[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 60 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15778-15779]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80305; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section VII(A)

March 24, 2017.
    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 March 20, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX, LLC (``Phlx'' 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 the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section VII(A) of the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule, as described in further detail below.
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on May 1,
2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Section VII(A), entitled ``Option Trading Floor
Fees,'' to add certain new fees that it will charge to members, member
organizations and non-members that install and operate server and
telecommunications equipment on the premises of the Exchange, and
connect such servers and equipment to off-site locations, such as their
remote offices, in connection with conducting a floor trading business.
    The Exchange recently moved to a new state-of-the-art operations
center.\3\ The new operations center will provide significantly
upgraded facilities for the Exchange's members and member organizations
to conduct their floor trading business. Among these upgraded
facilities are a new trading floor, equipped with intercooled Erich
Keller workstations specifically designed for trading floors, and a new
data center supported by enhanced power supplies.\4\ The Exchange
anticipates increased utility and operational costs due to the above
described enhancements. In the past, members and member organizations
installed and operated their own server and telecommunications
equipment on the premises of the Exchange in an ad hoc manner,
supervised by the Exchange. In an effort to establish greater oversight
and control over such activities, to standardize the manner in which
these activities occur, and to generally provide for a more secure and
orderly operating environment for both the Exchange and its members and
member organizations, the Exchange will provide dedicated, segregated,
and access-limited space (``cabinets'') in its new data center to
members, member organizations and non-members for their
telecommunications vendors to house servers and telecommunications
equipment.\5\ Furthermore, the Exchange will provide for the connection
of such servers and equipment to the trading floor and to off-site
locations, including the remote offices of members and member
organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange relocated its premises from 1900 Market Street
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to a new location at FMC Tower, 2929
Walnut Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    \4\ The new trading floor will be driven by brand new 300 kVA
UPS units, with an 800 kw back-up generator.
    \5\ The Exchange will assign each member, member organization
and non-member a minimum of one half cabinet in its new data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to charge its members, member organizations
and non-members new fees for providing them with these upgraded
facilities and services. In particular, the Exchange proposes to charge
monthly fees for providing dedicated half cabinets ($250 per month) or
whole cabinets ($800 per month) in its data center to house the servers
and telecommunications equipment of its members, member organizations
and non-members and their telecommunications vendors.\6\ The Exchange
also proposes to charge a monthly fee of $50 to connect one cabinet to
another cabinet and the same monthly fee to connect a cabinet to off-
site locations, including to a member's or member organization's remote
office.\7\ Lastly, the Exchange proposes a fee of $150 per hour
(billable on a quarter hour basis) for ``remote hands,'' meaning
technical support that Exchange personnel provides with respect to the
installation, configuration, maintenance, and repair of hardware,
cables, and circuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange proposes to charge substantially less for half
cabinets than whole cabinets to incentivize members, member
organizations, and non-members to make efficient use of the limited
space in the new data center. That is, the Exchange seeks to
discourage the purchase of a whole cabinet if the purchase of a half
cabinet would suffice.
    \7\ The proposed Pricing Schedule refers to this as a ``Cabinet
to MPOE Connectivity'' fee, where ``MPOE'' refers to the ``Main
Point of Entry,'' meaning the place within the Exchange's facilities
where members and member organizations can connect to the Exchange
using external telecommunications lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers,
and other persons using its facilities, and does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they
are applicable to all members, member organizations and non-members
that choose to house their servers and

