[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48752-48756]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0005; Notice 2]

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2011-2021 Thomas Built Saf-T-Liner HDX school
buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.
DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated December 17, 2019, and later
amended the report on January 16, 2020. DTNA subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on January 16, 2020, (DTNA incorrectly dated their petition
January 16, 2019) for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces and explains the denial of DTNA's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Following notice from NHTSA of a failed compliance
test, DTNA has determined that certain MY 2011-2021 Thomas Built Saf-T-
Liner HDX school buses do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and
Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222). DTNA filed a noncompliance report
dated December 17, 2019, and later amended its report on January 16,
2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
January 16, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h); 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of DTNA's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 12, 2020, in the Federal Register (85 FR
35992). One comment was received. To view the petition and all related
documents, members of the public can log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/ and
then follow the online search instructions to locate docket number
NHTSA-2020-0005.
    II. Buses Involved: Approximately 7,601 MY 2011-2021 Thomas Built
Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses manufactured between October 21, 2009, and
December 16, 2019 (the subject buses), are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: DTNA explains in its petition that the
noncompliance at issue is that the subject school buses are equipped
with a wall-mounted restraining barrier that does not meet the
requirements specified in paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222.
Specifically, when tested according to the specified test procedure,
the restraining barrier did not meet the force/deflection curve or
deflection requirements. DTNA contends that the restraining barrier
failed to meet these requirements because the upper loading bar
contacted the trim panel on the front entry door of the bus, which
caused the upper loading bar force to exceed the allowable limit.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.2.3(a) of FMVSS No. 222
includes the requirement relevant to this petition. This requirement
states that, ``[w]hen force is applied to the restraining barrier in
the same manner as specified in paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS> through S<IP_ADDRESS>
for seating performance tests,'' the restraining barrier ``[f]orce/
deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in Figure 1.''
    V. Summary of DTNA's Petition: The views and arguments described in
this section, ``V. Summary of DTNA's Petition,'' are the views and
arguments presented by DTNA and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
In its petition, DTNA describes the subject noncompliance and contends
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In its petition, DTNA submits the following views and arguments:
    1. Background and description of the noncompliance: DTNA states
that it modified the restraining barrier design for the subject buses
in October 2009, following an update to FMVSS No. 222, that increased
the seat back height requirement to 24 inches. DTNA states that, for
aesthetic purposes and not for functional or compliance reasons, it
similarly chose to adjust the profiles (slope and angle) of the
restraining barrier to match the new higher seatback height. To do so,
DTNA added approximately \5/8\ inch of foam padding to each side of the
restraining barrier. The foam was added onto the outside of the frame
of the barrier, which did not widen the frame structure itself. The
additional padding is used for cosmetic purposes (to promote uniformity
of design of the seat profiles at that time) and is not needed to
provide protection beyond the construction of the restraining barrier
itself.
    2. Analysis: DTNA states that the purpose of the restraining
barrier is to provide compartmentalization for occupants of the first
row of school bus seats, where there is no seat back in a forward seat
to offer protection. FMVSS No. 222 includes a series of performance
requirements for school bus frontal barriers which include the distance
between the barrier and the seat (S5.2.1), the barrier height and
position (S5.2.2), and barrier forward performance (S5.2.3). The
purpose of the barrier forward performance requirement at S5.2.3 is to
ensure the front barrier can withstand the impact of certain set forces
while, at the same time, maintaining component integrity.
    3. The forces measured in testing are a product of the test
apparatus that would not occur in the real world. DTNA states that the
effect of the additional foam outside the restraining barrier frame was
to slightly widen the restraining barrier. With a wider restraining
barrier, the placement of the upper restraining barrier is moved
outwards so that it now encounters the door frame trim. Because the
restraining barrier is wider, based on its calculated placement per the
test procedure, the corresponding length of the upper loading bar
becomes longer than that of the prior design. When the upper loading
bar is deployed, it contacts the front entrance door trim and causes
the upper loading bar to exceed the force limits.
    DTNA states that the behavior of the upper loading bar is a product
of the test procedure and does not represent the behavior of the
barrier in actual use conditions. Prior to the 2009 design change,
there was an approximately two-inch gap at the height where the upper
loading arm was placed. This prior design met the barrier forward
performance requirements. Following the design change in 2009, that
space was filled in with soft foam, but the effect of doing so did not
have any impact on the performance or integrity of the barrier itself.
    DTNA states that it has conducted its own analysis of the
restraining barrier performance in the 2009 design tested by the Agency
as well as the prior design. The results of that testing

