[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24343-24345]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1157; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-137-AD;
Amendment 39-16674; AD 2011-09-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-101, -102,
-103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -315, -401, and -402 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised.
    Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor
nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can
result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the
loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into
the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the
electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit
instrument panels.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 6, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2010
(75 FR 71369). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised.
    Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor
nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can
result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the
loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into
the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the
electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit
instrument panels.
    The lower windshield frames do not have drain provisions to
prevent moisture or water run-off from the condensation of the
windshields from being trapped. The consequences of trapped water in
the lower windshield frames can result in unsafe conditions, as
noted above. This Directive mandates the installation of a drain
system for the lower windshield frames.

For Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, the installation also includes
a related investigative action, and corrective actions if necessary.
The related investigative action is an inspection for corrosion of the
anchor nuts and window frame. Corrective actions include replacing any
corroded anchor nut with a new or serviceable anchor nut, or contacting
the manufacturer for repair instructions and doing the repair. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.

Request to Reference Revision D of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78

    Hawaii Island Air stated that Bombardier has issued new Revision D,
dated July 6, 2010, for Service Bulletin 8-53-78.
    We infer that Hawaii Island Air requested that we update our
references to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision D,
dated July 6, 2010. We agree. This service bulletin was revised for
minor changes such as a serial number change and deletion of certain
modification kits. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to
reference Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision D, dated July
6, 2010. We have also added paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for
Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision C, dated April 29, 2010.

Revision to Applicability

    We have added Model DHC-8-101 airplanes to the applicability of
this AD because these airplanes are affected by the identified unsafe
condition. There are no Model DHC-8-101 airplanes registered in the
United States.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 191 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 20 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,660 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $641,760, or $3,360 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-09-12 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16674. Docket No. FAA-
2010-1157; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-137-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 6,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311,
and -315, serial numbers 003 through 566 inclusive.
    (2) Model DHC-8-401, and -402 airplanes, serial numbers 4001,
4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4274 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56: Windows.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped
water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower
windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water
ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water
caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the
windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended
fastening function was seriously compromised.
    Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor
nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can
result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the
loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into
the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the
electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit
instrument panels.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install a drain system in
the cockpit windshield lower frames, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78,
Revision D, dated July 6, 2010 (for Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -
106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes); or 84-53-43, dated
April 27, 2010 (for Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes); except
where these service bulletins state to contact the manufacturer,
contact the New York Aircraft Certification Office or Transport
Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) or its delegated agent. Do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) For Models DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -
311, and -315 airplanes: Modification of the drain system is also
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD, if done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance
with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, dated December 23, 1999;
Revision A, dated June 7, 2001; Revision B, dated May 2, 2002; or
Revision C, dated April 29, 2010.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-16,
dated May 18, 2010; Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision D,
dated July 6, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-43, dated
April 27, 2010; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-53-78, Revision
D, dated July 6, 2010; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-43,
dated April 27, 2010; as applicable; to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9673 Filed 4-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40802-40804]
[DOCID:fr13au09-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0348]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; East River, New York City, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the operation of the Roosevelt Island
Bridge, mile 6.4, across the East River at New York City, New York.
This proposed rule would allow the Roosevelt Island Bridge to remain in
the closed position for eleven months to facilitate a major
rehabilitation of the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0348 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. See the
``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0348), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. You may submit your comments and material on line (http://
www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via
www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the content. If you fax, hand deliver,
or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
We recommend that you include your name and mailing address, an e-mail
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0348'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0348'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Roosevelt Island Bridge has a vertical clearance of 40 feet at
mean high water, and 47 feet at mean low water in the closed position.
The existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.781,
require the bridge to open on signal if at least a two hour advance
notice is given.
    The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, has
requested a temporary rule to facilitate electrical and mechanical
rehabilitation at the Roosevelt Island Bridge.
    Under this temporary rule the Roosevelt Island Bridge would remain
in the closed position from October 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed change would amend 33 CFR 117.781 by suspending
paragraph (c) and adding a new temporary paragraph (d) that would list
the drawbridge operation regulations for the Roosevelt Island Bridge.
    This proposed change would allow the Roosevelt Island Bridge to
need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from October 1, 2009
through August 31, 2010. Vessels that can pass under the draw in the
closed position may do so at all times. This temporary rule is
necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation construction at the
Roosevelt Island Bridge. Vessel traffic should not be adversely
affected since they may transit around the other side of Roosevelt
Island as an alternate traffic route.

Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analysis based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. This
conclusion is based upon the fact that vessel traffic will still be
able to transit the East River using the alternate route around the
island.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic will still
be able to transit the East River using the alternate route round the
island.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact, Commander (dpb), First Coast
Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY, 10004.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. From, October 1, 2009 through August 31, 2010, Sec.  117.781 is
amended by suspending paragraph (c) and adding a temporary paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.781  East River.

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the Roosevelt Island Bridge at mile 6.4, at New
York City, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from October
1, 2009 through August 31, 2010.

    Dated: July 6, 2009.
Dale G. Gabel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-19435 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23497-23500]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0450; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-013-AD;
Amendment 39-18883; AD 2017-10-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Textron Aviation Inc. Models 402C and 414A airplanes (type certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company). This AD requires
inspecting the nacelle fittings for cracks, replacing if necessary, and
reporting the results of the inspection to the FAA. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracks found on certain nacelle fittings. We are
issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 7, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 7,
2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 7, 2017.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer Service, One Cessna
Blvd., Wichita, Kansas 67215; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.txtav.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0450.

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-2017-
0450; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received a report from an operator who discovered a failed
nacelle fitting on a Textron Aviation Inc. Model 402C airplane. The
nacelle fitting was completely cracked through and no longer functioned
as intended.
    Investigation revealed that the part was not manufactured in
accordance with the design specification. We have determined that out-
of-tolerance parts may lead to premature failure caused by metal
fatigue.
    The Textron Aviation Inc. Model 414A airplanes share a similar
design in the affected area to that of the Model 402C airplanes.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the
nacelle fitting, which could lead to engine nacelle separation and loss
of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on
these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Textron Aviation Mandatory Multi-engine Service Letter
MEL-54-02, Revision 2, dated March 29, 2017. The service letter
describes procedures for inspecting the nacelle fittings for cracks and
replacing if necessary. 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.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously. This AD also requires sending the
inspection results to the FAA so that appropriate information can be
evaluated for any possible change in future inspections.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
cracks in the nacelle fitting may cause the fitting to fail, which
could lead to engine nacelle separation and loss of control. Therefore,
we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2017-0450 and
Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-013-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 555 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect nacelle fittings..............  2 work-hours x $85 per               N/A            $170         $94,350
                                         hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these
replacements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-21 (this    80 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $4,084         $10,884
 is the replacement part for P/N 5292029-9,      $6,800.
 which is no longer in production).

Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-22 (this    80 work-hours x $85 per hour =             3,985          10,785
 is the replacement part for P/N 5292029-10,     $6,800.
 which is no longer in production).
Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-23 (this    80 work-hours x $85 per hour =             5,373          12,173
 is the replacement part for P/N 5292029-11,     $6,800.
 which is no longer in production).
Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-24 (this    80 work-hours x $85 per hour =             5,373          12,173
 is the replacement part for P/N 5292029-12,     $6,800.
 which is no longer in production).
Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-21 and P/N  128 work-hours x $85 per hour =            4,084          20,337
 5292029-23 (both left-hand engine beam          $10,880.                                  5,373
 fittings).
Replace nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-22 and P/N  128 work-hours x $85 per hour =            3,985          20,238
 5292029-24 (both right-hand engine beam         $10,880.                                  5,373
 fittings).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-10-09 Textron Aviation Inc.: Amendment 39-18883; Docket No.
FAA-2017-0450; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 7, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 402C airplanes,
serial numbers 402C0001 through 402C1020, and Model 414A airplanes,
serial numbers 414A0001 through 414A1212, that are certificated in
any category; and are equipped with either of the following:
    (1) Cessna Multi-Engine Service Kit SK402-47, ``Lower Front Wing
Spar Cap Inspection/Modification,'' Original Issue, Revision A, or
Revision B; or
    (2) Nacelle fittings part numbers (P/Ns) 5292029-9, 5292029-10,
5292029-11, 5292029-12, 5292029-21, 5292029-22, 5292029-23, or
5292029-24.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:  P/Ns 5292029-9, 5292029-10,
5292029-11, 5292029-12, 5292029-21, 5292029-22, 5292029-23, or
5292029-24 were installed when the Cessna Multi-Engine Service Kit
SK402-47 was installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 5415; Nacelles/Pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on certain
nacelle fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks on the nacelle fitting, which could cause the nacelle fitting
to fail. This failure could result in engine nacelle separation and
loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Inspect the nacelle fitting following the Accomplishment
Instructions (except for paragraph 6) in Textron Aviation Mandatory
Multi-engine Service Letter MEL-54-02, Revision 2, dated March 29,
2017, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes with less than 7,400 hours time-in-service
(TIS) on the affected nacelle fitting: Before or upon accumulating
3,500 hours (TIS) on the nacelle fitting or within the next 100
hours TIS after June 7, 2017 (the

effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later. Repetitively
thereafter inspect every 120 hours TIS until the nacelle fitting has
reached 7,500 hours TIS. When the airplane reaches 7,500 hours TIS
on the affected nacelle fitting, the repetitive inspection time must
be changed to 60 hours TIS. A 10-hour TIS grace period is allowed
for those airplanes between 51 and 110 hours TIS for the first
repetitive inspection when the airplane reaches 7,500 hours TIS on
the nacelle.
    (2) For airplanes with 7,400 hours TIS or more on the affected
nacelle fitting: Before or upon accumulating 7,500 hours TIS on the
nacelle fitting or within the next 25 hours TIS after June 7, 2017
(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.
Repetitively thereafter inspect every 60 hours TIS.

(h) Replacement

    (1) If cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cracked
nacelle fitting.
    (2) If a cracked nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-9, 5292029-10,
5292029-11, 5292029-12, 5292029-21, 5292029-22, 5292029-23, or
5292029-24, is replaced with a new nacelle fitting P/N 5292029-9,
5292029-10, 5292029-11, 5292029-12, 5292029-21, 5292029-22, 5292029-
23, or 5292029-24, the new part is subject to the requirements of
this AD.

(i) Reporting Requirement

    Within 10 days after doing the initial inspection in paragraph
(g) of this AD or within 10 days after June 7, 2017 (the effective
date of this AD), whichever occurs later, using the Attachment to
Textron Aviation Mandatory Multi-engine Service Letter MEL-54-02,
Revision 2, dated March 29, 2017, ``Visual Inspection Results
Form,'' complete the report and send a copy to the Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) at the address listed in paragraph (m) of
this AD or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This AD allows credit for the inspections required in paragraph
(g) of this AD if done before June 7, 2017 (the effective date of
this AD), following Textron Aviation Mandatory Multi-engine Service
Letter MEL-54-02, dated December 23, 2016, or Textron Aviation
Mandatory Multi-engine Service Letter MEL-54-02, Revision 1, dated
March 22, 2017.

(k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, 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 manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Paul Chapman,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Textron Aviation Mandatory Multi-engine Service Letter MEL-
54-02, Revision 2, dated March 29, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Textron Aviation Inc. service information identified in
this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., Textron Aviation Customer
Service, One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, KS 67215; telephone: (316) 517-
5800; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.txtav.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2017-0450.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 9, 2017.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10391 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18041-18043]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06550]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0016]

Marine Terminals and Longshoring Standards; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the standards on
Marine Terminals and Longshoring.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2012-0016) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal
information, in the public docket, which may be made available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following summary gives a brief description of who uses the
information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use
it. The purpose of these requirements is to reduce employee injuries
and fatalities associated with cargo lifting gear, transfer of
vehicular cargo, manual cargo handling, and exposure to hazardous
atmospheres.
    The Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards contain several
collections of information which are used by employers to ensure that
employees are properly informed about the safety and health hazards
associated with marine terminals and longshoring operations. OSHA uses
the records developed in response to the collection of information
requirements to find out if the employer is complying adequately with
the provisions of the standards.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the standards on Marine Terminals
(29 CFR part 1917) and Longshoring (29 CFR part 1918). The agency is
requesting an adjustment decrease in the current burden hour estimate
from 57,797 hours to 55,025 hours, a difference of 2,772 hours. The
adjustment in burden is due to a change in the number of establishments
engaged in longshoring and port and harbor operations, which decreased
from 916 to 830 establishments for longshoring operations and increased
from 332 to 350 establishments for port and harbor operations.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collections.
    Title: Marine Terminals (29 CFR part 1917) and Longshoring (29 CFR
part 1918).
    OMB Number: 1218-0196.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 1,180.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 55,025.
    Estimated Cost(Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. Please
note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0016). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Due to security, the use of regular mail may cause a significant
delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index,

some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available
to read or download through this website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the
OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov
website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the
website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about materials not
available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 22, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-06550 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49517-49520]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20272]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65036; File No. SR-BX-2011-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Definition of ``Professional'' and Require That Professional Orders Be
Appropriately Marked by BOX Options Participants