telecommunications equipment on the premises of the Exchange and to
connect such equipment to their trading desks and remote offices. The
proposed fees are also reasonable insofar as they permit the Exchange
to recover its expected costs of hosting and providing connectivity to
the servers and equipment of members, member organizations and non-
members in the new environment. Moreover, as the Exchange explains in
footnote 6 herein, the fees for half and whole cabinets, in particular,
are reasonable insofar as the Exchange designed them to encourage
efficient allocation of limited space in the new data center. Lastly,
the proposed fees are similar to, if not often less than, fees that
competing exchanges charge their customers for similar services.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, at 13-21
(charging vendor equipment room cabinet fee of $2,150 per cabinet
per month and a telecom move/add/change fee of $100 per hour on a
pro-rated basis), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; New York
Stock Exchange Price List 2017, at 17 (charging Internet Equipment
Monthly Hosting Fee of $1,000 per rack (equivalent to a cabinet),
$600 per half rack, and $400 per quarter rack per month), available
at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf; CBOE Fee Schedule, at 10 (charging $100 per
month per equipment shelf (with 24 shelves equivalent to a half
cabinet); $50 per month for outside connectivity; and $100 per hour
for after-hours technical support, but with a four hour minimum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposed fee structure is
designed to ensure a fair and efficient use of Exchange facilities and
services while allowing the Exchange to recoup some of its costs for
providing those facilities and services to members, member
organizations, and non-members. Moreover, the rates of the proposed
fees will be comparable with those charged by other competing
exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)(ii) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2017-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-25, and should be
submitted on or before April 20, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06243 Filed 3-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43940-43942]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0201]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Patapsco River; Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone encompassing
certain waters of the Patapsco River. This safety zone is necessary to
protect the public and vessels on navigable waters during a fireworks
display launched from a barge located adjacent to the East Channel of
Northwest Harbor at Baltimore, MD on August 5, 2014.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on August 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0201]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being

available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 9, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Patapsco River,
Northwest Harbor (East Channel); Baltimore, MD'' in the Federal
Register (79 FR 19572). We received no comments on the proposed rule.
No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Because this
temporary final rule will publish fewer than 30 days prior to the
fireworks display, and the rule is necessary to protect public safety,
the Coast Guard finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the
rule effective fewer than 30 days after publication.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively
authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory
safety zones.
    This safety zone is necessary to ensure public and maritime safety
during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area
from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as
the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and
falling hot embers or other debris.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the
effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) the
Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so
mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, (ii) vessels may still be
permitted to transit through the safety zone with permission of the
Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this safety zone
is limited in size and duration.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to operate
or transit through or within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the
enforcement period. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
reasons provided under Regulatory Planning and Review.

3. 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 rule. If the rule affects your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a safety zone for a
fireworks display that will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from
transiting the immediate area of the fireworks barge in the Patapsco
River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0201 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0201  Safety Zone, Patapsco River; Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Patapsco River, within a 200 yard radius of a fireworks discharge
barge in approximate position latitude 39[deg]15'48'' N, longitude
076[deg]34'37'' W, located adjacent to the East Channel of Northwest
Harbor at Baltimore, Maryland. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0201.
    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore or his
designated representative. All vessels underway within this safety zone
at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone must
first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or
his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area,
the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representative can
be contacted at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal,
State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or
other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated
representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. on August 5, 2014.

    Dated: July 7, 2014.
M. Dean,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2014-17835 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 95538-95541]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9517; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-100-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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
Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and
A340-600 series airplanes; and A340-313 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by the discovery of Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA)/Chromic
Acid

Anodizing (CAA) surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame
holes of certain airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspection
of the fuselage bulk cargo door frames at specific locations, and
corrective action 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 February 13,
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: 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 Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9517; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9517;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-100-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0102, dated June 1, 2016; corrected June
7, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''); to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300,
A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and A340-313 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    In the frame of the certification of the A330 Extended Service
Goal exercise, it has been identified that Tartaric Sulfuric
Anodising (TSA)/Chromic Acid Anodising (CAA) surface treatment is
present in some frame holes, from aeroplane MSN 0400 and later MSN,
following production process modification. On bulk cargo door frames
(FR) 67 and FR 69 Right Hand Side, the door fitting attachment holes
have this TSA/CAA treatment, which leads to a detrimental effect on
fatigue behaviour. This condition, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to critical cracks in the primary structure, possibly
resulting in in-flight loss of a bulk cargo door, consequent
decompression and potential damage to the aeroplane that could
reduce the control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16 to provide instructions to
inspect the fuselage bulk cargo door frames at specific locations.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive non-destructive test (rototest and high-frequency eddy-
current (HFEC)) inspection or visual detailed (DET) inspections [to
detect cracking] of the affected areas, and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of a repair.
    This [EASA] AD is considered an interim measure, and further
[EASA] AD action may follow.

