[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48209-48213]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0851; Amdt. Nos. 93-102]
RIN 2120-AL22

Removal of Flight Plan Requirements for Commercial Air Tour
Operations Within the Special Flight Rules Area at Grand Canyon
National Park

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule removes the requirement for certificate
holders conducting certain commercial operations within the Grand
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area to file a visual flight
rules flight plan with an FAA Flight Service Station prior to each
flight. The effect of this action is to remove an unnecessary,
redundant, and obsolete paperwork burden on affected certificate
holders without affecting safety, existing quarterly reporting
requirements, or efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park
environment. This final rule also makes several technical amendments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 23, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Monica Buenrostro, Air Transportation Division,
135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking. The FAA finds good cause to issue this final rule without
seeking prior comment for the reasons explained below.
    FAA regulations limit the number of commercial air tours certain
operators may conduct over the Grand Canyon. Existing regulations at 14
CFR 93.323 require certain operators to file visual flight rule (VFR)
flight plans with the FAA prior to each commercial Special Flight Rules
Area operation (commercial SFRA operation) \1\ in the Grand Canyon
National Park Special Flight Rules Area (GCNP SFRA), ostensibly so that
the FAA can verify the number of commercial tours the operator
conducts. The FAA has found VFR flight plans to be an unreliable method
for verifying compliance, however, and no longer uses them for this
purpose. Instead, the FAA relies on documents required by other FAA
regulations to provide an accurate count of the number of commercial
air tour flights these operators conduct. Continuing to require these
flight plans constitutes an unjustified burden on GCNP SFRA commercial
tour operators because the FAA does not use them for any other purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Commercial Special Flight Rules Area Operation means any
portion of any flight within the Grand Canyon National Park Special
Flight Rules Area that is conducted by a certificate holder that has
operations specifications authorizing flights within the Grand
Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area. This term does not
include operations conducted under an FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate
of Waiver or Authorization. The types of flights covered by this
definition are set forth in the ``Las Vegas Flight Standards
District Office Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area
Procedures Manual'' which is available from the Las Vegas Flight
Standards District Office.'' 14 CFR 93.303. The relevant manual is
now known as the ``Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules
Area Procedures Manual'' and is available from the Nevada Flight
Standards District Office, formerly the Las Vegas Flight Standards
District Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the FAA has determined that good cause exists to
forego notice and comment under Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) because it is
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Seeking prior comment
is unnecessary because, irrespective of the public response, the VFR
flight plans would remain redundant and obsolete. In addition, it would
be contrary to the public interest to expend resources seeking comment
under these circumstances. Considering that there is no way for FAA to
use the required filings for the purpose intended, it would not be a
prudent use of resources to ask for comment on whether the requirement
should remain in place. Finally, it is unnecessary to seek public
comment on the remaining technical amendments in this rule because they
merely update references to appropriate FAA offices.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, sections
106(f) and (g), describe the authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail
the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701 and
the specific authority found in Section 3 of Public Law 100-91 (August
18, 1987).
    Section 3 directed the Department of the Interior (DOI) to submit
recommendations, and the FAA to implement those recommendations,
regarding actions necessary for the protection of resources in the
Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights.
Congress directed that the recommendations provide for substantial
restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and
protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated
with aircraft overflight. Subsequently, in a 1996 Memorandum for the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the impact of
transportation in national parks, the President directed the Secretary
of Transportation to issue regulations for the GCNP that would

place appropriate limits on sightseeing aircraft to reduce noise
immediately, and to make further substantial progress towards
restoration of natural quiet, as defined by the DOI, while maintaining
aviation safety in accordance with Public Law 100-91.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a more complete history of FAA and NPS actions, and
related litigation, regarding the implementation of Public Law 100-
91, see 65 FR 17708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority under
the statutes cited previously, because it removes an unnecessary
paperwork burden on affected certificate holders that is not necessary
to promote the safety of flight of civil aircraft in air commerce or to
further efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park environment,
as described in this final rule.