demonstrate that the additional foam creates approximately 11 mm (.43
inches) of interference between the upper loading bar on the right side
of the vehicle and the bus entrance door frame. The additional foam was
not intended to and does not provide any safety or functional benefit.
Even though the prior design of the restraining barrier left a small
gap between the bus sidewall and the barrier itself, the barrier was
more than sufficient to meet the performance forward requirements. The
addition of foam for cosmetic purposes in 2009 does not deter from the
safety of the barrier.
    DTNA states that removing the additional \5/8\ inches of foam
padding would eliminate the potential for any interference with the
upper loading bar as it then cannot come into physical contact with the
doorframe. The previous small gap in space did not expose occupants to
an increased risk of harm (as demonstrated by the lack of any reports
from the field potentially related to this issue), and the more recent
addition of the foam also does not create any safety concerns beyond
the operation of the test itself.
    4. The current restraining barrier addresses the unreasonable risk
to safety identified by FMVSS No. 222. DTNA states that the purpose of
a restraining barrier is to compartmentalize and contain passengers
located in the first row of seats in the event of a crash or sharp
deceleration. The forward performance test evaluates the strength of
the restraining barrier in a forward impact and to deflect in a
controlled manner as it absorbs the energy of the occupant striking the
barrier.
    DTNA states that the restraining barrier is intended to provide an
equivalent level of compartmentalization as the seat back for the
rearward seats. The safety benefit of compartmentalization is realized
through the height of the restraining barrier (or seatback), and a
restraining barrier that is too low could increase the likelihood that,
in a forward crash, an occupant could be thrown over the barrier. This
view is consistent with the requirement that the height and position of
the restraining barrier match or ``coincide'' with that of the
seatback. Because FMVSS No. 222 defines the unreasonable risk to safety
as the potential for being thrown over the barrier, it is the height
and position of the barrier that mitigate against this risk.
    DTNA additionally states that, while the surface area of the
barrier must at least coincide with the surface area of the seatback,
any additional width of the barrier that extends beyond the frame of
the barrier is surplus material that does not address the unreasonable
risk to safety addressed by the standard. DTNA states that the Agency
has previously recognized that a ``restraining barrier must therefore
only coincide with or lie outside of the seatback surface required by
S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard
222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.'' (Ltr.
from E. Jones, NHTSA, to L. Wort, Ill. Dept. of Transp. (Aug. 11,
1987).) \1\ The reverse also holds true. For the subject buses, the
surface area of the barrier is larger than that of the seat back and
exceeds the area required by S5.2.1. While the restraining barrier
surface area can be larger than the seat back, the unreasonable risk to
safety is addressed by maximizing the effects of compartmentalization
by ensuring the perimeter of the restraining barrier coincides with the
surface area of the seatback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/87/nht87-2.66.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTNA states that the test procedure considers the need to assess
the portion of the barrier that is intended to bear the force of the
loading. DTNA believes that when creating the test procedure, the
Agency intentionally limited the length of the loading bar to be
approximately 4 inches shorter than the width of the seat back or
restraining barrier. DTNA says NHTSA declined to reduce the size of the
range to two inches because it wanted ``to ensure loads would be
transferred to the seat structure without collapse of the seat back''
and to discourage manufacturers from adding a narrow structural member
to meet the requirements. See 39 FR 27585 (July 30, 1974). In other
words, the objective of the forward performance test is to measure the
operation and structural integrity of the restraining barrier by
ensuring the loads are concentrated in the core of the structure itself
and not the periphery of the structure which could cause it to
unnecessarily collapse. Thus, the additional foam installed outwards of
the restraining barrier frame has no bearing on the forward performance
of the restraining barrier.
    5. DTNA states that it has corrected this issue in production by
adjusting the location of the installation of the barrier by moving it
away from the wall by \3/4\ inch. Doing so ensures that in any future
testing, the loading bar will not encounter the door frame.
    6. Finally, DTNA states that it has used this seating design for
over a decade. It is not aware of any consumer complaints or reports of
accidents or injuries related to the forward displacement of the
restraining barrier.
    DTNA concludes its petition by again contending that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and requesting that its petition to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, be
granted.
    VI. Public Comment: NHTSA received one comment from the general
public concerning DTNA's petition. The commenter believed NHTSA should
deny DTNA's request on the basis that the subject vehicles failed to
meet test requirements. NHTSA appreciates the commenter's input and,
for the reasons described below, is denying DTNA's petition.

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

A. General Principles

    Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (the ``Safety Act'') with the express purpose of reducing motor
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. See 49 U.S.C.
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS). See 49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has
delegated this authority to NHTSA. See 49 CFR 1.95.
    NHTSA adopts an FMVSS only after it has determined that the
performance requirements are objective, practicable, and meet the need
for motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with an FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA. To
protect the public from such risks, manufacturers whose products fail
to comply with an FMVSS are normally required to conduct a safety
recall in which they must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the
noncompliance and provide a free remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 30118-20.
However, Congress recognized that, under some limited circumstances, a
noncompliance could be ``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It
therefore established a procedure under which NHTSA may consider
whether it is appropriate to exempt a manufacturer from its
notification and remedy (i.e., recall) obligations. See 49 U.S.C.
30118(d), 30120(h). The Agency's regulations

governing the filing and consideration of petitions for
inconsequentiality exemptions are set forth at 49 CFR part 556.
    Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and
then only after notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
interested members of the public to present information, views, and
arguments regarding the petition. In addition to considering public
comments, the Agency will draw upon its own understanding of safety-
related systems and its experience in deciding the merits of a
petition. An absence of opposing argument and data from the public does
not require NHTSA to grant a manufacturer's petition.
    Neither the Safety Act nor part 556 define the term
``inconsequential.'' Rather, the Agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. In some instances,
NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of
demonstrating that a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. For
example, a label intended to provide safety advice to an owner or
occupant may have a misspelled word, or it may be printed in the wrong
format or the wrong type size. Where a manufacturer has shown that the
discrepancy with the safety requirement is unlikely to lead to any
misunderstanding, NHTSA has granted an inconsequentiality exemption,
especially where other sources of correct information are available.
See, e.g., General Motors, LLC., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 92963 (Dec. 20, 2016).
    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has found very few noncompliances with
performance requirements to be inconsequential. Potential performance
failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are
rarely, if ever, found to be inconsequential.
    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance petitions is the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to be demonstrative on
the issue of whether the noncompliance is inconsequential to safety.
The Agency has explained that ``the absence of a complaint does not
mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does it mean that there
will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\ Likewise, ``the fact
that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction have prevented
many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will continue to
work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected also have not resulted in granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the outcome to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco, Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Response to DTNA's Arguments

