[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85659-85663]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28460]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79363; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-148]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Rules 7.1 and 7.2, and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.1 and 7.2

November 21, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 10, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 (Trading
Sessions) to permit the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange or his
or her designee to take certain actions in connection with the trading
of securities on the Exchange; (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 (Hours
of Business) to permit the President of NYSE Arca Equities or his or
her designee to take certain actions in connection with the trading of
securities on the NYSE Arca Equities marketplace; and (c) NYSE Arca
Rule 7.2 (Holidays) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2 (Holidays) to
remove a reference to presidential election days. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend (a) NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 (Trading
Sessions) to permit the Chief Executive Officer (``CEO'') of the
Exchange or his or her designee to take certain actions in connection
with the trading of securities on the Exchange; (b) NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.1 (Hours of Business) to permit the President of NYSE Arca
Equities or his or her designee to take certain actions in connection
with the trading of securities on the NYSE Arca Equities marketplace;
and (c) NYSE Arca Rule 7.2 (Holidays) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2
(Holidays) to remove a reference to presidential election days.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule 7.1
and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 would make such rules more reflective
of the organizational structure of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities.
At the same time, the proposed rule changes would ensure that the
Boards of Directors of NYSE Arca and of NYSE Arca Equities (each, a
``Board'') continue to have the authority to take action they deem
necessary or appropriate in particular situations.
NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1
Proposed Changes to NYSE Arca Rule 7.1
    The first paragraph of NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 provides that, unless
otherwise ruled by the Board of the Exchange or its designee, the
Exchange shall be open for the transaction of business daily except on
Saturdays and Sundays, and that the hours at which trading sessions
shall open and close shall be established by the Board or its designee.
Commentary .01 to Rule 7.1 notes that, except under unusual conditions
as may be determined by the Board or its designee, hours during which
transactions in options on individual securities may be made on the
Exchange shall correspond to the normal hours for business set forth in
the rules of the primary exchange listing the securities underlying the
options.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph of NYSE Arca
Rule 7.1 to provide that, except as may be

