[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6089-6090]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP13-460-000.
    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC submits tariff filing per
154.203: Cadeville Gas Storage Tariff Filing 1/18/13 to be effective 1/
18/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130118-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-461-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/18/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures
Energy Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 1/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130118-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-462-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/18/13 Negotiated Rates--Sequent Energy
Management (HUB) 3075-89 to be effective 1/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130118-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-463-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/18/13 Negotiated

Rates--United Energy Trading (HUB) 5095-89 to be effective 1/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20130118-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-464-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: pro forma--Rich Gas Service Provisions to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 01/18/2013.
    Accession Number: 20130118-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/30/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-465-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/21/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures
Energy Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 1/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130122-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-466-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 01/21/13 Negotiated Rates--United Energy Trading
(HUB) 5095-89 to be effective 1/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130122-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-467-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Modification of Exhibit B to the SS-1 Service Agreement to
be effective 2/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/22/13.
    Accession Number: 20130122-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/13.

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

     Dated: January 22, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01753 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19341-19342]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2649-001.
    Applicants: 3C Solar LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information Regarding Petition for Order
Accepting Market-Based Rate Tariff for Filing and Granting Waivers and
Blanket Approvals of 3C Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3238-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Interconnection Service Agreements in Connection with
the ATSI Integration to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3239-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWE (Black Warrior) NITSA Amendment Filing to be
effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3240-000.
    Applicants: Hardwood Energy, LLC.
    Description: Hardwood Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Hardwood Energy FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 3/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3241-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2166 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 3/
1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3242-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Florida Power & Light Company submits tariff filing
per 35: FPL Revision to Attachment C Pursuant to Order No. 676-E to be
effective 3/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3243-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2183 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA NOA to be
effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3244-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 196 of
Florida Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3245-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 195 of
Florida Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5150.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3246-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 118 of
Florida Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3247-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): F096 FCA to be effective 4/
1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3248-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2011 TACBAA Update to be effective 6/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3249-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Queue No. V1-024-V1-025 Interim ISA Original Service
Agreement No. 2850 to be effective 3/4/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3250-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to add Schedule 16-A Linden VFT Facility
Imports into PJM's Tariff to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3251-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 3-31-2011 ATSI Withdrawal
to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3252-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Cancellation of DRS to be effective
4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3253-000.

    Applicants: Turner Energy, LLC.
    Description: Turner Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Turner Energy FERC Electric Tariff to be effective 3/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA09-16-002.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Report/Form of Northeast Utilities Service Company
Annual Refund Report--Order 890 Requirement.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110331-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 21, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8266 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38752-38755]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81360; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Market Access and Routing Subsidy Program