    NHTSA has reviewed DTNA's arguments that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. DTNA contends that the
noncompliance of the passenger side barrier on the subject buses with
the barrier forward performance requirements specified in paragraph
S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222, poses little, if any, risk to motor vehicle
safety. NHTSA does not agree. In reaching this conclusion, NHTSA
considered the following:
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 222 is to reduce the number of deaths and
the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus
occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and
sudden driving maneuvers (49 CFR 571.222 S2). The requirements of
S5.2.3 Barrier Performance Forward of FMVSS No. 222, at issue here are
specific to the energy a barrier can absorb during an emergency event,
and the rate at which such energy can be absorbed. These requirements
are threefold: (1) a barrier must be able to absorb a minimum amount of
energy within the first 356 mm of deflection,\7\ (2) the rate of energy
absorption must fall within a specified Force vs Deflection Zone,\8\
and (3) the barrier, and its components, must not separate at any
attachment point from the vehicle, nor interfere with normal door
operation. In the present case, during NHTSA's compliance test of the
barrier in question, the rate of energy absorption exceeded the upper
limit of the Force vs Deflection Zone before absorbing the minimum
required energy, thereby leading to a compliance test failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The minimum energy required to be absorbed by the barrier is
based on the number of designated seating positions, W, of the seat
immediately behind the barrier. See 49 CFR 571.222 S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S4.1(a).
    \8\ See 49 CFR 571.222 Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not agree that the 2009 design change to the subject
buses did not have any impact on the barrier performance. DTNA states
that it adjusted the profiles (slope and angle) of the barrier to match
the new higher seatback height, in addition to adding approximately \5/
8\ inch of foam padding to each side of the barrier. DTNA did not
provide evidence demonstrating that, when DTNA was considering the new
barrier design, it tested the design or otherwise engaged in analyses
to ensure compliance to the existing requirements of FMVSS No. 222.
Similarly, DTNA did not provide evidence demonstrating that any testing

or analyses were ever performed that took into account the obstruction
between the new barrier design and front entrance door trim
combination.\9\ As such, NHTSA is not persuaded by DTNA's argument that
the design change was only aesthetic and had no impact on the
performance of the barrier, as no evidence was provided in support of
this claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Manufacturers and testing laboratories may perform tests
that are either ``in-bus'' or ``outside of bus'' for barrier and
seat tests to evaluate barrier/seat performance. In the present
case, the interaction between the barrier and the front entrance
door trim is at issue, therefore only ``in-bus'' testing with the
same relative placement of the barrier to the door trim would be
appropriate for comparative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also does not agree that the compliance test failure was
caused by the upper loading bar contacting the front entrance door trim
during the test. The barrier foam thickness is 3.5 inches (88 mm) and
extends approximately 2 inches (51 mm) beyond the end of the loading
bar. For the loading bar to contact the front entrance door trim, the
loading bar would have had to compress 3.5 inches of foam to 0 inches
to directly contact the front entrance door trim. Further, the loading
bar is mounted to allow up to 30 degrees rotation in the horizontal
plane, so that, when the barrier contacted the front entrance door trim
and the foam began to compress on that side, the loading bar would
rotate about its pivot point and reduce or eliminate any potential
overlap between the loading bar and front entrance door trim. NHTSA
therefore is not persuaded by DTNA's argument that the upper loading
bar made contact with the front entrance door trim during the NHTSA
compliance test because DTNA provided no evidence demonstrating how the
3.5 inches of foam could be compressed to 0 inches, and no analysis
that accounted for the rotation of the loading bar away from the front
entrance door trim.
    NHTSA also does not agree with DTNA's argument that ``placement of
the [upper loading bar] should be calculated based on the size of the
barrier from the frame inwards and not include the surplus material
that does not provide structure to the barrier.'' The NHTSA letter of
interpretation which DTNA referenced in support of this argument \10\
was responding to a question about whether the height of a barrier
needed to match the height of the seat immediately behind a barrier,
where the seat height was above the minimum required seat height
specified in FMVSS No. 222. This letter of interpretation does not
support DTNA's petition because energy absorption by the barrier was
not at issue in the letter of interpretation. As such, NHTSA is not
persuaded by DTNA's argument that the loading bar width should be
calculated based on the barrier frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available at: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/87/nht87-2.66.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not agree with DTNA's argument regarding the length of
the loading bar or its contention that ``the objective of the forward
performance test is to measure the operation and structural integrity
of the restraining barrier by ensuring the loads are concentrated in
the core of the structure itself and not the periphery of the structure
which could cause it to unnecessarily collapse.'' The history of FMVSS
No. 222 and the requirements for the length of the loading bar show
that FMVSS No. 222 was initially proposed as a new vehicle safety
standard on February 22, 1973 (38 FR 4776). The preamble for this first
proposed rule did not include any discussion on the length of the
loading bar, and the proposed regulatory text stated that ``[t]he
length of a loading bar is 4 inches less than the width of the seat
back in each test.'' In response to comments received on the first
proposed rule, a second proposed rule was published on July 30, 1974
(39 FR 27585). The preamble for the second proposed rule included a
statement on the length of the loading bar, explaining that ``[t]he
specified loading bar remains 4 inches shorter than the seat back
width, despite several objections, to ensure that loads will be
transferred to the seat structure without collapse of the seat back.''
The proposed regulatory text was slightly revised to provide that
``[t]he length of the loading bar is at least 4 inches less than the
width of the seat back in each test.'' In response to comments received
on the second proposed rule, a third proposed rule was published on
April 23, 1975 (40 FR 17855). The preamble of the third proposed rule
included a statement on the length of the loading bar, explaining that
``[t]he loading bar specifications have been tightened to require the
bar to be 4 inches shorter than the seat back width, rather than `at
least 4 inches' shorter.' '' The proposed regulatory text in the third
proposed rule was essentially reverted back to the text in the first
proposed rule and provided that ``[t]he length of the loading bar is 4
inches less than the width of the seat back in each test.'' \11\ In
response to comments received on the third proposed rule, a fourth
proposed rule was published on October 8, 1975 (40 FR 47141). The
preamble of the fourth proposed rule included the following discussion
specifically related to the loading bar length:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The third proposed rule language matches the modern-day
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 222 S5.6 (albeit in English
units).

