[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15955-15959]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1 and 33

[Docket No. 2007-28502; Notice No. 07-09]
RIN No. 2120-AJ06

Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards Overtorque
Limits

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards for
aircraft engines to introduce requirements for approval of maximum
engine overtorque. This action would add a new engine overtorque test,
amend engine ratings and operating limitations, and define maximum
engine overtorque for certain turbopropeller and turboshaft engines.
The proposed rule is intended to harmonize applicable U.S. and European
standards and simplify airworthiness approvals for import and export of
aircraft engines.

DATES: Send your comments on or before June 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
28502 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to: http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Operations at 202-493-
2251.

    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to:
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket; or, go to the Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Standards Staff, ANE-110, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (781) 238-
7199; electronic mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this proposed rule contact Vincent Bennett,
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel (ANE-7),
New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Room 311,
Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (781) 238-
7055; electronic mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations for 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, including
minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing
regulations for aircraft engine standards overtorque limits.

Background

    Part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33)
prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type
certificates for aircraft engines. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) Certification Specification--Engines (CS-E) prescribes
corresponding airworthiness standards for the certification of aircraft
engines in Europe. While part 33 and the CS-E are similar, they differ
in several respects. For applicants seeking certification under part 33
and CS-E, these differences result in additional costs and delays in
the time required for certification. In addition, because the CS-E does
contain specific standards for the approval of maximum overtorque
limits, U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers face additional costs when
seeking certification of their engine designs by the JAA/EASA for
export.
    Currently, part 33 does not contain explicit standards for a
maximum engine overtorque limit. Engine manufacturers apply for and
obtain FAA approvals of maximum overtorque limits based on the results
of certification engine tests and analysis that did not directly
address considerations for maximum overtorque limits.
    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC),\1\ through its Engine Harmonization Working Group (EHWG), to
provide advice and recommendations on proposed standards for engine
overtorque. This proposed rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to
the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Published in the Federal Register, October 20, 1998 (63 FR
56059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would establish a standard for applicants to use
in applying for and obtaining approval of a maximum overtorque limit.
The proposed rule would harmonize U.S. and European standards for
approving engine overtorque transients for turbopropeller and
turboshaft engines with free power-turbines. The proposed rule would
not permit an overtorque limit for these engines when operating at the
30-second and 2-minute one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings.
    This proposed rule addresses a condition that can occur on
turbopropeller and turboshaft engines with free power turbines. Sudden
changes in the rotorcraft/aircraft blade pitch or power demand, such as
an engine failure on a twin engine rotorcraft, can cause a significant
decrease in the rotor/propeller speed. For a rotorcraft engine,
overtorque conditions may occur during the period the engine is
accelerating the rotor system back to normal operating speeds. This
NPRM proposes requirements to establish a maximum transient (20 seconds
maximum) overtorque limit.
    The torque transmitting components in a free turbine engine are
typically the turbine blades, disks, shafts, and gears (if an internal
gearbox exists). Torque has differing effects on the stress levels in
these components. For example, the stresses in turbine blades and disks
are dominated by centrifugal loads and, to a lesser extent, by
temperature. The effects of gas loads producing torque have a minor
effect on total stress in these components. The stress levels of
components, such as shafts and gears,

are typically dominated by the amount of torque they are transmitting.
Turbine entry temperatures generally have little effect on the stress
levels in shafts and gears. Typically, the time spent at maximum steady
state temperature and high speed during the endurance test (required by
Sec.  33.87) results in higher turbine blade and disk stresses than
would occur during a maximum overtorque event. Therefore, when the
evidence of the endurance tests can be used to provide the
substantiation required during certification, the requirement to run
the overtorque test at maximum steady state temperature may be adjusted
by other relevant factors.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    Currently, the FAA has no clear standards in part 33 for approval
of a maximum overtorque limit. Engine manufacturers have obtained FAA
approvals based on other certification engine tests and analysis that
did not directly address the considerations for the maximum overtorque
limit. This has allowed for different interpretations of the data by
different FAA offices. Additionally, the Certification Specifications
Engines (CS-E) contain specific standards for the approval of maximum
overtorque limits. These differences result in additional costs and
delays for the U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers when seeking
certification of their engine designs by the EASA for export. The new
proposed rule will harmonize the U.S. and European engine overtorque
requirements, which will eliminate these additional costs and delays.
    The FAA estimates there will be no adverse effect as the proposal
would combine existing standards found in part 33 into one single
standard for overtorque, and, as a result, either reduce costs or
impose no net costs on aircraft engine manufacturers. This proposed
rule will reduce regulatory barriers by establishing one standard
consistent with a similar EASA standard. This benefit would justify its
costs and reduce barriers to international trade.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This proposed rule merely revises and clarifies FAA rulemaking
procedures; the expected outcome is to reduce aircraft engine
certification costs. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this
determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it
complies with this Act as it would reduce trade barriers by eliminating
the engine-certification-requirement differences related to overtorque
between the United States and European regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or

final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or
more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any
one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not
contain such a mandate.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action 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, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