August 9, 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 August 1, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``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
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 the Exchange's transaction fees at
Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and
Rebates,'' which governs pricing for Nasdaq Participants using the
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's facility for executing and
routing standardized equity and index options. The Exchange proposes to
amend its subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy or
``MARS,'' for NOM Participants that provide certain order routing
functionalities \3\ to other NOM Participants and/or use such
functionalities themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The order routing functionalities permit a NOM Participant
to provide access and connectivity to other Participants as well as
utilize such access for themselves. The Exchange notes that one NOM
Participant is eligible for payments under MARS, while another NOM
Participant might potentially be liable for transaction charges
associated with the execution of the order, because those orders
were delivered to the Exchange through a NOM Participant's
connection to the Exchange and that Participant qualified for the
MARS Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change 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 Exchange proposes to amend its MARS subsidy program, which pays
a subsidy to NOM Participants that provide certain order routing
functionalities to other NOM Participants and/or use such
functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, the Exchange pays
participating NOM Participants to subsidize their costs of providing
routing services to route orders to NOM. At this time, the Exchange
proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2(6) to expand the MARS Payment
tiers as described further below.
    Today, NOM Participants that have System Eligibility \4\ and have
routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month
(``Average Daily Volume''), which were executed on NOM, are entitled to
a MARS Payment. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment,
Eligible Contracts may include Firm,\5\ Non-NOM Market Maker,\6\
Broker-Dealer,\7\ or Joint Back Office or ``JBO'' \8\ equity option
orders that add liquidity and are electronically delivered and
executed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To qualify for MARS, the Participant's routing system
(``System'') is required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of
orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including NOM; (2)
provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options
exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with NOM's API to
access current NOM match engine functionality. Further, the
Participant's System would also need to cause NOM to be one of the
top three default destination exchanges for (a) individually
executed marketable orders if NOM is at the national best bid or
offer (``NBBO''), regardless of size or time or (b) orders that
establish a new NBBO on NOM's Order Book, but allow any user to
manually override NOM as a default destination on an order-by-order
basis. Any NOM Participant would be permitted to avail itself of
this arrangement, provided that its order routing functionality
incorporates the features described above and satisfies NOM that it
appears to be robust and reliable. The Participant remains solely
responsible for implementing and operating its System. See Chapter
XV, Section 2(6).
    \5\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
    \6\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.
    \8\ The term ``Joint Back Office'' or ``JBO'' applies to any
transaction that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC and is identified with an origin code as a JBO. A
JBO will be priced the same as a Broker-Dealer as of September 1,
2014. A JBO participant is a Participant that maintains a JBO
arrangement with a clearing broker-dealer (``JBO Broker'') subject
to the requirements of Regulation T Section 220.7 of the Federal
Reserve System as further discussed in Chapter XIII, Section 5.
    \9\ Eligible Contracts do not include Mini Option orders. Mini
Options are further specified in Chapter XV, Section 2(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently pays the following MARS Payments according
to Average Daily Volume (``ADV'') \10\ submitted on NOM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Average Daily Volume is all Eligible Contracts daily in a
month aggregating Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Average daily       MARS Payment       MARS Payment
                         Tiers                           volume  (``ADV'')       (penny)          (non-penny)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................              2,500              $0.07              $0.15
2......................................................              5,000               0.09               0.20
3......................................................             10,000               0.11               0.30
4......................................................             20,000               0.15               0.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, NOM Participants that qualify for Customer and Professional
Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 8 in Chapter XV,
Section 2(1) will receive $0.09 per contract in addition to any MARS
Payment tier on MARS Eligible Contracts the NOM Participant qualifies
for in a given month. The specified MARS Payment will be paid on all
executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to NOM
through a participating NOM Participant's System and meet the requisite
Eligible Contracts ADV. No payments will be made with respect to orders
that are routed to NOM, but not executed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A Participant will not be entitled to receive any other
revenue for the use of its System specifically with respect to
orders routed to NOM. The Exchange believes that MARS Payment will
subsidize the costs of NOM Participants in providing the routing
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new Tier 5 with an ADV of 45,000
contracts and pay a MARS Payment of (i) $0.17 per contract for Penny
Pilot Options transactions that qualify for the MARS Payment tier
program and (ii) $0.60 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options
transactions that qualify for the MARS Payment tier program. The
Exchange would continue to pay an additional $0.09 per contract in
addition to any MARS Payment tier on MARS Eligible Contracts in a given
month, provided

the NOM Participant qualified for the Customer and Professional Penny
Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity Tier 8 in Chapter XV, Section
2(1). The Exchange believes that as proposed, MARS will continue to
attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to
the Exchange from non-NOM Participants as well as NOM Participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 5 with an ADV of 45,000
contracts and pay the MARS Payment in the amounts described above is
reasonable because the amendments will attract higher volumes of
electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange, which will
benefit all NOM Participants by offering greater price discovery,
increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the
Exchange. The expanded MARS Payments should enhance the competitiveness
of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those exchanges that
offer their own front-end order entry system or one they subsidize in
some manner. The amendment to add Tier 5 will incentivize NOM
Participants to achieve an even higher Penny Pilot Options Rebate,
provided the NOM Participant is eligible for MARS. Further, the tier
structure will allow NOM Participants to price their services at a
level that will enable them to attract order flow from market
participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order
entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of
incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal
systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System.
    The Exchange's proposal to add a new Tier 5 and pay the MARS
Payment in the amounts described above is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM
Participants the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers
provided the NOM Participant has executed the requisite number of
Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed
MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because any qualifying NOM Participant that offers
market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize such
functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payments for all Eligible
Contracts.

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. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In sum, if the fee changes proposed herein are unattractive to
market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market
share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
    Further, the Exchange's proposal does not impose an undue burden on
intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all
NOM Participants the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment
tiers provided the NOM Participant has executed the requisite number of
Eligible Contracts. Moreover, any qualifying NOM Participant that
offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes
such functionality themselves may earn the proposed MARS Payment for
all Eligible Contracts.