    Manufacturers also requested tolerances in positioning of the
loading bar at 16 inches above the seating reference point and in
the bar's 4-inch length.\12\ As has often been stated in NHTSA
interpretations on similar issues, such a request reflects a
misunderstanding of the legal nature of the safety standards. They
are not instructions, but performance levels that vehicles are
required by law to be capable of meeting. Any tolerance in this
context would be meaningless and misleading, since it would merely
have the effect of stating a performance level that the product must
meet when tested by the government, at one end or the other of the
tolerance gap, but in a confusing manner. Recognizing that no
measurement is perfectly precise, a manufacturer's testing should be
designed to show, using this case as an example, that if the seat
were tested with the loading bar at precisely 16 inches above the
seating reference point, and with a bar exactly 4 inches long, the
seat would meet the applicable requirements. This may be done in at
least two different ways: (1) by using a test procedure that
conforms so closely to the specified input measurements (16 inches,
4 inches, etc.)--that no significant differences in results could
occur as a result of the differences between the actual input
measurements and the specified ones, or (2)--by determining which
``side'' of the specified measurements is adverse to the product
tested, and being sure that the actual input measurements deviate
from the specified ones on the adverse side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the preamble discussion of the fourth proposed rule for
FMVSS No. 222, references to the loading bar being 4 inches long are
actually in reference to the length of the loading bar being 4
inches less than the barrier width at the loading bar height.

    The proposed regulatory text was unchanged from the third proposed
rule. Following public comment on the fourth proposed rule, a final
rule was published on January 28, 1976 (41 FR 4018). The preamble of
the final rule did not include any further discussion on the length of
the loading bar, and the regulatory text remained unchanged from the
third proposed rule. No additional rulemakings have impacted the
requirement specified in paragraph S5.6 of FMVSS No. 222 regarding the
length of the loading bar. Although DTNA states that ``NHTSA declined
to reduce the size of the range [from four inches] to two inches
because it wanted `to ensure loads would be transferred to the seat
structure without collapse of the seat back' and to discourage
manufacturers from adding a narrow structural member to meet the
requirements,'' the history of the rulemaking relating to this standard
does not support this statement. This

same history shows that the Agency, at one time, contemplated
increasing the size of the range at issue in its second proposed rule
with the addition of the phrase ``at least,'' \13\ but does not suggest
that NHTSA ever contemplated decreasing the size of the range.
Furthermore, although DTNA's argument implies that a longer loading bar
may not concentrate loads to the barrier structure and may in fact lead
to unnecessary collapse at the periphery of the barrier, DTNA provided
no analysis or data supporting this claim. As such, NHTSA is not
persuaded by DTNA's argument that ``the objective of the forward
performance test is to measure the operation and structural integrity
of the restraining barrier by ensuring the loads are concentrated in
the core of the structure itself and not the periphery of the structure
which could cause it to unnecessarily collapse.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For clarity, increasing the size of the range at issue
(which is the length of the loading bar relative to the width of the
barrier) would correspond to a shorter loading bar. On the same
note, decreasing the size of the range, would correspond to a longer
loading bar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that DTNA has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 222 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, DTNA's petition is hereby denied, and DTNA is consequently
obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-17132 Filed 8-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25350-25352]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10281]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74821; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Fees, Dues and Other Charges

April 28, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 17, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend Chapter VI, Section 16, entitled ``Fees
and Charges,'' which rule is applicable to NASDAQ members using the
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and
routing standardized equity and index options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Chapter VI,
Section 16, entitled ``Fees and Charges.'' Today, the Exchange's Rule
at Chapter VI, Section 16 discusses participation Fees and notes that
the Board in its discretion may fix participations fees payable by
Options Participants on a quarterly basis.\3\ Also, Options
Participants shall pay a fee for each transaction they execute on NOM,
as may be determined by the Board in its discretion. The Board may
prescribe different or no fees for different types of transactions
conducted on NOM.\4\ The Board may fix and impose other fees,
assessments or charges to be paid by Options Participants or by classes
of Options Participants with respect to applications, registrations,
approvals, use of NOM and Trading System facilities or other services
or privileges granted.\5\ Finally, an Options Participant that does not
pay any fees, assessments, charges, fines or other amounts due to NOM
within thirty (30) days after they have become due and payable shall be
reported to the Board or its delegate which may, after giving
reasonable notice to the Options Participant of such arrearages,
suspend the Options Participant until payment is made or terminate the
Options Participant's