August 4, 2011.
    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 July 26, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX (the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed
rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend proposes to amend [sic] Chapter I,
Section 1 (Definitions) of the Trading Rules of the Boston Options
Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX'') to adopt a definition of ``Professional''
on BOX and require that all Professional orders be appropriately marked
by BOX Options Participants. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Chapter I, Section 1
(Definitions) to adopt a definition of ``Professional'' on BOX and
require that all Professional orders be appropriately marked.
    This filing is similar to the recent filings of the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC (for the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), PHLX NASDAQ OMX,
Inc. (``Phlx''), the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''),
and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, (``CBOE''), which
dealt with establishing a new definition of ``Professional'' as a
person or entity that places a certain high volume of orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month in his or her own
beneficial account.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63028 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62443 (October 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-099) (approval
order), 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR 17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-05) (approval order); 61198 (December 17, 2009), 74 FR
68880 (December 29, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-078) (approval order); and
59287 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5694 (January 30, 2009) (SR-ISE-
2006-26) (approval order). A filing by NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'')
proposing a similar Professional designation was based on the Phlx,
ISE, and CBOE proposals. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
61818 (March 31, 2010), 75 FR 17457 (April 6, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-18) (approval order). The cited filings discuss, among other
things, the need for a Professional designation to be applied by
members of the respective exchanges because the systems of such
exchanges differentiate for execution or processing purposes based
on order origin. BOX does not similarly differentiate among orders
based on their origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    A BOX Options Participant (``Participant'') is a firm or
organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter
II of the BOX Trading Rules for purposes of participating in options
trading on BOX as an ``Order Flow Provider'' or ``Market Maker.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(42) of the BOX Rules. Many BOX
Participants are also members of other options exchanges such as,
for example, ISE, CBOE, or Phlx. Order Flow Provider (``OFP'') is
defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48) as those Options Participants
representing as agent Customer Orders on BOX and those non-Market
Maker Participants conducting proprietary trading. Market Maker is
defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(31) of the BOX Rules as an
Options Participant registered with the Exchange for the purpose of
making markets in options contracts traded on the Exchange and that
is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter
VI of the BOX Rules.