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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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-NASDAQ-2017-079 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-NASDAQ-2017-079. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-079, and should
be submitted on or before September 5, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17168 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Summary of the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Exemption of Alcoholic Beverages and Aqueous Solutions of Alcohol in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)

      DOT's HMR in 49 CFR §173.150 separately exempt alcoholic beverages and aqueous solutions of alcohol from regulation as Class 3 hazardous materials (see Hazardous Materials Table in 49 CFR §172.101). Alcoholic beverages are exempt from DOT HMR regulation in §173.150(d). "An alcoholic beverage (wine and distilled spirits as defined in 27 CFR 4.10 and 5.11), when transported via motor vehicle, vessel, or rail, is not subject to the requirements of this subchapter if the alcoholic beverage [c]ontains 24 percent or less alcohol by volume" or is contained in specified (limited quantity) packaging (§173.150(d)(1)). On the other hand, aqueous solutions of alcohol are exempted in §173.150(e). "An aqueous solution containing 24 percent or less alcohol by volume and no other hazardous material... (2) Is not subject to the requirements of this subchapter if it contains no less than 50 percent water" (§173.150(e)).
      DOT added the exemptions for alcoholic beverages and aqueous solutions of alcohol, as they are defined in the regulations, in 1975. (40 FR 22263) The exemption for alcoholic beverages was added "to provide complete exemption from the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations when they are shipped in containers having a rated capacity of one gallon or less. These beverages are restricted to those defined in 27 CFR 4.10 and 5.11 as wine and distilled spirits. Due to the controls exercised by the Department of the Treasury pertaining to these products, the Board believes that it is unnecessary, from a transportation safety standpoint, to make them subject to the Department's regulations." (40 FR 22263) With regard to aqueous solutions of alcohol, DOT "decided to make a declaration in the regulations that the flash point of dilute alcohol water solutions, containing no more than 24 percent alcohol by volume, are considered to have flash points of 100º F. or higher because [DOT] believes the combustible liquid classification is more appropriate for such materials (if they have a flash point below 200 ° F.). The declaration is applicable only when the remainder of the solution does not meet any definition of a hazardous material as defined in Title 49 CFR including those of a flammable or a combustible liquid. This decision is based in part on petitions for reconsideration received relative to wine and certain consumer commodities. The maximum alcohol content specified is based on the maximum alcohol content for wine as defined in 27 CFR 4.10 which is 24% by volume alcohol. Rather than restrict this revision to the wine industry, it has been expanded to include other alcohol water solutions." (40 FR 22263) In 1983, DOT amended this provision for aqueous solutions of alcohol "to specify that an aqueous solution containing 24 percent or less alcohol by volume and 50 percent or more of water [and no material (other than the alcohol) that is subject to the regulations] is not subject to the regulations even when transported in bulk packagings." (48 FR 28095)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36625]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14394]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69743; File No. SR-CME-2013-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Related to the Liquidity Factor of CME's CDS
Margin Methodology

June 12, 2013.
    On April 9, 2013, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
adjustments to the liquidity risk factor component of its credit
default swap (``CDS'') margin model. CME proposes to use an index
portfolio's market risk rather than its gross notional as the basis for
determining the margins associated with the liquidity risk factor
component. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 29, 2013.\3\ The Commission did not receive
comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69435 (Apr. 23, 2013),
78 FR 25116 (Apr. 29, 2013) (SR-CME-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is June 13, 2013. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, which would
implement a significant change to CME's CDS margin methodology.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates July 28, 2013, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
CME-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-14394 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 52803]
[DOCID:fr27au10-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Maintenance,
Preventative Maintenance, Rebuilding and Alteration

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. FAR Part 43 prescribes the rules governing maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration of aircraft components, and is necessary to
ensure this work is performed by qualified persons, and at proper
intervals. This work is done by certified mechanics, repair stations,
and air carriers authorized to perform maintenance.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 26, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0020.
    Title: Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance, Rebuilding and
Alteration.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 337.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collection associated with FAR 43 is
necessary to ensure that maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration of
aircraft, aircraft components, etc., is performed by qualified
individuals and at proper intervals. Further, proper maintenance
records are essential to ensure that an aircraft is properly maintained
and is mechanically safe for flight.
    Respondents: An estimated 87,769 certified mechanics, repair
stations, and air carriers authorized to perform maintenance.
    Frequency: Information is collected annually.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes per response.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 138,083 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-21453 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Supporting Statement

for

Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards

for Benzene – 46 CFR 197 Subpart C

OMB No.:  1625-0063

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  Instruction

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances that make the collection necessary.

Benzene is a highly dangerous chemical that is commonly carried by ship
and or barge in bulk, both by itself and in hydrocarbon mixtures.
Benzene has long been known for its short-term health effects, and its
cancer-causing nature was suspected for many years.  Since exposure to
even low concentrations of Benzene vapor is dangerous, the Coast Guard
issued rules to help to reduce the levels to which marine workers are
exposed.  Title 46 USC 3703 and 49 CFR 1.46 authorize the Coast Guard to
issue regulations dealing with handling and storage of cargo and the
protection of life and property in the marine area.