I. Background

    On April 4, 2000, the FAA published the Commercial Air Tour
Limitation in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area
final rule (65 FR 17708). That rule limited the number of commercial
air tours that may be conducted in the GCNP SFRA and revised the
reporting requirements for commercial air tours in that area. It was
one part of a collaborative effort by the FAA and the NPS to control
aircraft noise in the park environment and to assist the NPS in
achieving the statutory mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to provide
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the
park.
    As part of the 2000 final rule, Sec.  93.325 requires certificate
holders to report to the FAA the total number of commercial SFRA
operations conducted in the GCNP SFRA each quarter and to specify the
types of commercial SFRA operations conducted. Section 93.323
prescribes that each certificate holder conducting commercial SFRA
operations in the GCNP SFRA must file a VFR flight plan prior to each
flight, except for those operations conducted under IFR in accordance
with Sec.  93.309(g). The 2000 final rule stated, ``The information
obtained from the flight plan will be used to ensure compliance with
the commercial air tours operation limitation'' (65 FR 17708, 17722).
    Following the 2000 final rule, the FAA began using a different
method of evaluating compliance with commercial tour allocations
because VFR flight plans do not necessarily correlate to actual flights
conducted and reported on quarterly reports. When it is necessary to
evaluate a certificate holder's compliance, the FAA reviews documents
required by other FAA regulations, such as aircraft operational and
maintenance logs as well as customer receipts. Receipts and logs
provide an accurate count of the number of commercial air tour flights
operated by a given certificate holder in the GCNP SFRA, which can then
be compared with the number of commercial air tour flights that the
certificate holder reported in the quarterly reports required under
Sec.  93.325. In conducting oversight of the operations, the FAA
typically performs such evaluations only when a concern arises about a
certificate holder's compliance with its number of commercial air tour
allocations.
    The FAA has granted several exemptions from Sec.  93.323 to allow
certificate holders relief from the requirement to file a VFR flight
plan. In its grant of exemption to Sundance Helicopters,\3\ the FAA
noted that the VFR flight plan requirement in Sec.  93.323 was written
into FAA regulations in 2000 to help the agency evaluate the accuracy
of Grand Canyon flight allocation data reporting. However, the FAA
subsequently developed better methods of evaluating certificate
holders' compliance with their number of commercial air tour
allocations for the GCNP SFRA. The FAA noted that, with other methods
used to evaluate the accuracy of quarterly data reporting, granting an
exemption from the requirements of Sec.  93.323 would not undermine the
FAA's data evaluation capabilities. The FAA acknowledged that the
filing of VFR flight plans by the petitioner for each of its commercial
air tour flight operations over the Grand Canyon resulted in an
unnecessary paperwork burden for both the petitioner and the FSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. FAA-2011-1044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, the FAA removes Sec.  93.323, in its entirety,
from part 93. The FAA has determined that flight plans filed in
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  93.323 are an unreliable
source of information for evaluating certificate holders' compliance
with their number of commercial air tour allocations. The number of VFR
flight plans filed under Sec.  93.323 is not necessarily an accurate
reflection of the number of commercial SFRA operations actually
conducted. For example, if a Sec.  93.323 flight plan was filed without
the flight actually being operated, the number of Sec.  93.323 flight
plans filed would be greater than the number of commercial SFRA
operations actually conducted. Consequently, comparing the number of
Sec.  93.323 plans filed for commercial SFRA operations in the GCNP
SFRA with the quarterly reports that certificate holders must file
under 14 CFR 93.325 may yield incorrect results in terms of actual
commercial air tour allocation compliance. The FAA has no other use for
the VFR flight plans, rendering this requirement unnecessary.
    As previously described, when necessary to evaluate a concern about
compliance with a certificate holder's number of commercial air tour
allocations, the FAA reviews documents required by other FAA
regulations rather than VFR flight plans. Eliminating the requirement
to file VFR flight plans under Sec.  93.323 removes an unnecessary
paperwork burden that currently affects some small businesses without
providing any safety benefit or advancing efforts to restore the
natural quiet of the park environment.
    This final rule does not affect the number of commercial air tour
allocations that certificate holders receive for the GCNP SFRA, the
frequency of flight operations in the GCNP SFRA, the location of those
flights, or other requirements that commercial air tour operators must
meet to operate in the GCNP SFRA. The FAA also clarifies that this
rulemaking does not affect the current quarterly reporting requirements
of Sec.  93.325, which remain in place.
    This final rule also makes several technical amendments including
striking references to the ``Flight Standards District Office'' and
replacing them with references to ``the relevant Flight Standards
Office'' in subpart U, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand
Canyon National Park, AZ, of part 93 of title 14 CFR, to reflect
current agency practice.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies
to

consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be
the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final
rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
(5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
identified previously. These analyses are summarized below. As notice
and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule,
the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604
regarding impacts on small entities are not required.
    This final rule removes the requirement for certain certificate
holders conducting commercial SFRA operations within the GCNP SFRA to
file a visual flight rules flight plan under Sec.  93.323. The FAA has
determined that these flight plans are an unnecessary and unreliable
source of information for evaluating certificate holders' compliance
with their number of commercial air tour allocations. This final rule
removes, without affecting safety or efforts to restore the natural
quiet of the park environment, this paperwork burden from affected
certificate holders. Therefore, the final rule has no additional costs,
and has minimal cost savings by removing an unnecessary paperwork
burden.
    The FAA has therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an
agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an
agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an
agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by
that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment for
this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in
this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
has determined that it has a legitimate domestic objective, in that it
removes an unnecessary paperwork burden on certain certificate holders
that conduct commercial SFRA operations in the GCNP SFRA. The removal
of this requirement does not operate in a manner that excludes imports.
The final rule therefore has no effect on international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule, as the rule modifies an existing information
collection by removing an unnecessary paperwork requirement.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking is consistent with ICAO Standards.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
    This final rule removes an unnecessary paperwork burden from
affected certificate holders. This action does not affect the frequency
or location of commercial air tours in the GCNP SFRA and does not
negatively affect efforts to restore the natural quiet of the park
environment. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies
for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

IV. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order, and
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action will not have an effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in the rule's
economic analysis.

V. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Requestors must identify the docket or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal previously
referenced.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 93, in chapter I of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.