    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-2016-
9517.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT), AOT A53L012-
16, Revision 00, including Appendices 1 through 6, dated May 30, 2016:
     Appendix 1. Technical disposition TD_K48_S3_01755_2016,
Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
     Appendix 2. Technical disposition TD_K48_S3_01754_2016,
Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
     Appendix 3. Technical disposition TD_K48_S3_01772_2016,
Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
     Appendix 4. Technical disposition TD_K48_S3_01773_2016,
Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
     Appendix 5. AOT A53L012-16, Revision 00, undated, titled
Appendix 4: AOT reporting sheet 1; and AOT A53L012-16, Revision 00,
undated, titled Appendix 4: AOT reporting sheet 2. (Appendix 5 of this
document is incorrectly identified as ``Appendix 4.'').
     Appendix 6. Non-destructive Testing Manual Procedure 53-
40-18, ``Bulk Cargo Compartment Door Cut-Out Lateral Frames at Bulk
Door-Fittings FR67 at STGR 37 and at STGR 42 and FR 69 at STRG 38 and
at STGR 45,'' advanced copy approved for use, dated May 18, 2016.
    The service information describes procedures for inspections of the
fuselage bulk cargo frames at the door support and latch fittings
location; repair instructions; and reporting instructions. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  2 work-hours x $85               $0  $170 per inspection  $16,320 per
                                    per hour = $170                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Reporting........................  1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85................  $8,160.
                                    per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optional door frame replacement..............  200 work-hours x $85 per hour =         $68,000          $85,000
                                                $17,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed 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 proposed 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

    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):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9517; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
100-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated
in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 0400 and higher.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A340-313 airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (6) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of Tartaric Sulfuric
Anodizing (TSA)/Chromic Acid Anodizing (CAA) surface treatment in
certain bulk cargo door frame holes of airplanes with MSNs 0400 and
higher. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks
in the bulk cargo door frames,

caused by TSA/CAA surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame
holes. Cracks in the bulk cargo door frames can cause the in-flight
loss of a bulk cargo door, damage to the airplane and subsequent
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Initial Inspection

    At the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT), AOT A53L012-16, Revision
00, dated May 30, 2016.
    (1) Accomplish a rototest inspection to detect cracking of the
holes for the bulk cargo door support fittings at fuselage frame
(FR) 67 and FR 69, and a high-frequency eddy-current (HFEC)
inspection of the holes for the door latch fitting at FR 69.
    (2) Accomplish a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking
in the bulk cargo door support fittings at FR 67 and FR 69 and the
holes for the door latch fitting at FR 69.

         Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--Initial Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total flight cycles accumulated since
  airplane first flight, on the effective          Compliance time
              date of this AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12,500 total flight cycles or more........  Within 200 flight cycles or
                                             2 months, whichever occurs
                                             first, after the effective
                                             date of this AD.
Fewer than 12,500 total flight cycles.....  Within 200 flight cycles or
                                             2 months, whichever occurs
                                             first, after exceeding
                                             12,500 flight cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Repetitive Inspections

    At intervals not to exceed the values specified in table 2 to
paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, depending on the previously
selected inspection method, repeat the inspection(s) specified in
either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

       Table 2 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Repetitive Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Inspection method                   Inspection interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed visual inspection................  150 flight cycles.
Rototest and HFEC inspections.............  2,900 flight cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Repair

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of
this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, repair using
a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(j) Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for
the inspections required by this AD for that airplane, unless
otherwise specified in repair instructions approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(k) Reporting

    After the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, and after each repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph (k)(1)
and (k)(2) of this AD: Report inspection findings, both positive and
negative, to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of Airbus
AOT A53L012-16, Revision 00, dated May 30, 2016.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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) 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
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: 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.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0102, dated June 1, 2016; corrected June 7,
2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-9517.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 2, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-30611 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P