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

    Options traded by Participants (which may include trades on behalf
of Public Customers) \6\ on BOX, a wholly electronic exchange, are
electronically executable and routable. The BOX Trading Host \7\ and
the BOX Trading Rules provide for the ranking, display, and execution
of all orders in price/time priority without regard to the status of
the person or entity entering an order.\8\ The Exchange notes that BOX
has, similar to NOM and in contrast to certain other options markets, a
``flat'' system that does not differentiate for execution or processing
purposes among orders on the basis of who or what entity enters an
order on BOX.\9\ BOX notes that no change to execution priority, on the
BOX Book or within the BOX Price Improvement Period, is being proposed
as part of this rule change.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Customer is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(52) as
a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \7\ Trading Host is defined in Chapter I, Section 1(a)(67) of
the BOX Rules as the automated system used by BOX for the trading of
options contracts.
    \8\ See Chapter V, Section 16(a)(iv) that discusses BOX's price/
time execution priority and states, in relevant part, that all
options orders at the best price are executed based on the time the
order was entered.
    \9\ In contrast to BOX, hybrid options exchanges such as, for
example, Phlx and CBOE blend auction and electronic market
structures that differentiate certain order priority and execution
functions based upon, among other things, the origin of the order
(e.g. whether the order was a customer, market maker, broker or
dealer, firm, or other type of order); these exchanges also charge
different fees based on order origin. BOX does, like other
exchanges, charge differing fees based on order origin (i.e. BOX
trading fees for customers are different than for market makers and
broker-dealer proprietary accounts). The Exchange is not proposing
any changes in respect of the BOX fee structure and at this time,
will continue to charge Professionals under the category of
Customer.
    \10\ See Chapter V, Section 16 regarding execution and price/
time priority and Section 18 regarding the Price Improvement Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX routes orders to other options exchanges (``Away Exchanges'')
under certain circumstances through non-affiliated third-party broker-
dealers and BOX's general routing procedures are set forth in Chapter
XII, Section 5 (Order Routing to Away Exchanges). These procedures
state in subsection (b)(ii) that, among other things, once routed away
from BOX, an order becomes subject to the rules and procedures of the
destination market.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Chapter XII, Section 5(b)(ii), ``The Eligible Order that is
routed away shall remain outside BOX for a period of time and may be
executed in whole or in part subject to the applicable trading rules
of the relevant Away Exchange. While an Eligible Order remains
outside BOX, it shall have no time priority, relative to other
orders received from Options Participants at the same price which
may be executed against orders in the BOX Book. Requests from
Options Participants to cancel their Eligible Orders while the order
is routed away to an Away Exchange and remains outside BOX shall be
processed, subject to the applicable trading rules of the relevant
Away Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many other options exchanges, namely the CBOE, ISE, NYSE AMEX, NOM
and Phlx, already have rules that are similar to the Professional
designation rule proposed by the Exchange (a ``Professional'' is a
person or entity that places 390 or more orders in listed options per
day on average during a calendar month in his or her own beneficial
account). These above noted exchanges make differentiations based on
whether an order is marked Professional or otherwise. Some BOX Options
Participants, including its routing broker-dealers are, as noted, also
members of other options exchanges that have a Professional
designation. As members of these exchanges, such Options Participants
are subject to their Professional designation rules. And, as mentioned
previously, exchange rules indicate that orders routed by these broker-
dealers become subject to the rules and procedures of the Away
Exchanges.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Once routed away from BOX, an order becomes subject to the
rules and procedures of the destination market including, but not
limited to, order cancellation. See Chapter XII, Section 5(b)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that disparate rules with respect to
Professional order designation, and lack of uniform application of such
rules, do not promote the best regulation and may, in fact, encourage
regulatory arbitrage.\13\ The Exchange believes that it is therefore
prudent and necessary to have a Professional designation rule as is
commonplace in the industry, particularly where BOX's routing broker-
dealers (like other BOX Options Participants) are members of several
exchanges that have rules requiring Professional order designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange believes that the risk of regulatory arbitrage
is heightened where not all exchanges have Professional designation
rules; and there is a lack of uniformity regarding exchanges marking
orders as Professional when routing such orders away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    The Exchange proposes new Chapter I, Section 1(a)(52) to state that
the term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a
broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s).\14\ Moreover, in order to properly represent
orders entered on BOX according to the new definition, a Participant
will be required to appropriately mark all Professional orders.\15\ To
comply with this requirement, Participants will be required to review
their Public Customers' activity on at least a quarterly basis to
determine whether orders that are not for the account of a broker-
dealer should be represented as Professional orders.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Each remaining sub-section of Chapter I, Section 1(a) is
re-numbered by adding one to the current number (e.g. 52 becomes 53,
and 53 becomes 54).
    \15\ BOX intends to require Participants to identify
Professional orders submitted electronically by identifying them in
the account type field, and will notify Participants via an
Information Circular regarding this requirement.
    \16\ Participants will be required to conduct a quarterly review
and make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are
representing orders within five business days after the end of each
calendar quarter. While Participants will only be required to review
their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the
Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being
represented as other than Professional orders but that has averaged
more than 390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange will
notify the Participant and the Participant will be required to
change the manner in which it is representing the customer's orders
within five business days. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory
Circular to Participants providing more detailed information
regarding the quarterly review process. This is similar to the
process of other options exchanges that have adopted a Professional
designation. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63028
(October 1, 2010) 75 FR 62443 (October 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-099)
(approval order) and 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR 17193 (April 5,
2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05) (approval order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Professional definition proposed is similar to the Professional
designation that has been adopted by NOM, Phlx, ISE, CBOE, and NYSE
Amex.\17\ Upon publication of the notice regarding this proposal, BOX
will issue an Information Circular to Participants providing them at
least ten business days notice of the procedures for the implementation
of the proposal. As noted, the Professional definition will not impact
BOX's price/time order entry (priority) system.\18\ Instead, this
proposal will ensure that BOX Participants mark their Professional
orders properly, that is, similarly in terms of Professional order
identification regardless of whether the order is placed on BOX or
another of the options exchanges with a Professional designation.
Moreover, with the proposed Professional designation in place, BOX will
be able to accept orders that are marked Professional.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 3 [sic].
    \18\ For example, unlike the Phlx proposal, (which among other
things, discusses that Professional order on Phlx will be treated in
the same manner as off-floor brokers in terms of certain priority
rules), BOX's proposed rule change does not address or impact any
priority relationship for Professional orders as opposed to other
BOX orders.
    \19\ As proposed, the Professional order designation, may be
used for customer orders only. While BOX does not intend to
differentiate among Professional and other orders for priority
purposes, it may, in the future, feel that it is appropriate to
differentiate its routing or other fees in respect of Professional
orders as opposed to other orders; and if so, the Exchange intends
to file an appropriate fee-related rule filing(s). This filing does
not address the current BOX fee structure.

