in all issues or high levels of orders in Penny Pilot
issues by the Market Maker and its affiliates. In addition, the
proposed credits are reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's
market quality associated with higher volumes in Market Maker posted
orders and orders in Penny Pilot issues.
    The Exchange believes that lowering the base credit applied to
posted electronic Market Maker executions in SPY is reasonable because
the current higher credit did not attracted [sic] the anticipated
additional volume in SPY, and it is the same credit previously offered
by the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that lowering the base
credit applied to posted electronic market maker executions in SPY is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would impact all
Market Makers equally and is offset by providing an additional credit
for posted electronic Market Maker executions in SPY that meet the
Super Tier threshold.
    The Exchange believes that revising the fees for Electronic Complex
Order executions is reasonable because the Exchange believes that it
would encourage increased Customer flow in Electronic Complex Orders
whereas the Exchange believes that the current flat rate does not
incent additional trading. In addition, the proposed fees and credits
are competitive with fees and credits on at least one other
exchange.\9\ The Exchange also believes that the non-Customer fees for
Electronic Complex Orders are reasonable because they are consistent
with the take liquidity rates for non-Customers that execute against
individual orders in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot issues. The
Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to attract Customer
Electronic Complex Order flow, which ultimately benefits all market
participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that the non-Customer
fees for Electronic Complex Order executions are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all non-Customers will be assessed the
same fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See International Securities Exchange Schedule of Fees as of
November 6, 2012, available at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that including days when the Exchange closes
early in the calculations for qualifications for monthly posting
credits is reasonable because it is not expected to have a material
impact on OTP Holders, OTP Firms, or Market Makers. The Exchange
generally closes early on only one to three days a year, which
generally affects a maximum of three billing months (July, November,
and December) and may only impact one or two billing months if July 3
or December 24 occur on weekends or observed holidays when the Exchange
is otherwise closed. The change would have no impact on the credit
calculations for the other months. In addition, the proposed change is
reasonable because it would streamline credit calculations because the
Exchange and OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and Market Makers that track their
performance during the month would no longer be required to back out
transactions from early closing days. The Exchange believes the
proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
all similarly situated OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and Market Makers would
be subject to the

same fee structure. In addition, trading activity is generally lower on
early closing days, so the Tier 4 Customer monthly posting credit,
which is based on a threshold percentage of trading activity, would
adjust automatically. Credit tiers based on a fixed threshold,
including the Tier 1, 2, and 3 Customer monthly posting credit and the
Super Tier Market Maker monthly posting credit, would be minimally
impacted and OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and Market Makers would still
benefit from the streamlined process for calculating trading activity
during the month.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes bring better
organization to the Fee Schedule and are designed to incent all market
participants, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market system. In addition, for the
reasons stated above, the proposed changes are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-137 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-137. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-137, and
should be submitted on or before January 7, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30321 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18520]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1892-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1892-DR), dated March 29,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 29, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Hampshire resulting from a severe winter storm during the
period of February 23 to March 3, 2010, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Hampshire.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford, and
Sullivan Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Hampshire are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(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.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-8285 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40640-40642]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0377]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Monongahela River; Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Monongahela River mile 0.0 to mile 0.22. This safety zone is needed to
protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the
hazards associated with a barge-based fireworks display. Entry into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on August
30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0377. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ronald Lipscomb, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S.
Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not using the NPRM process. The Coast Guard received
notice on May 3, 2014 that this barge-based fireworks display would
take place. After full review of the event information and location,
the Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary. Delaying
this rule by completing the full NPRM process would unnecessarily delay
the safety zone and be contrary to public interest because the safety
zone is needed to protect transiting vessels, spectators, and the
personnel involved in the display from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays taking place over the waterway. Completing the full
NPRM process could also unnecessarily delay the planned event and
possibly interfere with contractual obligations.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On August 30, 2014, as a part of a Wedding Reception, the Suneri
Family will sponsor a barge-based fireworks display. The display will
take place in the vicinity of mile 0.1 on the Monongahela River. This
event presents safety hazards for spectators and vessels navigating in
the area, and therefore a safety zone is needed to protect persons and
property from the hazards associated with a fireworks display over the
waterway.
    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for all waters of the
Monongahela River, from mile 0.0 to mile 0.22, extending the entire
width of the river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels
and persons except persons and vessels specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Pittsburgh. This rule is effective on August 30,
2014 and will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This rule is limited in scope
and will be in effect for a limited time period. Notifications to the
marine community will be made through local notice to mariners and
broadcast notice to mariners. Deviation from the rule may be requested
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. The impacts on routine navigation
are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the Monongahela River, mile 0.0 to 0.22 from 8:30 p.m. until
11:00 p.m. on August 30, 2014. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because this rule is limited in scope and will be in effect for a
limited time period and notifications to the marine community will be
contacting local industry contacts that could be operating in the area
during the event. Deviation from the rule may be requested and will be
considered on a case-by-case basis by the Captain of the Port or a
designated representative.