0
2. In Sec.  93.303 revise the definition of ``Commercial Special Flight
Rules Area Operation'' and remove the definition of ``Flight Standards
District Office.

Sec.  93.303   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Commercial Special Flight Rules Area Operation means any portion of
any flight within the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules
Area that is conducted by a certificate holder that has operations
specifications authorizing flights within the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area. This term does not include operations
conducted under an FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization. For more information on commercial special flight rules
area operations, see ``Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules
Area (GCNP SFRA) Procedures Manual,'' which is available online or from
the responsible Flight Standards Office.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  93.305, revise the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  93.305   Flight-free zones and flight corridors.

    Except in an emergency or if otherwise necessary for safety of
flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight
Standards Office for a purpose listed in Sec.  93.309, no person may
operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area within the
following flight-free zones:
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  93.307, revise the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  93.307   Minimum flight altitudes.

    Except in an emergency, or if otherwise necessary for safety of
flight, or unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight
Standards Office for a purpose listed in Sec.  93.309, no person may
operate an aircraft in the Special Flight Rules Area at an altitude
lower than the following:
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  93.309, revise paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  93.309   General operating procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Unless necessary to maintain a safe distance from other
aircraft or terrain, proceed through the Zuni Point, Dragon, Tuckup,
and Fossil Canyon Flight Corridors described in Sec.  93.305 at the
following altitudes unless otherwise authorized in writing by the
responsible Flight Standards Office:
    (1) Northbound. 11,500 or 13,500 feet MSL.
    (2) Southbound. 10,500 or 12,500 feet MSL.
    (c) For operation in the flight-free zones described in Sec.
93.305, or flight below the altitudes listed in Sec.  93.307, is
authorized in writing by the responsible Flight Standards Office and is
conducted in compliance with the conditions contained in that
authorization. Normally authorization will be granted for operation in
the areas described in Sec.  93.305 or below the altitudes listed in
Sec.  93.307 only for operations of aircraft necessary for law
enforcement, firefighting, emergency medical treatment/evacuation of
persons in the vicinity of the Park; for support of Park maintenance or
activities; or for aerial access to and maintenance of other property
located within the Special Flight Rules Area. Authorization may be
issued on a continuing basis;
    (d) Is conducted in accordance with a specific authorization to
operate in that airspace incorporated in the operator's operations
specifications and approved by the responsible Flight Standards Office
in accordance with the provisions of this subpart;
* * * * *

0
6. Revise Sec.  93.311 to read as follows:

Sec.  93.311   Minimum terrain clearance.

    Except in an emergency, when necessary for takeoff or landing, or
unless otherwise authorized by the

responsible Flight Standards Office for a purpose listed in Sec.
93.309(c), no person may operate an aircraft within 500 feet of any
terrain or structure located between the north and south rims of the
Grand Canyon.

0
7. In Sec.  93.317, revise the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  93.317   Commercial Special Flight Rules Area operation curfew.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight Standards
Office, no person may conduct a commercial Special Flight Rules Area
operation in the Dragon and Zuni Point corridors during the following
flight-free periods:
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  93.321, revise paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  93.321   Transfer and termination of allocations.

* * * * *
    (b)
    (4)
    (iii) A certificate holder must notify in writing the responsible
Flight Standards Office within 10 calendar days of a transfer of
allocations. This notification must identify the parties involved, the
type of transfer (permanent or temporary) and the number of allocations
transferred. Permanent transfers are not effective until the
responsible Flight Standards Office reissues the operations
specifications reflecting the transfer. Temporary transfers are
effective upon notification.
* * * * *

Sec.  93.323   [Reserved]

0
9. Remove and reserve Sec.  93.323.

0
10. In Sec.  93.325, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  93.325   Quarterly reporting.

    (a) Each certificate holder must submit in writing, within 30 days
of the end of each calendar quarter, the total number of commercial
SFRA operations conducted for that quarter. Quarterly reports must be
filed with the responsible Flight Standards Office.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g),
44701(a)(5), and Public Law 100-91 in Washington, DC, on September
6, 2018.
Carl Burleson,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-20176 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


August 9, 2007

By Fascimile and Email

FOIA Officer

FOIA and Privacy Branch

Office of Environmental Information

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (2822T)

Washington, D.C. 20460

FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Re:  	Freedom of Information Act Request For Documents Pertaining to the
Conflict of Interest Questionnaires Submitted by Peer Reviewers, Ronald
Bastion, Donald Corwin and David Wilson

Dear FOIA Officer:

	Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, I
hereby request the following records relating to the report entitled
“Rationale for Exclusion of Emission-Comparable Fuel, Peer Review
Report of Ronald Bastion, Donald Corwin and David Wilson,” dated April
2007 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0017-0028).

	Specifically, I request the following documents:

The completed “Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaires”
completed by Ronald Bastion Donald Corwin and David Wilson concerning
their participation in the “Comparable Emissions Peer Review” as
described in the “Rationale for Exclusion of Emission-Comparable Fuel,
Peer Review Report of Ronald Bastion, Donald Corwin and David Wilson.”