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

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at: http://
www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/; or Accessing the Government
Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 1 and 33 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 1 and 33) as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    2. Amend Sec.  1.1 by adding the definition of ``Maximum engine
overtorque'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Maximum engine overtorque, as it applies to turbopropeller and
turboshaft engines incorporating free power-turbines for all ratings
except one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings of two minutes or less,
means the maximum torque of the free power-turbine rotor assembly, the
inadvertent occurrence of which, for periods of up to 20 seconds, will
not require rejection of the engine from service, or any maintenance
action other than to correct the cause.
* * * * *

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

    3. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    4. Amend Sec.  33.7 by adding new paragraph (c)(17) as follows:

Sec.  33.7  Engine ratings and operating limitations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (17) Maximum engine overtorque for turbopropeller and turboshaft
engines incorporating free power-turbines.
    5. Section 33.84 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  33.84.  Engine Overtorque Test.

    (a) If approval of a maximum engine overtorque is sought for an
engine incorporating a free power turbine, compliance with this section
must be demonstrated by testing.
    (1) The test may be run as part of the endurance test requirement
of Sec.  33.87. Alternatively, tests may be performed on a complete
engine or equivalent testing on individual groups of components.
    (2) Upon conclusion of tests conducted to show compliance with this
section, each engine part or individual groups of components must meet
the requirements of Sec.  33.93(a)(1) and (a)(2).
    (b) The test conditions must be as follows:
    (1) A total of 15 minutes run at the maximum engine overtorque to
be approved. This may be done in separate runs, each being of at least
2\1/2\ minutes duration.
    (2) A power turbine rotational speed equal to the highest speed at
which the maximum overtorque can occur in service. The test speed may
not be more than the limit speed of take-off or OEI ratings longer than
2 minutes.
    (3) For engines incorporating a reduction gearbox, a gearbox oil
temperature equal to the maximum temperature when the maximum engine
overtorque could occur in service; and for all other engines, an oil
temperature within the normal operating range.
    (4) A turbine entry gas temperature equal to the maximum steady
state temperature approved for use during periods longer than 20
seconds, other than conditions associated with 30-second or 2-minutes
OEI ratings. The requirement to run the test at the maximum approved
steady state temperature may be waived by the FAA if the applicant can
demonstrate that other testing provides substantiation of the
temperature effects when considered in combination with the other
parameters identified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2008.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6148 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69870-69871]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2014-0973; OMB Control Number 1625-0077]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an
extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0077, Security Plans
for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, Outer Continental Shelf Facilities and
Other Security-Related Requirements. Our ICR describes the information
we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA,
the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 23,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2014-0973] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate
submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, to attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are
available from: Commandant (CG-612), ATTN Paperwork Reduction Act
Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop
7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of

the necessity of the Collection, and other important information
describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval
of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2014-0973], and
must be received by January 23, 2015. We will post all comments
received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will
include any personal information you provide. We have an agreement with
DOT to use their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2014-0973], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit your comments and material by electronic means,
mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2014-0973'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Search'' box
insert ``USCG-2014-0973'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Security Plans for Ports, Vessels, Facilities, Outer
Continental Shelf Facilities and Other Security-Related Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0077.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
maritime security requirements mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002. Security assessments, security plans and
other security-related requirements are found in Title 33 CFR chapter
I, subchapter H, and 33 CFR parts 120 and 128.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if vessels and
facilities are in compliance with certain security standards.
    Forms: CG-6025 and CG-6025A.
    Respondents: Vessel and facility owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 1,108,043 hours a
year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-27830 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26726-26728]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80853; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 521, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors

June 2, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on May 30, 2017, Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to make a technical amendment to
Exchange Rule 521, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing a technical change to delete obsolete
Rule 521(l)(5), Complex Order Obvious Errors, from the Exchange's
Rules.
Background
    In 2015, the Exchange, in concert with the other then-existing U.S.
options exchanges, adopted harmonized rules related to the adjustment
and nullification of erroneous options transactions and coordination
among the Exchanges in connection with large-scale events involving
erroneous options transactions.\3\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of that initiative, the Exchange and other options
exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion, among
them the manner in which erroneous transactions in complex orders would
be handled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74918 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27781 (May 14, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October, 2016, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
that permitted the Exchange to adopt new rules to govern the trading of
complex orders (the ``Complex Orders Filing'').\4\ Among the rules
adopted in the Complex Orders Filing was Rule 521(l)(5), Complex Order
Obvious Errors, which was not included in the industry-wide, harmonized
rules described above.\5\ Rule 521(l)(5) governs the handling of
complex orders in