Title 46 CFR 197 subpart C requires certain companies to perform Benzene
testing and monitoring.  This includes testing all U.S.-flag Coast Guard
inspected vessels for the Benzene vapor concentration while carrying or
transferring any cargo containing 0.5% or more Benzene by volume.  Also,
this involves providing medical surveillance, training, and other
protective measures for those employees exposed to Benzene vapor in
excess of the action level of 0.5 parts per million (ppm).  Vessel
operators must gather and keep records that are subject to Coast Guard
inspection.  Records are required for all vessels carrying bulk liquid
cargoes that have Benzene concentration of 0.5% or more.  Recordkeeping
topics include—

Exposure monitoring – determination of personal exposure

Program to reduce personal exposure

Respiratory protection – fit testing

Medical surveillance – medical records

Provision of a Benzene Materials Safety Data Sheet

Since it is not practical for Coast Guard personnel to monitor each
company’s compliance with these requirements, the regulations require
each company to keep records showing that they meet each requirement.
Periodically, Coast Guard personnel review these records to determine
compliance.  These companies will not send records to the Coast Guard.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Coast Guard

Safety

Protection of Natural Resources

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Reduce crewmember deaths and injuries on U.S. commercial vessels

2.  Purpose of the Information Collection.

The regulations require each vessel owner, charterer, managing operator,
or agent (referred to as “company”) to collect information on
Benzene vapor concentrations, on the health of its employees, and on the
effectiveness of its exposure reduction programs.  This information will
not be routinely transmitted to the Coast Guard, but will be available
for inspection by Coast Guard personnel, who will then be able to
determine whether there is effective compliance with the regulations.
Additionally, operators will inform those personnel whose exposures
exceed allowable limits.  Operators will give personnel copies of their
health records and provide them with safety and health data so that they
are aware of the potential hazards in the workplace.

The purpose of these information collection requirements is to ensure
compliance with the Benzene regulations.  If this information is not
collected, there will be no way for the Coast Guard to determine whether
the company is complying with the requirements.  Also, personnel will
not have the information required for informed consent, and the company
will not be able to effectively carry out their Benzene
reduction/control program.  Since the Coast Guard inspects each vessel
at least annually, the records review is at least annually.
Additionally, if the Coast Guard has reason to believe that a company is
in violation of the rules, the Coast Guard will review the facility
records.

To date, the Coast Guard has used the information collected to determine
compliance with the Benzene regulations.

3.  Consideration of information technology to reduce burden.

We have made the burden as small as possible.  The required information
is the minimum necessary for determining Benzene exposure levels,
planning for reducing human exposure to within safe limits, ensuring
effectiveness of respirators, monitoring personnel health, and providing
health and safety information to personnel.  For example—The fit test
report ensures that the fit test was performed successfully, and Coast
Guard personnel ask for the report to check that the test was performed
successfully.  In general, these information requirements are similar to
those that companies already voluntarily use to implement these safety
and health measures.  Without records of these measures, neither the
companies nor the Coast Guard can be certain that the regulations are
being carried out.  Furthermore, without such requirements, personnel
would not know if their health is at risk and would not have the safety
and health information available they need for informed consent.

Since companies do not transfer information to the Coast Guard, the form
of information collection is each company’s responsibility.  Records
may be maintained in paper or electronic format.  Each company
determines what type of recordkeeping is best for that company.  We
estimate that 100 percent of the recordkeeping requirements can be done
electronically.  At this time, we estimate that 60 percent of the
responses are collected electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

Among its many responsibilities, the Coast Guard is charged with
ensuring the health and safety of marine workers aboard inspected
vessels, and is the only Federal agency charged with this
responsibility, so the Coast Guard’s recordkeeping requirements do not
duplicate those of any other Federal agency.  Some companies already
perform many of the proposed safety and health measures, and most of
these prepare written records as any Benzene exposure reduction program
requires extensive recordkeeping.  To the extent that these company
records exist, they will satisfy the Benzene recordkeeping requirement.
Since the Coast Guard does not specify the form of the required
recordkeeping, any records a company maintains containing the required
information will satisfy the Coast Guard’s requirements.  In effect,
due to the way the regulations are drafted, information collection
duplication is impossible.

5.  Methods used to minimize burden to small business if involved.

The information requirements are the minimum necessary to ensure a
healthy marine environment.  To a great extent, without these
recordkeeping measures, the company would find it difficult or even
impossible to implement a Benzene reduction program.  The Coast Guard
periodically reviews these requirements to be certain that they are
neither insufficient nor excessive.

The Coast Guard has minimized the burden on small as well as large
entities by the following:

	a.  Keeping the required recordkeeping to the absolute minimum to
ensure compliance;

	b.  Not requiring record submission to the Coast Guard; and

	c.  Not specifying the form or format of the recordkeeping.