otherwise determined by the Board as to particular days, the Exchange
shall be open for the transaction of business on every business day.
The Exchange proposes to remove the current exclusion of Saturdays and
Sundays because Saturdays and Sundays are not business days and
therefore no exclusion is needed. Finally, the amended paragraph would
provide that the hours at which trading sessions shall open and close
may be specified by Exchange rule, as well as by the Board. The two
paragraphs of the present rule would become paragraphs (a) and (b).
These proposed rule changes are based in part on New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Rule 51(a) and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') Rule
51(a)--Equities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE LLC and NYSE MKT are affiliates of the Exchange. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 45433 (February 12, 2002), 67
FR 7441 (February 19, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2001-55), and 58705 (October 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63). NYSE MKT LLC
is submitting substantially the same proposed rule change for NYSE
MKT Rule 901NY, applicable to the trading of options contracts on
NYSE Amex Options LLC. See SR-NYSEMKT-2016-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add new paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to
NYSE Arca Rule 7.1. These proposed changes are based on NYSE Rule 51(b)
and (c) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(b)-(d)--Equities. New paragraph (c) would
provide that, except as may be otherwise determined by the NYSE Arca
Board, the CEO of the Exchange or his or her designee may halt or
suspend trading in some or all securities traded on the Exchange;
extend the hours for the transaction of business on the Exchange; close
some or all Exchange facilities; determine the duration of any such
halt, suspension or closing undertaken; or determine to trade
securities on the Exchange's disaster recovery facility.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As part of its business continuity and disaster recovery
plans, the Exchange maintains a disaster recovery facility, which is
a secondary data center located in a geographically diverse
location, as required by Regulation SCI. See 14 CFR
242.1001(a)(2)(v) (requiring policies and procedures for business
continuity and disaster recovery plans that include maintaining
backup and recovery capabilities sufficiently resilient and
geographically diverse and that are reasonably designed to achieve
next business day resumption of trading and two-hour resumption of
critical SCI systems following a wide-scale disruption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New paragraph (d) would provide that the CEO or his or her designee
shall take any of the actions described in new paragraph (c) only when
he or she deems such action to be necessary or appropriate for the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market, or the protection of
investors or otherwise in the public interest, due to extraordinary
circumstances such as:
     Actual or threatened physical danger, severe climatic
conditions, civil unrest, terrorism, acts of war, or loss or
interruption of facilities utilized by the Exchange,
     a request by a governmental agency or official, or
     a period of mourning or recognition for a person or event.
    New paragraph (e) would require that the CEO or his or her designee
notify the NYSE Arca Board of actions taken pursuant to the rule,
except for a period of mourning or recognition for a person or event,
as soon thereafter as is feasible.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the Exchange may close on a national day of
mourning for a former president of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the commentary to NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 be
amended by deleting ``under unusual conditions'' and a reference to the
Board's designee, and by adding a reference to the authority of the CEO
or his or her designee under new subparagraph (c).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to change the name of NYSE Arca Rule
7.1 from ``Trading Sessions'' to ``Hours of Business,'' which would
make it consistent with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1.
Proposed Changes to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1
    The first paragraph of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 provides that,
unless otherwise ruled by the NYSE Arca Equities Board, the Corporation
shall be open for the transaction of business daily except on Saturdays
and Sundays, and the hours at which trading sessions shall open and
close shall be established by the NYSE Arca Equities Board. NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.1 does not provide for a Board designee.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the first paragraph of NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.1 to provide that, except as may be otherwise
determined by the NYSE Arca Equities Board as to particular days, the
Corporation shall be open for the transaction of business on every
business day. The Exchange proposes to remove the current exclusion of
Saturdays and Sundays because Saturdays and Sundays are not business
days and therefore no exclusion is needed. Finally, the amended
paragraph would provide that the hours at which trading sessions shall
open and close may be specified by Exchange rule, as well as by the
Board. The two paragraphs of the present rule would become paragraphs
(a) and (b). These proposed rule changes are based in part on NYSE Rule
51(a) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(a)--Equities.
    The Exchange proposes to add a new subparagraph (c) to provide
that, except as may be otherwise determined by the NYSE Arca Equities
Board, the President of the Corporation or his or her designee may halt
or suspend trading in some or all securities traded on the Corporation;
extend the hours for the transaction of business on the Corporation;
close some or all Corporation facilities; determine the duration of any
such halt, suspension or closing; or determine to trade securities on
the Exchange's disaster recovery facility. These proposed changes are
based on NYSE Rule 51(b) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(b)--Equities.
    New subparagraphs (d) and (e) would subject the President or his or
her designee to the same limitations and reporting requirements as in
proposed NYSE Arca Rule 7.1(d) and (e), which are based on NYSE Rule
51(b) and (c) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(b)-(d)--Equities.
Discussion
    Currently, NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1
require Board action if extraordinary circumstances arise. However, the
Boards may not be able to convene and act quickly, thereby delaying any
potential response. Pursuant to their respective bylaws, at least half
of the directors on the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Boards are
Public Directors.\7\ Therefore, as a practical matter, they are
unlikely to be at or near the Exchange if extraordinary circumstances
arise, making it harder to convene quickly. Further, if communication
systems are severely compromised in an emergency, the Boards may not be
able to convene at all.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. Bylaws, Article III, Sec. 3.02(a) and
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Bylaws, Art. III, Sec. 3.02(a). ``Public
Directors'' are directors that are persons from the public who are
not, or are not affiliated with, a broker-dealer in securities and,
in the case of the Exchange Board, are not employed by, or involved
in any material business relationship with, the Exchange or its
affiliates.
    \8\ For both Boards, the presence of a majority of directors is
necessary to constitute a quorum. See NYSE Arca, Inc. Bylaws,
Article III, Sec. 3.07 and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Bylaws, Art.
III, Sec. 3.09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 partially addresses this concern by
allowing the NYSE Arca Board to name designees. However, use of a
designee requires that the Board make the delegation before any unusual
conditions arise. Further, NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 does not set any limits
on when designees may act under the rule, unlike proposed paragraphs
(c) and (d). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the
references to a Board designee in the first paragraph of

NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 and commentary thereto. Such proposed deletions
would make NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 consistent with NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.1, NYSE Rule 51(a) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(a)--Equities, none of which
contemplate the Board appointing a designee to set the hours for
business.
    The Exchange believes designating by rule that the CEO of the
Exchange, President of NYSE Arca Equities, or their designees may take
certain actions in extraordinary circumstances would make NYSE Arca
Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 more reflective of the
organizational structure of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities. As
described above, the CEO, President, or their designees would be able
to take such action only when they deem it to be necessary or
appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, or the
protection of investors or otherwise in the public interest, due to
extraordinary circumstances.
    The proposed amendments would ensure that the NYSE Arca and NYSE
Arca Equities Boards continue to have the authority to take action they
deem necessary or appropriate in particular situations. In addition, as
proposed, the amended rules would ensure that the Boards would remain
informed, by requiring the CEO or President to notify the relevant
Board of actions taken pursuant to the authority granted under the
rule, with the exception of a period of mourning or recognition for a
person or event, as soon thereafter as is feasible.
    The proposed changes would have the additional benefit of bringing
NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 into greater
conformity with the rules of the NYSE and NYSE MKT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NYSE Rule 51(a) and NYSE MKT Rule 51(a)--Equities do not
state that the CEO can name a designee. However, pursuant to NYSE
Rule 1 and NYSE MKT Rule 1--Equities, the CEO of the relevant
exchange may designate one or more qualified employees to act in his
or her place in the event that the CEO is not available. See NYSE
Rule 1 and NYSE MKT Rule 1--Equities. See also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61810 (March 31, 2010), 75 FR 17816 (April 7, 2010)
(SR-NYSE-2010-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the trading rules of Bats BZX Exchange,
Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., and Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc. also provide that the CEO of the relevant exchange may
halt, suspend trading in any and all securities traded on the exchange,
close some or all exchange facilities, and determine the duration of
any such halt, suspension, or closing, when he deems such action
necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the
protection of investors, or otherwise in the public interest. The lists
of special circumstances set out in such trading rules are
substantially similar to those in NYSE Rule 51 and NYSE MKT Rule 51--
Equities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.1(c); Bats BYX
Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.1(c); Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.1(c);
and Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca Rule 7.2 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2
    The last sentence in the first paragraph of NYSE Arca Rule 7.2
provides that the Board will determine whether to open the Exchange on
presidential election days. Similarly, the last sentence in the first
paragraph of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2 provides that the Board will
determine whether to open NYSE Arca Equities on presidential election
days. The Exchange proposes to delete both sentences.
    The existing sentences are worded as if the Exchange and NYSE Arca
Equities will be closed on presidential election days unless the Board
determines otherwise. The Exchange believes the wording is potentially
confusing to investors, because the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities are
generally open on presidential election days. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the language. The proposed edits will not affect the
Board's ability to close the Exchange or NYSE Arca Equities for a
presidential election day, as it would continue to have authority to do
so under Rule 7.1.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and further the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because
they are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because they are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section
6(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ in that they enable the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its exchange
members and persons associated with its exchange members, with the
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule
7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and
enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act, because they would make NYSE
Arca Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 more reflective of the
organizational structure of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities. In
this manner, they would strengthen the ability of the Exchange and NYSE
Arca Equities to respond appropriately and in a timely fashion to
extraordinary circumstances, even if the relevant Board is unable to
convene. However, unlike present NYSE Arca Rule 7.1, which puts no
limits on when the Board's designees may act, the proposed amended
rules would ensure that the CEO, President, or their designees, as
applicable, would be able to take action only when he or she deems such
action to be necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market, or the protection of investors or otherwise in the
public interest, due to extraordinary circumstances.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule
7.2 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2 would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and
enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act, because they would remove
sentences that are worded as if the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities
will be closed on presidential election days unless the Board
determines otherwise. The Exchange believes the wording is potentially
confusing to investors, because the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities are
generally open on presidential election days. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the language.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
to [sic] would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a
free and open market and a national market