Any documents submitted to Ronald Bastion, Donald Corwin and David
Wilson by US EPA or Syracuse Research Corporation containing any follow
up questions regarding their completed Conflict of Interest and Bias
Questionnaires pertaining to the above-referenced report.

Any documents submitted by Ronald Bastion, Donald Corwin and David
Wilson to US EPA or SRC containing any responses to follow up questions
concerning their Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaires pertaining
to the above-referenced report.

	I respectfully request that you waive all fees in connection with this
request as provided by 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 5 C.F.R.
§1303.70.  Earthjustice is a national, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization
with no commercial interest in obtaining the requested information.
Instead we intend to use the requested information to better understand
the activities of the U.S. EPA with respect to the proposed rule,
Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion, 72 Fed. Reg. 33284 et seq.

	Disclosure of the information requested in this Freedom of Information
Request is in the public interest and thus eligible for a fee waiver
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(4)(A)(ii)(1994 Supp. IV 1998).   Disclosure
of the requested information is likely to contribute significantly to
public understanding of the operations or activities of the government
and is not in the commercial interest of the requester.   We have
received fee waivers under FOIA from EPA and other federal agencies in
the past.  This is because Earthjutice has, since 1971, promoted the
public interest through the enforcement of federal environmental laws
and the advancement of policies that provide enhanced environmental
protection.

In the event that your Office denies a fee waiver, please send a written
explanation for the denial but continue to produce documents until the
fee reaches $150.

Please produce the requested records on a rolling basis, as the
materials are located.  Records pertaining to the first request of this
letter can likely be identified immediately, and we therefore request
that these questionnaires be produced as soon as possible.  At no time
should the Office’s search for, or deliberations concerning, any
records requested herein delay the production of other records that the
Office has already elected to produce.

If you regard any of the requested records to be exempt from required
disclosure under FOIA, we request that you disclose them nevertheless;
as such disclosure would serve the public interest of educating
citizens.  See 10 C.F.R. §1004.1 (authorizing disclosure of documents
exempt from FOIA disclosure where such disclosure is in the public
interest).

In addition, should you invoke a FOIA exemption regarding any of the
requested records, we request that you release any segregable portions
of such records that are left after the exempted material has been
redacted from the records we are seeking.

I appreciate your help in obtaining the requested information. As
provided in FOIA, we expect a reply within twenty working days.  5
U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(iii); 5 C.F.R. §1303.10(c).

Please send the requested records by regular mail to Lisa Evans,
Earthjustice, 21 Ocean Avenue, Marblehead, MA 01945 or transmit the
documents electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  If you find that
this request is unclear in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Thank you for your time and effort.  I look forward to your prompt
reply.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Evans

								Lisa Evans

Earthjustice FOIA  Request		Page   PAGE  2  of   NUMPAGES  2

21 Ocean Ave., Marblehead, MA 01945

T.<PHONE_NUMBER>  F.<PHONE_NUMBER>  E.   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 W: www.earthjustice.org


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49578-49579]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19691]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70139; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Eliminate the Exchange's Routable Order Program

August 8, 2013.
    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 August 5, 2013, 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, II, and III, 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 is proposing changes to eliminate the Exchange's Routable
Order Program (``ROP''). The changes pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, and the Exchange will implement the proposed
rule changes on August 5, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://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. 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
    In February 2013, NASDAQ introduced the Routable Order Program in
an effort to encourage greater participation by members representing
retail customers in NASDAQ.\3\ The program was premised on the
propensity of members representing retail customers to make more
extensive use of exchange-provided routing facilities and pre- and
post-market trading sessions, as compared with proprietary traders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68905 (February 12,
2013), 78 FR 11716 (February 29 [sic], 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible for the Routable Order Program, a member was
required to have a market participant identifier (``MPID'') through
which it provides an average daily volume of at least 35 million shares
of displayed liquidity using orders that employ the SCAN or LIST
routing strategies, including an average daily volume of at least 2
million shares that are provided prior to the NASDAQ Opening Cross and/
or after the NASDAQ Closing Cross.\4\ During recent months, no members
have qualified for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SCAN is a basic routing strategy that is widely used by
firms that represent retail customers. SCAN orders check the Nasdaq
Market Center System for available shares, while remaining shares
are simultaneously routed to destinations on the applicable routing
table. If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted
on the book. Once on the book, if the order is subsequently locked
or crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center. LIST is a routing
strategy that is used by firms that wish for their orders to
participate in the opening and closing processes of each security's
primary listing exchange, to access liquidity on all exchanges if
marketable, and otherwise to post to the NASDAQ book. Members,
including those that represent retail customers, use the LIST
strategy to offload on the Exchange and its routing broker the
technical complexity associated with routing orders to participate
in the market open and/or close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SCAN and LIST orders in securities priced at $1 or
more per share entered through an MPID that qualified for the ROP,
NASDAQ charged a fee of $0.0029 per share executed with respect to such
orders when accessing liquidity in the Nasdaq Market Center.\5\ If such
orders were designated for display in the Nasdaq Market Center and
provided liquidity after posting to the book, NASDAQ provided a credit
of $0.0037 per share executed. With respect to SCAN and LIST orders in
securities priced less than $1 per share entered through an MPID that
qualified for the ROP, NASDAQ charged a fee of 0.30% of the total
transaction cost with respect to such orders when accessing liquidity
in the Nasdaq Market Center,\6\ and provided a credit of $0.00003 per
share executed if they were designated for display and provided
liquidity after posting to the book. These fees and credits would be in
lieu of the fees and credits otherwise charged or provided under Rule
7018. Moreover, orders that qualified for these fees and credits were
not eligible to receive additional credits under NASDAQ's Investor
Support Program (the ``ISP''),\7\ but were included in calculations
with regard to eligibility to participate in the ISP and other
incentive programs under Rule 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ When such orders executed at other market centers, the
routing fees provided for in Rule 7018 would apply.
    \6\ When such orders executed at other market centers, the
routing fees provided for in Rule 7018 would apply.
    \7\ Rule 7014(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The program has not been successful in achieving its goal of
encouraging members with retail order flow to increase their
participation in NASDAQ. Accordingly, NASDAQ has decided to terminate
the program, such that a member that might qualify for the program in
the future would receive credits and pay fees otherwise applicable
under Rule 7018 and 7014.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Because this proposed rule change is effective as of August
5, 2013, ROP pricing would apply on August 1-2, 2013 to any member
that qualifies for the ROP during August 2013.
     In addition to deleting the relevant paragraphs from Rule 7014,
NASDAQ is also making conforming changes to the rest of that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed elimination of the ROP is
consistent with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, although the
goal of the program was to provide meaningful incentives for members
that represent significant numbers of retail customers to increase
their participation in NASDAQ, the program has not had that effect;
accordingly, elimination of the program is reasonable because it will
not result in a change to the fees and rebates applicable to members in
August