6.  Consequences to Federal program if the collection were not conducted
or conducted less frequently.

With less frequent data collection, the program will not accomplish its
goal of protecting health.  Through our work with industry, other
agencies, and our trial implementation of the rules, we determined that
it is not possible to collect the required information less frequently
and still determine whether companies are in compliance with the
regulations; without the ability to determine compliance, the Coast
Guard will not be able to protect the safety and health of marine
terminal and vessel personnel.  In particular, the recordkeeping
intervals are tied to the testing intervals, so reducing the collection
frequency will prevent personnel from determining whether a company is
in compliance with the requirements.  We will periodically review these
requirements to be certain that the information collection requirements
are neither insufficient nor excessive.

Clearly, without information collection the Coast Guard will not be able
to determine compliance at all.  Furthermore, companies need to keep
records to efficiently operate their Benzene exposure reduction
programs.

7.  Special circumstances that require collection to be conducted in an
inconsistent manner.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11.  Additional justification for questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimated hour and cost burden.

The estimated number of respondents is 200.

The estimated number of annual responses is 28,017.

The estimated annual hour burden is 38,165 hours.

The estimated annual cost burden is $2,608,855.

The hour burden and costs to industry are based in part on experience
from trial implementation of the SouthWest Research chemical exposure
program.

Estimated hour burden

	a.  Initial exposure monitoring:  Each company must determine whether
the Benzene exposure level is sufficiently high to require
reduction/control measures for each Coast Guard inspected vessel
involved in the carriage of Benzene or Benzene-containing bulk cargoes.
This assessment must be performed initially and whenever there is a
major change in vessel design or operation.  We estimate that—

an assessment will be valid for ten years.  Companies will not have to
assess exposures on each vessel, but rather will assess typical ones
they use.

200 companies will have to perform the assessment, and

each assessment will require three weeks (120 hours) for an industrial
hygienist to perform.  This assessment includes time for industrial
hygienists to purchase, test, and calibrate equipment; time to
familiarize themselves with the marine environment, equipment, and
operations; time to take a statistically valid series of Benzene-vapor
concentration measurements and analyze the measurements; and time to
prepare the report.

an industrial hygienist wage rate is equivalent to a GS-13
(out-of-gov’t rate) .