situations where one or more components of a complex order is eligible
to be adjusted or nullified under Rule 521(c)(4), Adjust or Bust.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79072 (October 7,
2016), 81 FR 71131 (October 14, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-26).
    \5\ See supra note 3.
    \6\ If it is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred, the
Exchange shall take one of the actions listed in Rule 521(c)(4).
Upon taking final action, the Exchange shall promptly notify both
parties to the trade electronically or via telephone. See Exchange
Rule 521(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the industry-wide adoption of the harmonized rules, the
options exchanges have been working together to identify ways to
improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions as it relates to complex orders and
stock-option orders.\7\ The goal of the process that the options
exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize rules related to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
Accordingly, as the culmination of this coordinated effort, the
exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders
(including the Exchange) universally adopted new provisions that the
options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of
erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of
complex orders and stock-option orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 518(a)(5) (defining complex orders and
stock-option orders).
    \8\ Exchanges that do not offer complex orders and/or stock-
option orders did not adopt these new provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    These harmonized provisions are set forth in recently-adopted
Interpretations and Policies .03 to Rule 521.\9\ Interpretations and
Policies .03 to Rule 521 should have replaced current Rule 521(l)(5) as
the controlling Rule governing the manner in which the Exchange handles
Obvious Errors in complex orders on the Exchange. The Exchange,
however, inadvertently omitted the deletion of Rule 521(l)(5) from its
Rules in the Complex Obvious Error Filing. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing herein to delete obsolete Rule 521(l)(5) from its Rules as a
technical matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80284 (March 21,
2017), 82 FR 15251 (March 27, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-13) (the ``Complex
Obvious Error Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed deletion of Rule 521(l)(5) is intended to avoid the
possibility of confusion between Rule 521(l)(5) and Interpretations and
Policies .03 to Rule 521, and to eliminate any potential conflict in
the Exchange's Rules in this regard. Interpretations and Policies .03
tracks the harmonized rules of the exchanges that offer and trade
complex orders, and the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to
establish one single rule regarding Obvious Errors in complex orders.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 521(l)(5)
from its Rules.
    The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') also deleted
its comparable provision from its Rule 6.87 (specifically, Rule
6.87(c)(5)) when it filed to adopt harmonized rules for the handling of
Obvious Errors in complex orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80496 (April 20,
2017), 82 FR 19282 (April 26, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2017-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it eliminates a potentially conflicting section from Rule 521
that was erroneously left intact in the Complex Obvious Error Filing.
    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will provide consistency and clarity to Members \13\ and the public,
regarding the Exchange's Rules. Moreover, the proposed rule change
eliminates a rule that could possibly be in conflict with another
Exchange rule and with the harmonized rules. The Exchange believes
therefore that it is in the public interest for rules to be accurate
and concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed rule change
will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any
competitive issues but rather to add additional clarity to, and remedy
possible conflicts in, the Exchange's Rules.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally
to all Exchange Members.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative 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) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the current conflict between Rule 521(l)(5) and Interpretations and
Policies .03 to Rule 521 may be promptly removed from the Exchange's
Rules, which the Exchange stated would avoid any potential confusion
among participants using its facilities. The Commission believes the
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and

designates the proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ 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 change 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2017-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-25. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-MIAX-2017-25 and should be
submitted on or before June 29, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11869 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
                             2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD
                           ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF
										AIR AND RADIATION

July 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with PACCAR

FROM:	Angela Cullen

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 3, 2011 between PACCAR and EPA.

Paccar requested a meeting to discuss the tractor aerodynamic drag certification testing method.  In the NPRM, the agencies proposed that tractor manufacturers use a two part screening approach for determining the aerodynamic inputs to the GEM.  The first part of the proposed evaluation approach uses a bin structure characterizing the expected aerodynamic performance of tractors based on definable vehicle attributes.  The first part would require manufacturers to assign each vehicle aerodynamic configuration to one of five aerodynamic bins.  For each bin, EPA and NHTSA have already defined a nominal Cd. The five bins are "classic," which incorporate few if any aerodynamic features; "conventional" which represent the average new tractor sold today; "SmartWay" which have added components to reduce drag:  "Advanced SmartWay," which have underbody airflow treatments, down exhaust, and other features, and "Advanced SmartWay II which incorporates technologies that are still in the prototype stage such as advanced gap closing.  The second proposed evaluation uses aerodynamic testing.  Manufacturers would be required to compare their test results with the bin Cds. If their test data shows a better or worse result than the Cd assignment, they would be required to certify to the correct bin.  The agencies expressed an interested in working with the regulated industry to develop a primary test approach.  The agencies proposed to allow Cd assessments with vehicle coast down testing, wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics, and constant speed tests combined with good engineering judgment.  There are two sub-categories for class 7 trucks: 1) low/mid roof day cabs; and 2) high roof day cabs.  There are five sub-categories for class 8 trucks: 1) low/mid roof day cabs; 2) high roof day cabs; 3) low roof sleeper cabs; 4) mid roof sleeper cabs; and 5) high roof sleeper cabs.

Paccar asked that in addition to requests made by EMA/TMA to improve the aerodynamic drag coefficient test method and which are described in a memo to the docket several additional items be considered by the agencies in establishing the reference test method.   Paccar stated the proposed changes would improve repeatability and accuracy and reduce the test burden on regulated entities.  They requested the following:
         o Closed road for coast down testing;
         o Standardized trailer gap at the centerline of the vehicle;
         o Specified height of the trailer at front and back;
         o Specified tractor tires (including mileage and other important parameters);
         o The agencies identify and define parameters that have not been defined (such as data smoothing, frequency of calculation, etc.);
         o Recommend limiting grade to 0.1% (vs. 0.5% currently) because the gravitational effect of a 68,000 pound vehicle is a large contributing factor to low speed road load.