2013, based on their level of participation in recent months. In
addition, the change is reasonable because the fees and rebates
applicable in the absence of the program are the fees and rebates that
are otherwise in effect for members not qualifying for the program
under Rules 7014 and 7018, all of which have been established and
described in prior proposed rule changes. In addition, another pricing
incentive program aimed at members representing retail customers, the
ISP, remains in effect. The change is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because although
NASDAQ believes that it is equitable to use fee reductions as a means
to encourage greater retail participation in NASDAQ, such reductions
are not required under the Act, and the change will eliminate a
provision that could result in a very high rebate being paid to only
certain members. Moreover, since the program has not applied to any
members in recent months, its elimination will not have a direct effect
on the allocation of fees. Similarly, its elimination is not
discriminatory because it will have no direct effect on members based
on their current levels of participation. Finally, the change will not
result in unfair discrimination against firms that represent retail
customers, since providing financial incentives to such members, while
not inconsistent with the Act, is also not required by the Act, and
because the incentives provided by the ISP remain in place.

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

    NASDAQ 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, as amended.\11\ NASDAQ notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges, while also seeking to recoup its costs of operation and earn
a return. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the degree to which fee
changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. In this case, NASDAQ is eliminating an incentive
program aimed at members representing retail customers, but in which
such members were not currently participating. Accordingly, NASDAQ does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members
or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2013-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-105. 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-NASDAQ-2013-105 and should
be submitted on or before September 4, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19691 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32716-32717]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11182]

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

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: Notification of disposition of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the disposition of 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 asked 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. On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed
into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
Section 3023 of the FAST Act allows the fare structure Access Services
supported in its petition for rulemaking, thereby rendering the
petition for rulemaking moot.

DATES:  May 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of General Counsel, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, telephone:<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,
telephone:<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 described that it 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 had been paying more for
ADA paratransit fares than they should have been under the Department's
regulations.
    On August 20, 2015, the Department placed Access Services' petition
for rulemaking in a public docket and sought comments on the petition
in order to help the Department determine whether to grant or deny the
petition. The Department received approximately 179 comments to the
docket, several with multiple signatures. With the exception of one
person, all those in support of the petition were in Access Services'
service area, and all opposed were outside of the service area.
    On December 4, 2015, Congress enacted the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94). Section 3023 of the FAST
Act provides that notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c), any paratransit
system currently coordinating complementary paratransit service for
more than 40 fixed route agencies shall be permitted to continue using
an existing tiered, distance-based coordinated paratransit fare system,
if the fare for the existing tiered, distance-based coordinated
paratransit fare system is not increased by a greater percentage than
any increase to the fixed route fare for the largest transit agency in
the complementary paratransit service area.
    Given this statutory provision, the Department has determined the
issue is moot and no further action is necessary with regard to this
petition for rulemaking. As a result, Access Services may continue to
operate its coordinated fare structure notwithstanding 49 CFR 37.131(c)
and in compliance with section 3023 of the FAST Act.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 5th day of May, 2016, under
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a).
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-11182 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55297-55299]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0905; Product Identifier 2018-NM-115-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200
LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of
corrosion and chromium layer chipping of the forward and aft pintle
pins of the main landing gear (MLG) shock struts. This proposed AD
would require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of affected
forward and aft pintle pins of the MLG shock struts, and corrective
actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Embraer
S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria
Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos--SP--Brazil;
telephone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax: +55 12 3927-7546;
email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.flyembraer.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2018-
0905; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0905;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-115-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), which
is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2018-07-01, effective July 24, 2018 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A.
Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200
IGW airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by reports of corrosion and
chromium layer chipping on the rearward and forward Pintle Pin of
the Main Landing Gear (MLG) Shock Struts. We are issuing this
[Brazilian] AD to detect and correct Pintle Pin[s] having
[discrepancies including] corrosion or chromium layer chipping,
which could cause the Pintle Pin[s] to shear under normal load and
lead to collapse of the MLG during take-off or landing.