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	b.  Periodic exposure monitoring:  After the initial assessment, each
company must monitor Benzene exposures annually on each vessel where
initial exposure monitoring has indicated exposure above limits.  The
initial exposure monitoring determines whether there is danger from
Benzene vapors.  Industry uses this data, if above the PEL’s, to
formulate their personal exposure reduction plan.  The periodic exposure
monitoring is necessary to determine if there have been any changes in
the worker exposure over time.  If so, the personal exposure reduction
plan may have to be changed to reflect the change in personal exposure.
An exposure greater than the PEL’s Benzene triggers the preparation of
a personal exposure reduction plan.  We estimate that 100 companies will
initially find vapor concentrations to be above allowable limits, and
that an industrial hygienist will require one week (40 hours) to perform
each annual assessment and prepare a short report.  This time estimate
is based on the fact that the industrial hygienist will be familiar with
the marine environment and with the Benzene-measurement equipment.
Furthermore, the company will need to take only a limited number of
measurements rather than the large number needed for the initial
assessment.  The industrial hygienist wage rate is equivalent to a GS-13
(out-of-gov’t rate).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	c.  Additional exposure monitoring:  After the initial assessment, each
company must evaluate the personnel exposures to Benzene whenever there
is a change in vessel operations, to determine whether the exposure has
increased or decreased.  This covers non-major changes such as changes
in the cargo transfer rate or use of different barges, as opposed to the
major changes that require entirely new initial assessments (see item
a), such as installation of a vapor recovery system.  We estimate that
on average 20 companies will change their operations each year and will
have to monitor their exposures and prepare a short report.  We further
estimate that an industrial hygienist will require one week (40 hours)
to perform each assessment.  This time estimate is based on the fact
that the company will need to take only a limited number of measurements
rather than the large number needed for the initial assessment.  The
industrial hygienist wage rate is equivalent to a GS-13 (out-of-gov’t
rate).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	d.  Notification of exposure monitoring:  After the initial assessment,
each company for which the initial exposure monitoring showed above
limit exposures must notify affected personnel annually.  Notification
is required for all Benzene monitoring.  If the PEL are exceeded, the
notification must contain a description of the measures taken to protect
the worker.  We estimate that 100 companies will initially find
Benzene-vapor exposures above the PELs and so must notify their
employees.  We estimate that for each company, an industrial hygienist
will require one hour to prepare a written notification (the same
notification to each employee) to all of that company’s affected
workers, and clerical workers will require three hours to prepare, copy,
and distribute the written notifications.  The industrial hygienist wage
rate is equivalent to a GS-13 (out-of-gov’t rate) and the clerical
time wage rate is equivalent to GS-05 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	e.  Written exposure reduction programs:  After the initial assessment,
each company for which the initial exposure monitoring showed
Benzene-vapor exposures above the PELs must prepare a written program to
reduce/control exposures.  We estimate that 100 companies will initially
find exposures above the PELs and will need to prepare a program, and
that on average each program will be valid for five years.  This program
should be only a few pages in length.  We estimate that for each
company, an industrial hygienist will require one week (40 hours) to
prepare a written program, and clerical workers will require two hours
to type up the program.  The industrial hygienist wage rate is
equivalent to GS-13 (Out Gov’t) and the clerical time wage rate is
equivalent to GS-05 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	f.  Written respiratory protection programs:  In addition to the
written exposure reduction program (see item e), most companies will
choose to reduce personnel exposures by requiring respiratory protection
be worn.  Those companies that choose this option will be required to
prepare a written program.  Of the estimated 100 companies with above
limit exposures, we estimate that 90 will prepare a respiratory
protection program, and that on average each program will be valid for
five years.  This program should be only a few pages in length, and
should vary little from company to company.  We estimate that for each
company, an industrial hygienist will require 24 hours to prepare a
written program, and clerical workers will take two hours to type up the
program.   The industrial hygienist wage rate is equivalent to GS-13
(Out Gov’t) and the clerical time wage rate is equivalent to GS-05
(Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	g.  Fit to wear respirator:  Prior to issuing a respirator to an
employee, each company must have a physician determine that the employee
can safely wear a respirator.  This determination will probably be made
during the employee’s first (baseline) annual medical monitoring, and
should require thirty minutes of the physician’s time and thirty
minutes (0.5 hour) of the employee’s time.  We estimate that on
average an employee will work for the same company for about five years,
meaning that about 20 percent must be undergo the respiratory fit test
each year.  The physician wage rate is equivalent to O-4 (Out Gov’t)
and the employee time age rate is equivalent to GS-03 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	h.  Respirator fit testing records:  In addition to a written
respiratory protection program, each company using negative pressure
respiration protection for compliance must test the respirator fit
annually for each employee and maintain a written record.  We estimate a
safety and health technician will require twenty minutes (0.33 hour) for
test preparation for each employee, two hours for each fit test, and
twenty minutes (0.33 hour) for each test record preparation.
Furthermore, each employee will spend about two hours in the fit test,
with about 2,000 employees being tested annually.  The safety and health
technician wage rate is equivalent to the GS-04 (Out Gov’t) and the
employee time wage rate is equivalent to GS-03 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	i.  Medical Monitoring:  If the initial exposure assessment
demonstrates that the Benzene-vapor level exceeds certain levels, each
company will have to provide annual medical examinations (i.e., medical
surveillance) for each exposed employee.  For example—All employees
exposed to Benzene vapor at a concentration of greater than or equal to
the Action Level ppm on at least 30 calendar days or at a level above
the PEL’s on at least 10 calendar days during the coming year.   Even
if employees wear respiratory protection, they will still need to have a
medical exam.  The medical exam determines whether the worker has been
injured despite the personal exposure reduction plan.  The medical exams
look for changes in blood and the liver that are precursors to leukemia.
 The regulations require that the all results of the medical tests be
provided to the employee.  Benzene is unusual in that the damage it does
to the blood and liver at the beginning can be found in routine medical
tests, before the onset of cancerous Leukemia.  And also unusual is the
fact that if the medical tests prove positive for these noncancerous
precursors of Leukemia, removal from further exposure to Benzene results
in the elimination of these blood and liver changes, and no onset of
leukemia.  For that reason medical tests are imperative.  Since the
medical examination level for Benzene exposure is below the
reduction/control level, we estimate 150 companies (2,500 affected
employees) will have to provide medical examinations, and must prepare
an examination report for each employee.  Each employee spends time in
the examination room, waiting room (both waiting and filling-out forms),
and blood lab.  Finally, a safety and health technician spends time
scheduling, filling-out forms, and assisting employees in filling-out
forms.  Since companies do not normally provide annual physical
examinations, the entire charge represents a new burden on the industry.
 We estimate that each physical, including physician’s time to review
the medical history, examine the employee, interpret test results, and
write the report, will require one hour. Each employee will spend about
four hours in the process, and a safety and health technician will spend
about one hour per employee tested.  Additionally, each test will
involve sending blood samples to an outside laboratory.  We estimate
that this will cost $220 per employee.  The physician wage rate is
equivalent to the O-4 (Out Gov’t), the employee time wage rate is
equivalent to the GS-03 (Out Gov’t), and the technician wage rate is
equivalent to GS-04 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	j.  Information for physicians:  Prior to each medical examination,
each company must provide the physician with occupational exposure and
medical information for each employee.  We estimate that a safety and
health technician will spend one hour preparing data for each employee,
and that 2,500 employees will be affected.  The industrial hygienist
wage rate is equivalent to GS-13 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	k.  Material safety data sheets:  Each company must provide personnel
with information on the hazards of the cargoes carried and the Benzene
contained in the cargo.  This must be placed on the vessel for the
crew’s use.  This information consists of data sheets prepared from
information supplied by companies producing the cargoes; alternatively,
for pure Benzene, the company can use the information provided in 46 CFR
197 Appendices A and B.  Once this information is prepared, the only
burden is selecting, duplicating, and supplying them to each tank ship
and tow boat as needed.  We estimate that a clerk will require about 15
minutes (0.25 hour) to select, copy, and locate the appropriate
information sheet on each tank ship or tow boat.  (It is not necessary
to post the data sheets on each vessel, only that they be available to
the crew).  Furthermore, we estimate that on an annual basis there are
700 vessels that carry 10 different cargoes of interest for a total of
7,000 listings each year.  The clerical wage rate is equivalent to a
GS-05 (Out Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