participation on NOM. An associated person of an Options Participant
who fails to pay any fine or other amounts due to NOM within thirty
(30) days after such amount has become due and payable and after
reasonable notice of such arrearages, may be suspended from association
with an Options Participant until payment is made.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(a).
    \4\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(b).
    \5\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(c).
    \6\ See Chapter VI, Section 16(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the title of Chapter VI, Section
16 to ``Fees, Dues and Other Charges'' and adopt the rule text of
current NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Rule 52 into current Chapter VI,
Section 16. The Exchange desires to harmonize Chapter VI, Section 16
with Phlx Rule 52.
    The new rule text would continue to permit the Board of Directors
to have the power to fix fees. The proposed new rule would permit the
Board: (i) to establish, assess and levy such fees, dues and other
charges (including, without limitation, any extraordinary assessments)
upon members and any other persons using the facilities or services of
the Exchange, and upon applicants for and persons being admitted,
registered, qualified and/or initiated to any such status, in each case
as the Board of Directors may from time to time establish by resolution
or in the Rules of the Exchange (which shall be deemed to include any
schedule of fees, dues, other charges and penalties as may be in effect
from time to time), (ii) to establish rebates, credits and discounts
with respect to any of the foregoing, (iii) to establish programs
whereby the Exchange shares or permits any person to participate in any
identified source of revenues (less any expenses or other charges as
the Exchange shall determine) of the Exchange, (iv) to provide for the
direct reimbursement to the Exchange of any cost, expense or category
thereof, and (v) except insofar as otherwise specified or provided for
in the By-Laws, to establish and assess penalties for failure to pay
any fees, dues or charges owed to the Exchange, including, without
limitation, termination of membership (which membership may be
reissued) and forfeiture of all rights as a member. The Board of
Directors may authorize any committee thereof or the Chair of the Board
of Directors to exercise any powers of the Board of Directors with
respect to the assessment of fees, dues, other charges and penalties
authorized in accordance with this Section.\7\ The Exchange believes
that the proposed rule text includes a more exhaustive list of powers
that the Board, or its delegate, may exercise with respect to fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors may also, from time to time, fix and impose
charges upon members, measured by their respective net commissions on
transactions effected on the Exchange. Such charges shall be payable at
such times and shall be collected in such manner as may be determined
by the Board of Directors.\8\ The Exchange believes that this rule text
is more expansive than the rule text in current rule Chapter VI,
Section 16 and provides the board with additional flexibility in
imposing fees. Participants shall abide by the provisions of the
Exchange's By-Laws and the Rules, which shall include, without
limitation, the obligation to pay all applicable fees, dues and other
charges imposed thereon by the By-Laws or the Rules of the Exchange.\9\
Participants today are obligated to abide by the provisions of the
Exchange's By-Laws and the Rules and pay all applicable fees, dues and
other charges imposed thereon by the By-Laws or the Rules of the
Exchange. This provision does not impose any new obligations on
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(b).
    \9\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Board of Directors or their designee may suspend or
terminate, after due notice, any permit or rights of any Participant or
employee thereof using facilities or services of the Exchange, or
enjoying any of the privileges therein, who shall not pay dues, fees,
other charges, other monies due and owed the Exchange, fines and/or
other monetary sanctions in accordance with the Rules of the
Exchange.\10\ Today, the Exchange has the power to suspend Participants
as noted in current rule Chapter VI, Section 16. The Exchange believes
that this new provision provides the Board with greater flexibility in
both suspending and now terminating Participants for failure to pay
fees. The Exchange's Rules today provide a process for the suspension,
cancellation and bar of its members.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed new Chapter VI, Section 16(d).
    \11\ See NASDAQ Rule 9553, entitled ``Failure to Pay Nasdaq
Dues, Fees and Other Charges,'' specifies the process for
suspension, cancellation and bar applicable to Nasdaq members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing to adopt the provisions of Phlx Rule
52(e) as those provisions apply today to NOM Participants.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NASDAQ Rule 8320, entitled ``Payment of Fines, Other
Monetary Sanctions, or Costs; Summary Action for Failure to Pay.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes that these proposed rule changes will
harmonize the NOM's Rules related to fees with that of Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's process for billing and collecting fees on NOM today
is the same process which exists on Phlx. The Exchange therefore
desires to adopt Rule 52 to better describe the Board's powers and the
obligations of Participants with respect to fees. The Exchange believes
that this new provision provides the Board with greater flexibility in
both suspending and now terminating Participants for failure to pay
fees. The Exchange's By-Laws at Article IX, Section 4 provide the Board
with authority to fix and levy the amount of fees assessed to members
and Rule 9553 contemplates the ramifications and process by which
members are notified and sanctioned for a failure to pay such fees.
    The adoption of an Exchange Rule similar to Phlx Rule 52 will align
the NOM Rules with that of Phlx, with respect to fees, and reflect the
current process which exists at both exchanges. The new text adds
clarity to the NOM Rules and better reflects the current process. The
Exchange believes that the adoption of the new rule text will provide
Participants with clear guidelines for the payment of fees and will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.

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 text does
not impose an undue burden on competition, rather it seeks to clarify
the power of the Exchange's Board and the manner in which the Exchange
manages the assessment of fees. NOM Participants will all be subject to
the same obligations as specified in the proposed rule with respect to
fees.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-039 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-NASDAQ-2015-039. 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 will also 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-NASDAQ-2015-039 and should
be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10281 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26536-26539]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11742]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80831; File No. SR-BOX-2017-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 16100 (Consolidated
Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution) To Establish the Procedures for
Resolving Potential Disputes Related to CAT Fees Charged to Industry
Members

June 1, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on May 25, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``SRO'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 proposes to adopt Rule 16100 (Consolidated Audit
Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution) to establish the procedures for
resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry
Members.\3\ The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are defined as set forth herein, or in the Consolidated
Audit Trail Funding Fees Rule, the CAT Compliance Rule Series or in
the CAT NMS Plan.