    Corrective actions include repair or replacement of affected
forward and aft pintle pins of the left- and right-hand MLG shock
struts. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0905.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 02, dated
November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
repetitive inspections of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the
MLG shock struts for discrepancies, and repair or replacement of any
discrepant affected pintle pin.
    Embraer has also issued Task 32-11-001-1034, ``MLG Shock Strut
Pintle Pins--Internal,'' of the Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review
Board Report (MRBR) 1928, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017. This service
information describes procedures for the inspection of pintle pins of
the MLG shock struts at areas covered by the MLG shock strut and
trunnion.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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 the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described

previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 96 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Labor cost                  Parts cost        Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 22 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up             $0  Up to $1,870 per inspection  Up to $179,520 per
 to $1,870.                                              cycle.                       inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of any required
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                             Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510 per    $1,750 per MLG....................  $2,260 per MLG.
 MLG (replacement).
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510 per    $0................................  $510 per MLG.
 MLG (repair).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; 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.

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):

Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0905; Product Identifier 2018-NM-
115-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 20, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR,
and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200
IGW airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion and chromium layer
chipping of the forward and aft pintle pins of the main landing gear
(MLG) shock struts. We are issuing this AD to address discrepancies
of affected forward and aft pintle pins of the MLG shock struts,
which could result in the pintle pin shearing under normal load and
consequent collapse of the MLG during takeoff or landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of affected
forward and aft pintle pins of the

left- and right-hand MLG shock struts, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065,
Revision 02, dated November 1, 2017. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 72 months.
    (1) For airplanes on which any MLG pintle pin having part number
(P/N) 2821-0067 or 2821-0025 has accumulated fewer than 17,000 total
flight cycles since new: Before the accumulation of 17,750 total
flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes on which any MLG pintle pin having P/N 2821-
0067 or 2821-0025 has accumulated 17,000 or more total flight cycles
since new: Within 750 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) Corrective Actions

    If any discrepancy of any pintle pin is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further
flight, repair the affected pintle pin or replace it with a new
pintle pin, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 02,
dated November 1, 2017.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if that inspection was
performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable
service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(5)
of this AD.
    (1) Embraer 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) 1928,
Task 57-50-007-1247, Revision 11, dated May 10, 2017.
    (2) Embraer 190/195 MRBR 1928, Task 32-11-00-001, Revision 11,
dated May 10, 2017.
    (3) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0002, Revision 01, dated
November 8, 2012.
    (4) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, dated August 31, 2016.
    (5) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-32-0065, Revision 01, dated
October 24, 2017.

(j) Equivalent Inspection

    Performing a detailed inspection for discrepancies of affected
forward and aft pintle pins of the left- and right-hand MLG shock
struts, in accordance with Task 32-11-001-1034, ``MLG Shock Strut
Pintle Pins--Internal,'' of the Embraer 190/195 MRBR 1928, Revision
11, dated May 10, 2017, at intervals not to exceed 72 months, is
equivalent to an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the Ag[ecirc]ncia
Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC); or ANAC's authorized
Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must
include the Designee's authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2018-07-01, effective July
24, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0905.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av.
Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos
Campos--SP--Brazil; telephone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732;
fax: +55 12 3927-7546; email: [email protected]; internet:
http://www.flyembraer.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 22, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-23691 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13387-13389]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 259, 260, and 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0089]
RIN 2105-AF04

Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections; Public Hearing

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

ACTION: Public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: DOT is announcing a virtual public hearing pursuant on certain
issues related to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Airline Ticket Refunds and Consumer Protections.

DATES: The virtual hearing will be held on March 14, 2023, from 1 p.m.
to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. The hearing is open to the public, subject to
any technical and/or capacity limitations. Requests to attend the
hearing must be submitted to https://usdot.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_u2RfGmWTSICqQVUyz9TAXA. We encourage interested parties to
register by Thursday, March 9, 2023. Communication Access Real-time
Translation (CART) and sign language interpretation will be provided
during the hearing. Requests for additional accommodations because of a
disability must be received at [email protected] by Thursday,
March 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The virtual hearing will be open to the public and held via
the Zoom Webinar Platform. Virtual attendance information will be
provided upon registration. An agenda will be available on the
Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection website at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news in advance of the
hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register and attend this virtual
hearing, please use the link: https://usdot.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_u2RfGmWTSICqQVUyz9TAXA. Attendance is open to the public
subject to any technical and/or capacity limitations. For further
information, please contact Cristina Draguta, Attorney-Advisor, by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 22, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or
Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to