3. 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. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
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 rule establishes a safety zone for waters of the
Monongahela River, from mile 0.0 to 0.22. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C., 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0377 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0377  Safety Zone, Monongahela River, Pittsburgh, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Monongahela River, mile 0.0 to 0.22, extending the entire width of
the waterway.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective, and will be enforced,
from 8:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a designated
representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or
a designated representative. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh
representative may be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or their designated representative.
Designated

Captain of the Port representatives include United States Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.
    (d) Information Broadcasts. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
L. N. Weaver,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2014-16335 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13081-13084]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28662; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-014-AD;
Amendment 39-15415; AD 2008-06-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800
and -900 Series Airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300
Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing airplanes, identified above. This AD requires inspecting
to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators for the
fuel tanks are installed, and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD also requires revising the Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No.
28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series
airplanes); and No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for
Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes). This AD
results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing
this AD to prevent electrical energy from lightning, hot shorts, or
fault current from entering the fuel tank through the actuator shaft,
which could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 16, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 16,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6497; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-
200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published
in the Federal Register on July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37484). That NPRM
proposed to require inspecting to determine if certain motor-operated
shutoff valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also
proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate
AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes), and No. 28-AWL-23, No.
28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -
300 series airplanes).

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Revise References to Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Documents

    Boeing requests that we revise the applicable areas in the NPRM
that discuss the revision levels of the Boeing 737 and 757 MPD
documents. Boeing states that the references in the NPRM should be
clarified for the following reasons:
     Revision May 2006 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/
800/900 MPD did not add AWLs (Airworthiness Limitations) 28-AWL-21, -
22, and -24. Instead, AWLs 28-AWL-21 and -22 were added at Revision
January 2006; AWL 28-AWL-24 was added at Revision October 2006.
     Revision October 2006 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/
700IGW/800/900 MPD revised AWL 28-AWL-21.
     Revision October 2006 of the Boeing 757 MPD added AWL 28-
AWL-25; AWLs 28-AWL-23 and -24 were added at Revision February 2006 of
the Boeing 757 MPD.
     Revision January 2007 of the Boeing 757 MPD revised AWL
28-AWL-24.
    Boeing points out that the clarifications affect references in both

the ``Relevant Service Information'' section, and paragraph (h) of the
NPRM, and requests that we revise the AD to make the clarifications.
    We agree that the references need to be clarified for the reasons
Boeing stated. We have made the following changes to the AD as Boeing
outlined in its comment:
     We have changed paragraph (h)(1) of the AD to refer to
Revision November 2006 R1 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900
MPD rather than to Revision May 2006.
     We have changed paragraph (h)(2) of the AD to refer to
Revision January 2007 of the Boeing 757 MPD rather than to Revision
October 2006.
    However, we have not changed the ``Relevant Service Information''
section of the NPRM because that section of the preamble does not
reappear in the final rule.

Request To Change Wording in Note 1 of the NPRM

    Boeing requests that we change the wording in Note 1 of the NPRM as
follows:
     Change ``new inspections and maintenance actions'' to
include the words ``according to paragraph (h)'' after ``actions.''
     Change ``the operator must request approval for revision
to the airworthiness limitations'' to ``the operator must request
approval for deviation from the airworthiness limitations.''
     Remove ``as applicable'' from the last sentence of the
note and change the paragraph reference from paragraph (h) to paragraph
(i).
    Boeing explains that the current wording is difficult to follow.
    We partially agree. We have clarified the paragraph reference from
paragraph (h) to paragraph (i). However, we do not agree to revise the
note further. Boeing submitted a similar comment to another NPRM
(Docket No. FAA-2006-26710), and the note in this AD is based on that
comment. No additional change is necessary. In addition, we have used
this note in several similar ADs and have not received any comments
from operators requesting clarification. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Have AD Address Part Number (P/N) S343T003-39 Actuators

    AirTran Airways notes that the motor-operated shutoff valves are
rotable parts which can be moved from airplane to airplane. AirTran
states that the NPRM does not address P/N S343T003-39 actuators that
may have been installed on airplanes outside of the applicability range
of the service bulletins referred to in the NPRM.
    We infer that AirTran would like us to prohibit installation of P/N
S343T003-39 actuators on any airplane. We disagree. No P/N S343T003-39
actuator is approved to replace either a P/N S343T003-56 or P/N
S343T003-66 actuator. Should we determine that P/N S343T003-39 is
installed and unsafe on other airplanes, we might consider additional
rulemaking. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Have AD Address P/N S343T003-56 Actuators