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

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX,
Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC,\4\ NASDAQ
PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC,
NYSE MKT LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc.\5\ (collectively,
the ``Participants'') filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section
11A of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
thereunder,\7\ the National Market System Plan Governing the
Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\8\ The
Participants filed the Plan to comply with Rule 613 of Regulation NMS
under the Exchange Act. The Plan was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2016,\9\ and approved by the Commission, as
modified, on November 15, 2016.\10\ The Plan is designed to create,
implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail (``CAT'') that would
capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS
Securities and OTC Equity Securities, across all markets, from the time
of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification, or
execution in a single consolidated data source. The Plan accomplishes
this by creating CAT NMS, LLC (the ``Company''), of which each
Participant is a member, to operate the CAT.\11\ Under the CAT NMS
Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company (``Operating Committee'')
has discretion to establish funding for the Company to operate the CAT,
including establishing fees that the Participants will pay, and
establishing fees for Industry Members that will be implemented by the
Participants (``CAT Fees'').\12\ The Participants are required to file
with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such CAT Fees
applicable to Industry Members that the Operating Committee
approves.\13\ Accordingly, SRO has filed a proposed rule change with
the SEC to adopt the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, which will
require Industry Members that are SRO members to pay the CAT Fees
determined by the Operating Committee.\14\ SRO submits this rule filing
to adopt Rule 16100 (Consolidated Audit Trail--Fee Dispute Resolution)
to establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to
CAT Fees charged to Industry Members. Proposed Rule 16100 is described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC and International
Securities Exchange, LLC have been renamed Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq
MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq ISE, LLC, respectively. See Securities Exchange
Act Rel. No. 80248 (Mar. 15, 2017), 82 FR 14547 (Mar. 21, 2017);
Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80326 (Mar. 29, 2017), 82 FR 16460
(Apr. 4, 2017); and Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 80325 (Mar. 29,
2017), 82 FR 16445 (Apr. 4, 2017).
    \5\ National Stock Exchange, Inc. has been renamed NYSE
National, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79902 (Jan. 30,
2017), 82 FR 9258 (Feb. 3, 2017).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \8\ See Letter from the Participants to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated September 30, 2014; and Letter from
Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
February 27, 2015. On December 24, 2015, the Participants submitted
an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan. See Letter from Participants to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 23, 2015.
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 77724 (Apr. 27, 2016), 81
FR 30614 (May 17, 2016).
    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81
FR 84696 (Nov. 23, 2016) (``Approval Order'').
    \11\ The Plan also serves as the limited liability company
agreement for the Company.
    \12\ Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80721 (May 18, 2017),
82 FR 23864 (May 24, 2017) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness SR-BOX-2017-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Definitions
    Paragraph (a) of Proposed Rule 16100 sets forth the definitions for
Proposed Rule 16100. Paragraph (a)(1) of Proposed Rule 16100 states
that, for purposes of Rule 16100, the terms ``CAT NMS Plan'',
``Industry Member'', ``Operating Committee'', and ``Participant'' are
defined as set forth in the Rule 16010 (Consolidated Audit Trail--
Definitions), and the term ``CAT Fee'' is defined as set forth in the
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees. In addition, SRO proposes to add
paragraph (a)(2) to Proposed Rule 16100. New paragraph (a)(2) would
define the term ``Subcommittee'' to mean a subcommittee designated by
the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. This definition
is the same substantive definition as set forth in Section 1.1 of the
CAT NMS Plan.
(2) Fee Dispute Resolution
    Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan requires Participants to adopt
rules requiring that disputes with respect to fees charged to Industry
Members pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan be determined by the Operating
Committee or Subcommittee. Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan also states
that decisions by the Operating Committee or Subcommittee on such
matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without prejudice to the
right of any Industry Member to seek redress from the SEC pursuant to
SEC Rule 608 or in any other appropriate forum. SRO proposes to adopt
paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule 16100. Paragraph (b) of Proposed Rule
16100 states that disputes initiated by an Industry Member with respect
to CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member pursuant to the
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees, including disputes related to
the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant to such tier, shall
be resolved by the Operating Committee, or a Subcommittee designated by
the Operating Committee, of the CAT NMS Plan, pursuant to the Fee
Dispute Resolution Procedures adopted pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and
set forth in paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule 16100. Decisions on such
matters shall be binding on Industry Members, without prejudice to the
rights of any such Industry Member to seek redress from the SEC or in
any other appropriate forum.
    The Operating Committee has adopted ``Fee Dispute Resolution
Procedures'' governing the manner in which disputes regarding CAT Fees
charged pursuant to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees will be
addressed. These Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures, as they relate to
Industry Members, are set forth in paragraph (c) of Proposed Rule
16100. Specifically, the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures provide the
procedure for Industry Members that dispute CAT Fees charged to such
Industry Member pursuant to one or more of the Participants'
Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees Rules, including disputes related
to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant to such tier, to