codify its longstanding interpretation that it is an unfair business
practice for a U.S. air carrier, a foreign air carrier, or a ticket
agent to refuse to provide requested refunds to consumers when a
carrier has cancelled or made a significant change to a scheduled
flight to, from, or within the United States, and consumers found the
alternative transportation offered by the carrier or the ticket agent
to be unacceptable (87 FR 51550). The NPRM proposes to define, for the
first time, the terms significant change and cancellation. It would
also require U.S. and foreign airlines and ticket agents inform
consumers that they are entitled to a refund if that is the case before
making an offer for travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in
lieu of refunds. The Department further proposes to require that U.S.
and foreign air carriers and ticket agents provide non-expiring travel
vouchers or credits to consumers holding non-refundable tickets for
scheduled flights to, from, or within the United States who are unable
to travel as scheduled in certain circumstances related to a serious
communicable disease. If the carrier or ticket agent received
significant financial assistance from the government because of a
public health emergency, the Department proposes to require U.S. and
foreign air carriers and ticket agents provide refunds, in lieu of non-
expiring travel vouchers or credits. The NPRM proposes to allow
carriers and ticket agents to require consumers provide evidence to
support their assertion of entitlement to a travel voucher, credit, or
refund. The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 16, 2022.
    On December 16, 2022, Airlines for America (A4A) and International
Air Transport Association (IATA) (collectively ``Petitioners'') filed a
petition to request a public hearing on the NPRM pursuant to the
Department's regulation on rulemakings relating to unfair and deceptive
practices, 14 CFR 399.75.\1\ The Petitioners specifically raise three
issues regarding the NPRM and request that these issues be addressed in
the hearing. For each issue, Petitioners argue that it meets the
threshold set forth in section 399.75 for granting a public hearing
because the underlying proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning
one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other factual
issues that are genuinely in dispute; because the ordinary public
comment process is unlikely to provide an adequate examination of the
issue to permit a fully informed judgement; because the resolution of
the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the
costs and benefits of the proposed rule; because the requested hearing
on the issue would advance the consideration of the proposed rule and
the General Counsel's ability to make the rulemaking determinations
required by the Department's regulation; and because granting the
petition would not unduly delay the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, Airlines for America and the International Air
Transport Association Petition for Hearing, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0089-5296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has carefully considered the petition for a public
hearing consistent with 14 CFR 399.75 and is granting a public hearing
to afford Petitioners and other stakeholders an opportunity, in
addition to the public comment process afforded by the NPRM, to present
factual issues that they believe are pertinent to the Department's
decision on the rulemaking. The scope of the hearing is limited to the
factual issues specified in this notice.
    The Department's proposals are set forth in the August 2022 NPRM.
The three issues identified by Petitioners concerning the Department's
NPRM and on which they request a hearing are discussed in more detail
in their petition for rehearing. The information the Department is
requesting during the hearing on these issues is summarized below.

Issue 1: Whether Consumers Can Make Reasonable Self-Determinations
Regarding Contracting a Serious Communicable Disease

    The Department requests interested parties to provide the following
information to the extent it has not been provided in any written
comments already submitted to the Docket:
     Information on airlines' and ticket agents' current
practice in handling consumers' requests for the cancellation or
postponement of travel due to contracting a serious communicable
disease, including a description of the procedure to review the
requests, information on the evidentiary documentation required, if
any, and the accommodations provided in response to legitimate claims
(e.g., refunds, credits, rebooking);
     Data on the volume of such requests, both pre- and during
the COVID-19 public health emergency;
     Information on the volume and percentage of requests from
consumers that are considered fraudulent;
     Information on the volume and percentage of requests
received that are not considered fraudulent but nonetheless rejected
due to being based on ``unreasonable self-determination;''
     Data on the costs to airlines and ticket agents to verify
consumers' claims regarding contracting a serious communicable disease;
     Information on the type of diseases claimed by consumers
as a ``serious communicable disease'' based on which the consumers are
requesting to cancel or postpone travel; and
     Any other information pertinent to the Department's
determination on this proposal.

Issue 2: Whether the Documentation Requirement (Medical Attestation
and/or Public Health Guidance) Is Sufficient To Prevent Fraud

    The Department welcomes the following information during the
hearing, to the extent it has not been provided in any written comments
already submitted to the Docket:
     Information on whether medical attestations currently
provided to airlines from consumers seeking to cancel or postpone
travel are primarily based on consumers' self-assessments, the medical
professionals' assessments, or a combination of both;
     Information on the types of medical professionals who are
currently providing the attestations that are accepted by airlines and
ticket agents;
     Information on the types of public health authority-issued
guidance that are currently affecting air travel;
     Information on airlines' validation of medical
attestations, including the procedures, the volume, and the costs
associated with the validation; and
     Any other information pertinent to the Department's
determination on this proposal.

Issue 3: How To Determine Whether a Downgrade of Amenities or Travel
Experiences Qualifies as a ``Significant Change of Flight Itinerary''

    The Department requests that interested parties provide information
on whether there are certain types of amenity changes that should be
considered ``significant'' changes that would entitle a consumer to a
refund and if so, whether the determination should be made
categorically or by airlines on a case-by-case basis. The Department
also requests information on how different airline operational and
pricing models affect onboard amenities and travel experiences, and
subsequently affect consumer expectations. In addition, the Department
welcomes any other new information pertinent to the Department's
determination on this proposal.