    AirTran requests that the AD allow for installation of either a P/N
S343T003-56 or P/N S343T003-66 actuator in the AD. AirTran explains
that Boeing considers P/N S343T003-56 fully interchangeable with P/N
S343T003-66 and states that installing a P/N S343T003-56 actuator
should meet the intent of the AD.
    We disagree; the two actuators are not fully interchangeable, but
rather only in one direction. If an airplane currently has a P/N
S343T003-56 actuator installed, then an operator can install a P/N
S343T003-66 actuator; if an airplane has a P/N S343T003-66 actuator
currently installed, then it is not possible to install a P/N S343T003-
56 actuator. However, if an operator has a P/N S343T003-56 actuator
currently installed, no action is required by this AD. This AD
addresses airplanes that currently have a P/N S343T003-39 actuator
installed. The P/N S343T003-56 actuator has not been approved as a
field replacement for the P/N S343T003-39. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of the AD, we will consider requests for
approval of an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the design change would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Reconsider Mandating Installation of P/N S343T003-66
Actuators

    Boeing requested an ex parte meeting with the FAA to discuss the
new motor-operated valves, which Boeing states have reliability issues
in service. Boeing states that these issues could affect the FAA's
decision to mandate the installation fleet-wide.
    During the meeting, held October 10, 2007, Boeing reviewed problems
with the actuators and the design changes made since 2005. The Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 review determined that the
electrical switches for P/N S343T003-39 actuators were not isolated
from the actuator shaft that enters the tank. During a lightning, hot
short, or fault current event, it is possible that electrical energy
could enter the fuel tank through the actuator shaft. The new P/N
S343T003-56 actuator added an isolation feature, but created nuisance
failure indications on the flight deck. Boeing then developed the P/N
S343T003-66 actuator to correct the indication problem. The P/N
S343T003-66 actuator reduced the number of events, but operators are
still experiencing dispatch delays and unscheduled removals. Boeing
also pointed out problems with the P/N S343T003-66 actuators on other
Boeing airplane models, though not to the extent seen on Boeing Model
737 airplanes. Boeing is in the process of re-designing the actuator,
an effort that will take approximately 12 months. Boeing specifies that
the isolation feature is not affected by the indication problems, and
that the valves are opening and closing as commanded.
    We disagree with the request to reconsider mandating the
installation of P/N S343T003-66 actuators. The problems with the P/N
S343T003-66 actuators that Boeing pointed out do not constitute a new
unsafe condition. We consider that to delay this particular AD action
in order to wait for the re-designed actuator would be inappropriate,
since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that
replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued
safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the AD in this regard.
However, when a new actuator is developed, approved, and available, we
might consider additional rulemaking then.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,916 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 1,406 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. The table titled
``Estimated Costs'' provides costs to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                                             Cost per      U.S.-
                           Action                              Work hours    airplane    registered   Fleet cost
                                                                                airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for motor operated valve actuators...............            1          $80        1,406     $112,480
AWL revisions...............................................            3          240        1,406      337,440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-06-03 Boeing: Amendment 39-15415. Docket No. FAA-2007-28662;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-014-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective April 16, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800
and -900 series airplanes; and Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 737-28A1207, dated
February 15, 2007, and 757-28A0088, dated January 25, 2007.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections and maintenance
actions. Compliance with these limitations is required by 14 CFR
43.16 and 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously
modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these
limitations, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions
described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for revision
to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) in the Boeing 737-600/700/
700C/700IGW/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document
D626A001-CMR and the Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9, as
applicable, according to paragraph (i) of this AD.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical energy from
lightning, hot shorts, or fault current from entering the fuel tank
through the actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Service Bulletin Reference

    (f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as
applicable:
    (1) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series
airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1207, dated February
15, 2007; and
    (2) For Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series
airplanes: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0088, dated January
25, 2007.

Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD:
Inspect the applicable motor-operated valves (MOVs) to determine
whether an MOV with the affected part number identified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin is
installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in
lieu of this inspection if the part number of the part can be
conclusively determined from that review. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletin.

Revision of AWLs Section

    (h) Concurrently with the actions specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD: Revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness by incorporating the information specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of
the MPD document is an acceptable method of compliance if the
revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA.
    (1) Section F., ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,''
of Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 MPD Document D626A001-CMR,
Section 9, Revision November 2006 R1, into the MPD to incorporate
AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24.
    (2) Section G., ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,''
of

Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001, Section 9, Revision January 2007,
into the MPD Document to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-
24, and No. 28-AWL-25.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use the service information listed in Table 1 of
this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207,
for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

              Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Service information           Revision                Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing 737-600/700/700C/       November 2006 R1  November 2006.
 700IGW/800/900 Maintenance
 Planning Data Document
 D626A001-CMR, Section 9.
Boeing 757 Maintenance         January 2007....  January 2007.
 Planning Data Document
 D622N001, Section 9.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin  Original........  February 15, 2007.
 737-28A1207.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin  Original........  January 25, 2007.
 757-28A0088.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 28, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-4486 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35465-35466]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0087]

Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of first meeting of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the first meeting of the Advisory
Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection.