apply for an opportunity to be heard and to have the CAT Fees charged
to such Industry Member reviewed. The Procedures are modeled after the
adverse action procedures adopted by various exchanges,\15\ and will be
posted on the Web site for the CAT NMS Plan Web site.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Chapter X of BATS BZX Exchange, Inc. (Adverse
Action); and Chapter X of NYSE National, Inc. (Adverse Action).
    \16\ The CAT NMS Plan Web site is www.catnmsplan.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these Procedures, an Industry Member that disputes CAT Fees
charged to such Industry Member and that desires to have an opportunity
to be heard with respect to such disputed CAT Fees must file a written
application with the Company within 15 business days after being
notified of such disputed CAT Fees. The application must identify the
disputed CAT Fees, state the specific reasons why the applicant takes
exception to such CAT Fees, and set forth the relief sought. In
addition, if the applicant intends to submit any additional documents,
statements, arguments or other material in support of the application,
the same should be so stated and identified.
    The Company will refer applications for hearing and review promptly
to the Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee pursuant to
Section 4.12 of the CAT NMS Plan with responsibility for conducting the
reviews of CAT Fee disputes pursuant to these Procedures. This
Subcommittee will be referred to as the Fee Review Subcommittee. The
members of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to the
provisions of Section 4.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan regarding recusal and
Conflicts of Interest. The Fee Review Subcommittee will keep a record
of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will hold hearings promptly. The Fee
Review Subcommittee will set a hearing date. The parties to the hearing
shall furnish the Fee Review Subcommittee with all materials relevant
to the proceedings at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing.
Each party will have the right to inspect and copy the other party's
materials prior to the hearing.
    The parties to the hearing will consist of the applicant and a
representative of the Company who shall present the reasons for the
action taken by the Company that allegedly aggrieved the applicant. The
applicant is entitled to be accompanied, represented and advised by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee will determine all questions concerning
the admissibility of evidence and will otherwise regulate the conduct
of the hearing. Each of the parties will be permitted to make an
opening statement, present witnesses and documentary evidence, cross
examine opposing witnesses and present closing arguments orally or in
writing as determined by the Fee Review Subcommittee. The Fee Review
Subcommittee also will have the right to question all parties and
witnesses to the proceeding. The Fee Review Subcommittee must keep a
record of the hearing. The formal rules of evidence will not apply.
    The Fee Review Subcommittee must set forth its decision in writing
and send the written decision to the parties to the proceeding. Such
decisions will contain the reasons supporting the conclusions of the
Fee Review Subcommittee.
    The decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to
review by the Operating Committee either on its own motion within 20
business days after issuance of the decision or upon written request
submitted by the applicant within 15 business days after issuance of
the decision. The applicant's petition must be in writing and must
specify the findings and conclusions to which the applicant objects,
together with the reasons for such objections. Any objection to a
decision not specified in writing will be considered to have been
abandoned and may be disregarded. Parties may petition to submit a
written argument to the Operating Committee and may request an
opportunity to make an oral argument before the Operating Committee.
The Operating Committee will have sole discretion to grant or deny
either request.
    The Operating Committee will conduct the review. The review will be
made upon the record and will be made after such further proceedings,
if any, as the Operating Committee may order. Based upon such record,
the Operating Committee may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in
part, the decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee. The decision of the
Operating Committee will be in writing, will be sent to the parties to
the proceeding and will be final.
    The Procedures state that a final decision regarding the disputed
CAT Fees by the Operating Committee, or the Fee Review Subcommittee (if
there is no review by the Operating Committee), must be provided within
90 days of the date on which the Industry Member filed a written
application regarding disputed CAT Fees with the Company. The Operating
Committee may extend the 90-day time limit at its discretion.
    In addition, the Procedures state that any notices or other
documents may be served upon the applicant either personally or by
leaving the same at its, his or her place of business or by deposit in
the United States post office, postage prepaid, by registered or
certified mail, addressed to the applicant at its, his or her last
known business or residence address. The Procedures also state that any
time limits imposed under the Procedures for the submission of answers,
petitions or other materials may be extended by permission of the
Operating Committee. All papers and documents relating to review by the
Fee Review Subcommittee or the Operating Committee must be submitted to
the Fee Review Subcommittee or Operating Committee, as applicable.
    The Procedures also note that decisions on such CAT Fee disputes
made pursuant to these Procedures will be binding on Industry Members,
without prejudice to the rights of any such Industry Member to seek
redress from the SEC or in any other appropriate forum.
    Finally, an Industry Member that files a written application with
the Company regarding disputed CAT Fees in accordance with these
Procedures is not required to pay such disputed CAT Fees until the
dispute is resolved in accordance with these Procedures, including any
review by the SEC or in any other appropriate forum. For these
purposes, the disputed CAT Fees means the amount of the invoiced CAT
Fees that the Industry Member has asserted pursuant to these Procedures
that such Industry Member does not owe to the Company. The Industry
Member must pay any invoiced CAT Fees that are not disputed CAT Fees
when due as set forth in the original invoice.
    Once the dispute regarding CAT Fees is resolved pursuant to these
Procedures, if it is determined that the Industry Member owes any of
the disputed CAT Fees, then the Industry Member must pay such disputed
CAT Fees that are owed as well as interest on such disputed CAT Fees
from the original due date (that is, 30 days after receipt of the
original invoice of such CAT Fees) until such disputed CAT Fees are
paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus
300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\17\ which require, among other things, that the SRO rules must be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealer,
and Section 15A(b)(5) [sic] of the Act,\18\ which requires that SRO
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5) [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets or clarifies Section 11.5 of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members
in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving
the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \19\ To the extent that this
proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies
specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that
this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the
SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Approval Order at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \20\ require [sic] that Exchange rules
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change implements Section 11.5 of the CAT
NMS Plan approved by the Commission, and is designed to assist the
Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan.
Similarly, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing
this proposed rule to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan.
Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing and, therefore, it
does not raise competition issues between and among the exchanges and
FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 5 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-BOX-2017-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-19. 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-BOX-2017-19, and should be
submitted on or before June 28, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11742 Filed 6-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46002-46004]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8501; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-042-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This
proposed AD would require inspecting the main transmission forward
(fwd) and aft frame assembly and adjacent skins for a crack and loose
fasteners and establishing life limits for certain frame assemblies.
This proposed AD is prompted by fatigue analysis indicating stress
concentrations as well as the discovery of a crack in the station (STA)
362 frame and skin on a Model S-92A helicopter. The proposed actions
are intended to detect a crack in a frame assembly and prevent failure
of a frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 13,
2016.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8501; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry
Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristopher Greer, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters
with certain part-numbered frame assemblies installed. This proposed AD
is prompted by a fatigue analysis that indicates stress concentrations
may develop at the steel doublers on the main transmission airframe
support structure top deck, adjacent to the transmission feet.
Additionally, a helicopter was discovered with a crack in the STA 362
frame and skin. This proposed AD would require inspecting the main
transmission fwd and aft frame assemblies and adjacent skins for a
crack and loose fasteners and replacing or repairing any cracked part
or loose fastener. This proposed AD would also require establishing
life limits for certain frame assemblies. The proposed actions are
intended to detect a crack in the frame assemblies and to prevent
failure of the main transmission frame assemblies and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 92-53-008, Basic
Issue, dated June 13, 2012 (ASB 92-53-008); S-92 ASB 92-53-009, Basic
Issue, dated December 6, 2012 (ASB 92-53-009); and S-92 ASB 92-53-012,
Basic Issue, dated February 10, 2014 (ASB 92-53-012). ASB 92-53-008
provides procedures for a one-time inspection of the main transmission
frames and beams for a crack, missing or loose fastener or collar,
damage, deformation, and corrosion. ASB 92-53-009 specifies an
inspection before the first flight of the day and a recurring 150-hour
inspection of the interior and exterior surfaces of the upper flanges
and beams. ASB 92-53-012 specifies altering the fwd and aft
transmission support frames by replacing the fasteners in accordance
with Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-074-E, Revision E,
dated April 9, 2014. After this alteration, the parts are re-identified
with a new part number. Sikorsky refers to this alteration as a service
life extension program modification.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would establish a life limit for certain part-
numbered frame assemblies by removing from service any part that has
reached or exceeded its new life limit. Frame assemblies that are
altered under Sikorsky's service life extension program and re-
identified with a new part number must be removed from service upon
accumulating the life limit of the old part-number or within certain
hours TIS since the alteration, whichever occurs first.
    This proposed AD would also require, for helicopters with certain
part-numbered frame assemblies, within 24 clock-hours and thereafter
before the first flight of each day or at intervals not to exceed 24
clock-hours, whichever occurs later, inspecting the top deck skin,
straps, and fasteners for a crack and loose fasteners in two locations.
If there is a loose fastener or a crack, this proposed AD would require
repairing or replacing the cracked or loose part and performing
additional inspections of the STA 328 frame, STA 362 frame, and the
butt line (BL) 16.5 beams.
    Finally, this proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the
STA 328 frame, STA 362 frame, and the BL 16.5 beams once the frame
assembly exceeds certain hours TIS.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information requires providing certain information to
Sikorsky and this proposed AD would not. The service information
specifies performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection if there is a
suspected crack and contacting Sikorsky if there is a crack, while this
proposed AD would only require repairing or replacing any cracked part.
Contacting Sikorsky would not be required.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 80 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply
with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We
estimate a minimal cost to establish and revise the life limit of the
frame assembly. We estimate it would take 1 work-hour to visually
inspect the skin and 1 work-hour to inspect STA 328 and 362 frames. No
parts would be needed for a total cost of $6,800 for the fleet for each
inspection per inspection cycle. If a fastener is replaced, we estimate
the cost to be minimal. If a frame is replaced, it would take 3,360
work-hours and a required parts cost of $296,000 for a total cost of
$581,600 per helicopter.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2016-8501; Directorate
Identifier 2014-SW-042-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-92A helicopters, certificated in any
category, with a forward (fwd) station (STA) 328 or aft STA 362
frame assembly with a part number (P/N) as shown in Table 1 to
paragraph (e)(1), Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 3 to paragraph
(e)(2), or Table 4 to paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a main
transmission airframe