II. Agenda, Hearing Officer, and Post-Hearing Actions

    During the March 14, 2023, hearing, the Department will hear
information from the public on the three subjects described above. The
Department's tentative positions on these subjects are articulated in
the NPRM. The Department does not expect to provide further summary or
explanation on its positions at the hearing.
    The Department is appointing Blane Workie, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, as the Hearing Officer
presiding over the hearing. The Department's regulations at 14 CFR
399.75 specify that the General Counsel shall arrange for a hearing
officer to preside over the hearing. The regulations further provide
that after the hearing process is complete, the General Counsel must
consider the record of the hearing and make a reasoned determination
whether to terminate the rulemaking, proceed with the rulemaking as
proposed, or modify the proposed rule. The regulations further require
the General Counsel to explain, in an appropriate rulemaking document
published in the Federal Register, the rationale for the post-hearing
decision made by the General Counsel. The rationale for the post-
hearing decision made by the General Counsel will be explained in any
final rule or other appropriate rulemaking document issued by the
Department for this action.

III. Public Participation

    The March 14, 2023, hearing will begin at 1:00 p.m. EDT, and the
Department will provide time for opening remarks by the Hearing
Officer. The meeting will then transition to public comments and
presentations. Any oral comments presented should be limited to the
subjects described in this Notice and be brief so all participants will
have an opportunity to speak. Depending on the volume of requests for
oral comments that we receive and the time available, we may be able to
accommodate additional comments and/or presentations that speakers wish
to add. Individual members of the public who wish to present oral
comments must notify the Department of Transportation, no later than
Thursday, March 9 via email at [email protected] that they wish to
present oral comments. The email should (1) identify specific
subject(s) on which you wish to provide comments; and (2) state the
organization or entity you are representing or that you are speaking as
a member of the public. All written materials (e.g., PowerPoint
presentations) presented at the hearing will be made part of the
meeting's record.
    Consistent with the requirement of 14 CFR 399.75, the Department
plans to reopen the comment period for this rulemaking on March 14,
2023, the date of the hearing, and the comment period will remain open
for seven (7) days, closing on March 21, 2023. Interested parties who
wish to file statements or comments that are specifically related to
the subject(s) discussed at the hearing may submit their written
comments electronically to the NPRM Docket (DOT-OST-2022-0089).
    After the hearing and after the record of the hearing is closed,
the hearing officer will place on the rulemaking docket minutes of the
hearing reflecting the evidence and arguments presented on the issues.

IV. Viewing Documents

    Documents associated with the NPRM on Airline Ticket Refunds and
Consumer Protections may be accessed in the rulemaking Docket (DOT-OST-
2022-0089). Dockets may be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov.
After entering the relevant docket number click the link to ``Open
Docket Folder'' and choose the document to review.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on this 28th day of February 2023.
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2023-04494 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 37516-37517]
[DOCID:fr29jn10-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62328; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-48]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Relating to the Guaranteed Allocation for
Lead Market Makers and Directed Order Market Makers

June 21, 2010.
    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 June 8, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.76A, Order Execution--OX, to
eliminate guaranteed allocations in certain circumstances. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room. A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to eliminate the guaranteed
allocation for Lead Market Makers (``LMM''s) and Directed Order Market
Makers (``DOMM''s) under certain circumstances.
    Currently, under Rule 6.76A, a LMM (or DOMM) will receive a
guaranteed allocation of 40% of an incoming marketable order, including
40% of the balance of an order after any customer orders ranked ahead
of the LMM (or DOMM) are filled, provided the LMM (or DOMM) is quoting
at the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'').
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.76A to provide that LMMs (or
DOMMs) will only receive the 40% guaranteed allocation if there are no
resting Customer orders ranked ahead of the LMM (or DOMM).
    At the time of the introduction of the OX system, the market
structure rewarded LMMs for providing competitive quotes by giving them
a 40% guarantee ahead of higher ranked non-Customers when Customer
orders were ahead of the LMM in time ranking. This encouraged the LMM
to join the customer price and augment the customer price with the
LMM's added size.
    As market participants have evolved, however, the Exchange has
found that the guarantee after satisfying Customer trading interest
ahead of the LMM in priority has discouraged other non-customer trading
interests that wish to aggressively price orders to set the NBBO. NYSE
Arca clients have submitted orders that set a new price, only to find
themselves receiving a small portion of an incoming order after it
fills Customers and 40% of the balance is allocated to the LMM.
    The Exchange still views as necessary granting the LMM (or DOMM)
40% of incoming orders when no Customer orders are present, in return
for the enhanced quoting obligations of LMMs and DOMMs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \4\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \5\ in
particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that
eliminating the LMM or DOMM 40% guarantee when Customers are ahead in
the Consolidated Book will enhance competition amongst non-Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the Exchange's principal
office. 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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-48 and should be submitted on or before July 20, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15746 Filed 6-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P