	l.  Employee training:  Each company must annually train all employees
that may be exposed to Benzene or Benzene-containing vapors, in the
hazards associated with Benzene and the need for safety measures and
health monitoring.  In order to document that they have trained their
workers, they must record the fact that they have done so.  We estimate
3,300 employees will be trained annually, and that recording their names
will require five minutes (0.083 hour) of a technician’s time per
employee.  The technical time wage rate is equivalent to a GS-04 (Out
Gov’t).

For the estimated annual hour and cost burden, see Appendix A.

Estimate of hour and cost burden--Summary:  The total average annual
hour and cost burden are presented by category in Appendix B.

13.  Annual estimate of capital and startup cost to respondents.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government.

The annualized Federal Government cost estimate is $6,804 (see Appendix
C).  The cost is based on Coast Guard personnel review of the benzene
records during periodic inspections, random boardings, and post-casualty
investigations.  We estimate that there will be approximately 1,000
benzene record reviews per year and that a review will be conducted by a
CG Lieutenant (O-3) taking about 5 minutes (0.08333 hours) per review.
The wage rate shown is in accordance with the current edition of
COMDTINST 7310.1(series) for “In-Government” personnel.

15.  Reasons for change in the burden.

There is no change in burden.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval to not display the expiration date.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18.  Explain each exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  Permissible exposure limits (PEL) –Time weighted average: 1 ppm;
PEL – Short Term Exposure Limit: 5 ppm.

  All hourly wage rates referenced in this document are based on
COMDTINST 7301.1(series).

1625-0063

  PAGE  7  of   NUMPAGES   7


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 46421]
[DOCID:fr09se09-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 233--161]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

September 2, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff has reviewed the
application for amendment of license for the Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project
(FERC No. 233) and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA). The
project is located on the Pit River, in Shasta County, California and
occupies 746 acres of lands of the United States administered by the
Forest Supervisors of the Shasta-Trinity and Lassen National Forests.
    The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed addition of new generating
capacity and construction of a new powerhouse and concludes that
authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective
measures would not constitute a major Federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment. On August
27, 2009, the Commission issued the Order Amending License which
authorized the construction and operation of the Britton Powerhouse.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. Additional information about the
project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary
link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21734 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38897-38901]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3635; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-037-AD;
Amendment 39-18553; AD 2016-12-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; A319 series airplanes; A320-211, -
212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321 series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder
(DAH) indicating that certain structural repair manual (SRM) inspection
requirements for the fuselage skin repairs are insufficient to detect
cracks. This AD requires an inspection to determine whether any
fuselage external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished, an
inspection for cracking of certain repaired external fuselage skin
areas in the fuselage, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 20, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 20,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3635.

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-2015-
3635; 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 (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, 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:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318
series airplanes; A319 series airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -
232, and -233 airplanes; and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58226) (``the
NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating
that the fuselage skin repairs are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to
require an inspection to determine whether any fuselage external skin
(doubler) repairs have been accomplished, an inspection for cracking of
certain repaired external fuselage skin areas in the fuselage, and
repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0036R1, dated March 31, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A318
series airplanes; A319 series airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -
232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During A320 family Extended Service Goal full scale fatigue
tests, it was demonstrated that the inspection thresholds defined in
the current Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for the A320 family skin
repairs are insufficient to detect possible cracks becoming after
repairs. The findings are limited to 1.2 [millimeter] (mm) fuselage
skin and cover for all cut-out external repairs. The internal
repairs are not affected.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the fuselage at the repaired skin area(s).
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A53N007-14 to provide inspection
instructions.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0036
[http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/ADFiles/over/a320/,svFileName=2015-0036.pdf] to require a one-time
inspection of the affected areas and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable repair instructions.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, operators have questioned the
inspection threshold for A318 aeroplanes (not yet in the Airbus
AOT), which is actually identical to that for A319 aeroplanes. In
addition, an error has been detected in paragraph (1) [of the EASA
AD], since external doublers may have been installed in the affected
area by a modification that may not be recorded as repair.
    Such doubler installations are also subject to the inspection
requirements of this [EASA] AD, which is therefore revised to
provide clarifications, correcting paragraph (1) [of the EASA AD]
and introducing a Note.