support structure. This condition could result in failure of a main
transmission frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 13, 2016.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters with a frame assembly with a P/N shown in
Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, remove from service any part that has
reached or exceeded its new life limit. Fwd STA 328 frame assemblies
that are altered and changed to P/N 92070-20124-064, 92070-20124-
067, 92070-20127-045, 92070-20124-065, 92070-20124-047, or 92070-
20127-046 must be removed from service upon accumulating 12,000
hours TIS from the alteration or 28,500 hours TIS total (regardless
of P/N), whichever occurs first.

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Life limit
                                                             hours TIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwd STA 328 frame assembly P/N:
  92070-20124-064.......................................          12,000
  92070-20124-067.......................................          12,000
  92070-20127-045.......................................          12,000
  92070-20124-065.......................................          12,000
  92070-20124-047.......................................          12,000
  92070-20127-046.......................................          12,000
  92070-20124-063.......................................          12,000
  92070-20124-066.......................................          12,000
  92070-20127-041.......................................          12,000
Aft STA 362 frame assembly P/N:
  92070-20124-041.......................................          10,400
  92070-20124-044.......................................          10,400
  92070-20127-042.......................................          10,400
  92070-20124-042.......................................          10,400
  92070-20124-045.......................................          10,400
  92070-20127-049.......................................          10,400
  92070-20124-043.......................................          10,400
  92070-20124-046.......................................          10,400
  92070-20127-050.......................................          10,400
  92070-20141-050.......................................          17,000
  92070-20141-051.......................................          17,000
  92070-20141-052.......................................          17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (e)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Life limit
                                                             hours TIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fwd STA 328 frame assembly P/N:
  92070-20097-058.......................................          28,500
  92080-20047-047.......................................          28,500
  92070-20097-060.......................................          28,500
  92080-20047-048.......................................          28,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For helicopters with a frame assembly with a P/N shown in
Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1), or Table 3
to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD: Within 24 clock-hours, and
thereafter before the first flight of each day or at intervals not
to exceed 24 clock-hours, whichever occurs later, using a 10X or
higher power magnifying glass, inspect the skin, straps, and
fasteners of the top deck for a crack and loose fasteners in two
locations from the STA 328 frame to the STA 305 frame between the
right butt line (BL) 16.5 beam and the left BL 16.5 beam, and from
the STA 362 frame to the STA 379 frame between the right BL 16.5
beam and the left BL 16.5 beam. If there is a loose fastener or a
crack:
    (i) Repair or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener
before further flight.
    (ii) Inspect the STA 328 frame and STA 362 frame between the
left and right BL16.5 beams and inspect the area on the left and
right BL 16.5 beams six inches on either side of the mounting pads
for a crack and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener or a
crack, repair or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener
before further flight.
    (iii) Inspect the STA 328 and STA 362 outboard frames, left and
right sides, from the BL 16.5 beam to water line 252.25 for a crack
and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener or a crack, repair
or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener before further
flight.

                       Table 3 to Paragraph (e)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Aft STA 362 frame
           Fwd STA 328 frame  assembly P/N               assembly P/N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
92209-02106-042.....................................     92070-20097-062
92209-02106-043.....................................     92080-20047-051
92070-20097-041.....................................     92209-02109-043
92080-20047-041.....................................     92209-02109-044
                                                         92070-20097-042
                                                         92080-20047-042
                                                         92070-20097-064
                                                         92080-20047-052
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For each frame assembly listed in Table 1 to paragraph
(e)(1) or Table 4 to paragraph (e)(3) of this AD with 1,801 or more
hours TIS, and for each frame assembly listed in Table 2 to
paragraph (e)(1) or Table 3 to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD with
1,301 or more hours TIS, within 150 hours TIS and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, perform the inspections in
paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) of this AD.

                       Table 4 to Paragraph (e)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Aft STA 362 frame
           Fwd STA 328 frame  assembly P/N               assembly P/N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
92209-02107-042.....................................     92070-02108-042
92209-02107-103.....................................     92080-02108-103
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristopher Greer,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781)
238-7799; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 92-53-008, Basic
Issue, dated June 13, 2012; ASB 92-53-009, Basic Issue, dated
December 6, 2012; ASB 92-53-012, Basic Issue, dated February 10,
2014, and Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-074-E,
Revision E, dated April 9, 2014, which are not incorporated by
reference, contain additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road,
Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5311 Fuselage
Main, Frame.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 7, 2016.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16749 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P