DATES: The first meeting of the advisory committee is scheduled for
June 28, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Oklahoma City Room (located
on the lobby level of the West Building) at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. Attendance
is open to the public; however, since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact noted below at least five (5) calendar days prior to
the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register to attend the meeting,
please contact Lynora Simmons Kendale<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For other information please contact Nicholas Lowry, Senior Attorney,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone), 202-
366-7152 (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 411 of the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11 (2012)) mandates the
establishment of an advisory committee for the purpose of advising the
Secretary of Transportation on airline customer service improvements.
More specifically, the Act requires the advisory committee to evaluate
and provide recommendations to the Secretary for improving existing
aviation consumer protection programs and for establishing additional
such programs if appropriate. The Act also limits the committee's
membership to four members appointed by the Secretary of
Transportation--one representative each of airlines, airports, non-
profit public interest groups, and state and local governments. Section
411 specifies that the advisory committee shall terminate on September
30, 2015.
    On May 24, 2012, the Secretary established the advisory committee
and announced those persons appointed as members of the committee. The
selected members are as follows: (1) Lisa Madigan who is the attorney
general of Illinois, who will also be the committee chairperson; (2)
David Berg who is the senior vice president, general counsel and
corporate secretary for Airlines for America; (3) Deborah Ale-Flint who
is Oakland International Airport's director of aviation; and (4)
Charles Leocha who is the founder of the Consumer Travel Alliance. All
of the committee members have demonstrated experience in dealing with
consumer protection issues.
    A charter for the committee, drafted in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, sets forth
policies for the operation of the advisory committee. It designates the
Department's Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings as the Committee's Designated Federal Official (DFO) to
help run the meetings of the committee. This charter is available on
the Department's Web site at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2012/dot5912.html.
    As noted above, the first meeting of the committee will take place
on June 28, 2012. The agenda topics for the first meeting will include,
in a morning session, presentations by staff in the Office of the
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and its Aviation Consumer
Protection Division regarding organization of the offices, existing
aviation consumer protection and civil rights statutory and regulatory
requirements, and on-going and planned enforcement and rulemaking
activities. In an afternoon session, we expect to provide an
opportunity for presentations by representatives from organizations
representing airlines, travel agents, airport operators, state and
local governments, and consumer and other public interest groups. Those
organizations wishing to make presentations, which should be limited to
no more than 10 minutes, should notify the contact person indicated
above no later than five (5) calendar days before the meeting and
provide that person a written summary of their presentations to help
the committee members prepare for the meeting. Efforts will be made to
accommodate each organization that wishes to make a presentation.
However, given time constraints, there is no guarantee that all the
organizations that make such a request will be able to address the
advisory committee at the June 28th meeting. In order to provide for a
balanced presentation of views and to facilitate the orderly conduct of
the meeting, including time for questions from committee members, the
committee chairperson may impose rules or procedures, including the
order of organizations that will be making presentations, as she deems
necessary. If more organizations would like to make presentations than
the time available permits, a schedule will be developed so that these
organizations can present at the next advisory committee meeting.
    The committee will meet no more than four times in each 12-month
period starting after May 24, 2012. It is anticipated that all meetings
will be held in Washington, DC at the U.S. DOT headquarters building.
The Department will publish notices in the Federal Register to announce
the dates, times, and locations of future meetings. Meetings of the
committee will be open to the public, and time will be provided for
comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, we ask that
any member of the general public who plans to attend the first meeting
notify the Department contact noted above no later than five (5)
calendar days prior to the meeting. Attendance will be necessarily
limited by the size of the meeting room.
    Members of the public may present written comments at any time. The
docket number referenced above has been established for committee
documents including any written comments that may be filed. At the
discretion of the Chairperson and time permitting, after completion of
the organizational presentations in the afternoon of the first meeting,
individual members of the public may provide oral comments at the
meeting. Any oral comments presented must be limited to objectives of
the committee and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person.
Individual members of the public who wish to present oral comments must
notify the Department contact noted above via email that they wish to
attend and present oral comments at least five (5) calendar days prior
to the meeting. For this initial meeting, no more than one hour will be
set aside for oral comments by the general public.
    Persons with a disability who plan to attend the meeting and
require special accommodations, such as an interpreter for the hearing
impaired, should contact

the Department contact noted above at least seven (7) calendar days
prior to the meeting. Persons attending with a service animal should
also advise us of that fact so that it can be taken into account in
connection with space and possible allergy issues.
    Notice of this meeting is being provided in accordance with the
FACA and the General Services Administration regulations covering
management of Federal advisory committees. (41 CFR Part 102-3.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2012.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012-14456 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P