system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and
enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to be
able to carry out the purposes of the Act, because they would ensure
that the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Boards continue to have the
authority to take action they deem necessary or appropriate in
particular situations. In addition, as proposed, the proposed amended
NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1 would ensure that
the Boards would remain informed, by requiring the CEO or President to
notify the relevant Board of actions taken pursuant to the authority
granted under the rule, with the exception of a period of mourning or
recognition for a person or event, as soon thereafter as is feasible.
The proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule 7.2 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.2 will not affect the Board's ability to close the Exchange or NYSE
Arca Equities for a presidential election day, as it would continue to
have authority to do so under Rule 7.1.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned solely with the administration and functioning of the
Exchange and its subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities.

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

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

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \16\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the operative delay would immediately strengthen
the ability of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities to respond
appropriately and in a timely fashion to extraordinary circumstances.
The Exchange further states that waiving the 30-day operative delay
would not affect the authority of the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities
Boards to take action they deem necessary or appropriate in particular
situations. Moreover, the Exchange states that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay would allow the Exchange to align its rules with those
of its affiliated exchanges without delay. The Commission believes the
waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-148 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-NYSEArca-2016-148. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-148, and
should be submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28460 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74094-74095]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1529]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Reclassification
Petitions for Medical Devices

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by January 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0138. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices

OMB Control Number 0910-0138--Extension

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) establishes the
following three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the
regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their
safety and effectiveness: Class I (general controls), class II (special
controls), and class III (premarket approval) (section 513(a)(1) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)). To change a device classification, FDA
can initiate a reclassification, or an interested person can petition
FDA to reclassify a device based on new information (section 513(e) of
the FD&C Act). On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act (FDASIA) was enacted, changing the reclassification
process under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act from rulemaking to an
administrative order process. To reclassify a device under section
513(e) of the FD&C Act, FDA must do the following before making the
reclassification final: (1) Publish a proposed order in the Federal
Register that includes the proposed reclassification and a summary of
the valid scientific evidence that supports the reclassification, (2)
convene a device classification panel meeting, and (3) consider
comments from the relevant public docket.
    FDASIA also amended the provisions of the FD&C Act authorizing FDA
to require submission of a premarket approval application (PMA) for a
preamendments class III device (referred to as a ``call for PMAs'').
Preamendments devices are devices that were in commercial distribution
before the enactment of the 1976 Amendments. Under the FD&C Act,
preamendments devices classified into class III may be marketed upon
clearance of a 510(k) submission, and submission of a PMA is not
required until FDA has issued a final order requiring premarket
approval (section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)). As
amended by FDASIA, the FD&C Act requires that FDA, in its call for
PMAs, publish a proposed order in the Federal Register, hold a
classification panel meeting, and