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

    The designation of Professional or Professional order would not
result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes of the
BOX Trading Rules concerning order protection or routing to away
exchanges. That is, all non broker or dealer orders, including those
that meet the definition of Professional orders, would continue to be
treated as Public Customers for purposes of the BOX Rules regarding
order protection and routing to away exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Chapter XII of the BOX Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX believes that identifying Professional accounts based upon the
average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an
appropriately objective approach that will reasonably distinguish such
persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. BOX
proposes the threshold of 390 orders per day on average over a calendar
month, because it believes that this number far exceeds the number of
orders that are entered by retail investors in a single day.\21\
Moreover, the 390 orders per day threshold proposed by BOX directly
corresponds to the daily order volume recognized by NOM, ISE, and other
options exchanges that have, as previously discussed, established
Professional order designations.\22\ In addition, basing the standard
on the number of orders that are entered in listed options for a
qualified account(s) assures that Professional account holders cannot
inappropriately avoid the purpose of the rule by spreading their
trading over multiple exchanges, and using an average number over a
calendar month will prevent gaming of the 390 order threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 390 orders is equal to the total number of orders that a
person would place in a day if that person entered one order every
minute from market open to market close. Many of the largest retail-
oriented electronic brokers offer lower commission rates to
customers they define as ``active traders.'' Publicly available
information from the Web sites of Charles Schwab, Fidelity, TD
Ameritrade and OptionsXpress all define ``active trader'' as someone
who executes only a few options trades per month. The highest
required trading activity to qualify as an active trader among these
four firms was 35 trades per quarter.
    \22\ The similarity of BOX's proposed Professional definition to
that of other options exchanges is important from the regulatory
perspective, that is, from a desire to promote a national market
system that minimizes regulatory arbitrage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by defining
Professional and indicating that all Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that disparate rules regarding
Professional order designation, and a lack of uniform application of
such rules, do not promote the best regulation and may, in fact,
encourage regulatory arbitrage. The Exchange believes that it is
therefore prudent and necessary to have a Professional designation rule
as is commonplace in the industry, particularly where BOX's routing
broker-dealers (like other BOX Options Participants) are members of
several exchanges that have rules requiring Professional order
designations. The designation of Professional or Professional order
would not result in any different treatment of such orders for purposes
of the BOX Trading Rules concerning order protection or routing to away
exchanges. That is, all non broker or dealer orders, including those
that meet the definition of Professional orders, would continue to be
treated as Public Customers for purposes of the BOX Rules regarding
order protection and routing to away exchange. As such, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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 either solicited or received.

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

    (a) This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph (A) of
section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act \25\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any
significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest.\27\ The Exchange believes that
uniform rules in respect of Professional order designation promotes the
best regulation. The Exchange believes that it is therefore prudent and
necessary to have a Professional designation rule as is commonplace in
the industry, particularly where BOX's routing broker-dealers (like
other BOX Options Participants) are members of several exchanges that
have rules requiring Professional order designations. Additionally, the
Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not impact any
priority relationship for Professional orders as opposed to other BOX
orders, nor does it impact the treatment of Professional orders under
the BOX Rules regarding order protection or routing to away exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change along with a brief description and the text
of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-BX-2011-049 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-BX-2011-049. 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 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-BX-2011-049 and should be
submitted on or before August 31, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20272 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 181 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 58101]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20679]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS:  85 FR 51106,
August 19, 2020 and 85 FR 53898, August 31, 2020.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETINGS: Wednesday,
September 2, 2020 and September 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
September 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. has been postponed to Wednesday,
September 23, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The following additional matter,
previously scheduled for consideration on September 2, 2020, will also
be considered during the Open Meeting:
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments
to the Commission's rules implementing its whistleblower program that
would enhance claim processing efficiency, and clarify and bring
greater transparency to the framework used by the Commission in
exercising its discretion in determining award amounts, as well as
otherwise address specific issues that have developed during the
whistleblower program's history. The amendments reflect the
Commission's experience administering the program over the past decade.
The Commission will also consider whether to adopt interpretive
guidance concerning the term ``independent analysis'' in the
Commission's rules implementing its whistleblower program.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 15, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20679 Filed 9-15-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P