consider comments on the proposed order (section 515(b) of the FD&C
Act, as amended by FDASIA).
    Under the FD&C Act, FDA's call for PMAs must, among other things,
contain an opportunity for interested persons to request a change in
the classification of the device based on new information (section
515(b)(2) of the FD&C Act). After consideration of comments on the
proposed order and findings, FDA must either: (1) Finalize the call for
PMAs by issuing an administrative order requiring approval of a PMA and
publishing in the Federal Register findings with respect to: (i) The
degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or
reduced by requiring the device to have an approved PMA or a declared
completed product development protocol and (ii) the benefit to the
public from the use of the device; or (2) publish a notice in the
Federal Register terminating the proceeding and initiate a
reclassification proceeding based on new information (section 515(b)(3)
of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA; see section 513(e) of the FD&C
Act).
    The FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, now requires the use of
administrative orders, rather than rulemaking, when FDA calls for PMAs
for a preamendments device remaining in class III (section 515(b) of
the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA).
    FDA refers to a device that was not in commercial distribution
before the 1976 Amendments as a postamendments device. Postamendments
devices are classified automatically into class III by statute, without
any rulemaking process (section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act). A
postamendments device remains in class III and is subject to the PMA
requirements unless and until: (1) FDA reclassifies the device into
class I or II; (2) FDA issues an order classifying the device into
class I or II via the De Novo classification process (see section
513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act); or (3) FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent to a predicate device that does
not require the filing of a PMA (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act).
    FDA may initiate, or the manufacturer or importer of a device may
petition for, the reclassification of a postamendments device
classified into class III by operation of law (section 513(f)(3) of the
FD&C Act). This FDA-initiated reclassification process consists of a
proposed reclassification order, optional panel consultation, and a
final reclassification order published in the Federal Register
following consideration of comments and any panel recommendations or
comments (Sec.  860.134(c) (21 CFR 860.134(c))). The reclassification
order may, as appropriate, establish special controls to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device
(Sec.  860.134(d)).
    Under the 1976 Amendments, Congress classified all those devices
previously regulated as new drugs into class III (generally referred to
as transitional devices). Under the FD&C Act, FDA may initiate, or the
manufacturer or importer of a device may petition for, the
reclassification of a transitional device remaining in class III
(section 520(l)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(l)(2)). The process
for reclassification of transitional devices initiated by FDA is
detailed in 21 CFR ?860.136(c). This process consists of a proposed
reclassification order, optional panel consultation, and a final
reclassification order published in the Federal Register following
consideration of comments and any panel recommendations or comments.
    In the Federal Register of September 7, 2021 (86 FR 50132), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
   21 CFR section; information       Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
       collection activity          respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   860.123; supporting data                6               1               6             497           2,982
 for reclassification petitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: December 22, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
 [FR Doc. 2021-28305 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P917


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 161 (Thursday, August 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50593-50594]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 37

[Docket DOT-OST-2015-0075]

Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service
Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares

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

ACTION: Notice of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document seeks public comments on a petition for
rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to
the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA
paratransit eligible user. The petition asks the Department to revise
its regulation to allow for a ``coordinated'' or two-tier fare
structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not
exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying
full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Please submit your comments by only one of the following
methods:
     Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
     U.S. Mail: Send your comments to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation
headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern-time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
     Telefax: Send your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All comments must include the docket number for this
rulemaking: DOT-OST-2015-0075. Submit two copies of your comments if
you submit them by mail. For confirmation that DOT received your
comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading under ``Supplementary Information,'' below, for Privacy Act
information pertinent to any submitted comments or materials, and you
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477.
    Docket Access: For access to background documents and comments
received in the rulemaking docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of General Counsel, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit
Administration, same address, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access
Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary
paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los
Angeles County, California. Access Services uses a ``coordinated'' or
two-tier fare structure where it generally charges $2.75 for one-way
trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles or
more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. The
DOT's ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a
trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user of the complementary
paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be
charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length,
at a similar time of day, on the entity's fixed route system. In recent
triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in Los Angeles County,
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made findings that the ADA
paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. In other words,
some paratransit riders are paying more for ADA paratransit fares than
they should be under the Department's existing regulations.

    Access Services' petition for rulemaking has been placed in the
docket. Access Services asserts in its petition that its two-tier fare
structure is simple for riders to understand and easy for Access
Services and its providers to implement. In its petition, Access
Services requests that the Department propose amending its ADA
regulations to allow for a coordinated fare structure as follows:

Proposed Amendment to DOT ADA Regulations

    The Access Services proposes the following addition to 49 CFR
37.131(c) on service criteria for complementary paratransit:
     Alternatively, the maximum fare that may be charged by an
entity which administers a coordinated paratransit plan for 20 or more
fixed route members pursuant to 49 CFR 37.141 and approved pursuant to
49 CFR 37.147 shall be no more than twice the regional average fixed-
route fare determined as follows:
    [cir] The entity may calculate a regional average fixed-route fare
by obtaining a statistically-valid, random sample of its recent
paratransit trips, calculating the applicable fixed-route fare for
those trips and averaging the results. The sample may be subdivided by
distance to determine the regional average fixed-route fares for trips
of a certain mileage.
    The Department's regulations at 49 CFR 5.11 permit any person to
petition the Secretary to amend a rule. It is solely within the
discretion of the Secretary to grant or deny such a petition, and the
Secretary has not yet decided whether or not to grant or deny the
Access Services' petition. In order to supplement the information
provided by Access Services in support of its petition for rulemaking,
the Department is requesting public comments on the issue presented in
the petition. The Department will use this collective information in
the development of the technical review that will serve as the basis
for determining whether to grant or deny the petition.
    The Department is especially interested in hearing from individuals
who use ADA complementary paratransit services in order to better
understand how they would be impacted if the Department adopted the
Access Services' language or similar language. Would a more simplified
tiered fare system, set by the local transit agencies, be beneficial to
individuals with disabilities using public transportation in regions
with multiple fixed route providers? Would any tiered system need to be
capped at a certain amount (e.g., twice the fare on a comparable fixed
route trip)? How many tiers would be unmanageable for individuals with
disabilities?
    The Department is also interested to hear from ADA complementary
paratransit providers throughout the country. How do these paratransit
providers, particularly in regions with many fixed-route operators,
currently determine fares in order to comply with the Department's
current regulations? What procedures or best practices do they use?
What challenges do ADA complementary paratransit providers face in
setting fares under the current regulations? How many fixed-route
providers do you coordinate with?

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of July 2015, under
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-20467 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32488-32490]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0622; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-064-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
(Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation
Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified * * * features in the
Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. * * *
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No.

FAA-2008-0622; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-064-AD'' at the beginning
of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0041, dated February 27, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities) policy, BAE Systems
identified two features in the Jetstream 4100 where the need for
design changes was apparent. One of these is addressed by Service
Bulletin (SB) J41-28-014 which introduces changes to the wiring
harness installations to the left (LH) and right (RH) fuel boost
pumps, identified by modification number JM41672. In addition, to
detect excessive cable lengths and evidence of chafing damage, SB
J41-28-014 provides instructions to inspect and correct, as
necessary, the internal fuel tank wiring routed to the LH and RH
high level sensors.
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
    For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD) requires the replacement of the (LH and RH) fuel boost pump
metallic conduit assemblies with loom assemblies and the inspection
of internal fuel tank high level sensor wiring, including corrective
actions, as necessary.

Corrective actions include replacing any damaged internal fuel tank
high level sensor wiring and removing excess wiring. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that
is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed
to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory
standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that
all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport
category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against
explosion risks.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin J41-
28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take 47 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $7,000 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $75,320, or $10,760 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2008-0622; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-064-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 9, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model Jetstream 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

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

    Resulting from the assessment of fuel tank wiring installations
required by SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88) and
equivalent JAA/EASA (Joint Aviation Authorities/European Aviation
Safety Agency) policy, BAE Systems identified two features in the
Jetstream 4100 where the need for design changes was apparent. One
of these is addressed by Service Bulletin (SB) J41-28-014 which
introduces changes to the wiring harness installations to the left
(LH) and right (RH) fuel boost pumps, identified by modification
number JM41672. In addition, to detect excessive cable lengths and
evidence of chafing damage, SB J41-28-014 provides instructions to
inspect and correct, as necessary, the internal fuel tank wiring
routed to the LH and RH high level sensors.
    Internal fuel tank wiring chafing damage, if not corrected,
could lead to ignition of fuel vapours and subsequent fuel tank
explosion.
    For the reason stated above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive
(AD) requires the replacement of the (LH and RH) fuel boost pump
metallic conduit assemblies with loom assemblies and the inspection
of internal fuel tank high level sensor wiring, including corrective
actions, as necessary.

Corrective actions include replacing any damaged internal fuel tank
high level sensor wiring and removing excess wiring.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, unless
already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Modify the LH and RH wing fuel boost pump wiring in
accordance with paragraphs 2.B. and 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007.
    (2) Inspect the LH and RH wing fuel high level sensor wiring in
accordance with paragraph 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-014,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007.
    (3) When excess wiring and/or damaged wiring is found during the
inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before next
flight, accomplish the corrective actions as specified in paragraph
2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Service Bulletin J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21,
2007.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0041, dated
February 27, 2008, and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service
Bulletin J41-28-014, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2007, for
related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 30, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-12828 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P