    Required actions include an inspection to determine whether any
fuselage external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished, an
external ultrasonic inspection or an internal low/high frequency eddy
current inspection for cracking of certain repaired external fuselage
skin areas in the fuselage, and repair if necessary. The compliance
times vary depending on airplane configuration. The earliest compliance
time is within 25,200 flight cycles since last repair, or within 350
flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs
later. The latest compliance time is within 45,000 flight cycles since
last repair; within 1,500 flight cycles from the effective date of the
AD, without exceeding 49,100 flight cycles since last repair; or within
350 flight cycles since the effective date of the AD; whichever occurs
latest. 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-2015-3635.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Mr. Bryant Kerr stated that the NPRM is an excellent idea, and it
is always worth improving safety on airplanes.

Request To Revise Applicability

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the NPRM
applicability to apply only to airplanes having repairs that were
completed before May 1, 2015, the date of the revised service repair
manual (SRM). UAL stated that any new airplane deliveries or external
repairs accomplished after the updated SRM thresholds will presumably
have the correct thresholds contained in the maintenance/inspection
program.
    We partially agree with UAL's request. We agree that airplanes with
repairs accomplished using the updated SRM will be in compliance with
certain sections of this AD, such as the timescale for the inspection,
which is a subset of the AD requirements. However, the SRM update will
not replace the remaining AD requirements, which must be applicable to
all airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Exclude Inspected Airplanes

    Delta Airlines (DAL) stated that since certain repairs and
modifications on its airplanes have already had their first inspection
prior to the compliance time specified in the NPRM, the NPRM
requirements should not apply. DAL also stated that if an operator's
maintenance/inspection program is more stringent than the requirements
of paragraph (m) of the proposed AD, the operator should be excluded
from the NPRM requirements.
    We disagree with DAL's request. Accomplishment of the first
inspection is only part of the actions required by this AD. Paragraph
(m) of this AD requires revision of the post-repair inspection
threshold(s) in the operator's maintenance program or inspection
program. This AD includes the minimum requirements for mitigating the
identified unsafe condition. However, under the provisions of paragraph
(n)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of different
methods of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate
that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    DAL requested a compliance time extension from 350 flight cycles to
6 months. DAL stated that depending on

the fleet utilization, an operator of a large, older fleet could be
required to accomplish the compliance rework within a few months,
thereby creating a significant impact on its available resources. DAL
also stated that it is possible that several airplanes will be grounded
because it may not have enough resources to comply with the 350-flight-
cycle limit.
    We do not agree with DAL's request. DAL's rationale for a
compliance time extension does not provide an acceptable level of
safety. The compliance time of this AD is based on a risk assessment.
Some safety issues are more time sensitive than others. We have
considered the compliance time established by EASA, and the overall
risk to the fleet, including the severity of the identified unsafe
condition and the likelihood of the occurrence of the unsafe condition,
to determine the compliance time. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, operators may apply for an extension of
the compliance time by providing a satisfactory rationale explaining
why a compliance time extension provides an acceptable level of safety.
We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify Requirements and Approve Certain Repair Information
Sources

    DAL requested that we make a distinction that the NPRM requirements
apply only to external repair fasteners common to the 1.2-millimeter
(mm) skin. DAL also stated that we should approve category B repairs
done using the latest revision of the SRM and any repair design
approval sheet (RDAS) approved after July 1, 2014. DAL stated that the
applicable Airbus SRM repair inspection thresholds have been revised
this year to address certain inadequacies.
    We do not agree with DAL's requests. Paragraph (g) of this AD
already requires an inspection to determine whether any fuselage
doubler repairs have been accomplished on affected fuselage sections
with a skin thickness of 1.2 mm. DAL did not substantiate how the
corrective actions in any RDAS for category ``B'' repairs approved
after July 1, 2014, and the latest revision of the SRMs would
adequately address the unsafe condition. However, the commenter may use
the provisions of paragraph (n)(2) of this AD for obtaining corrective
actions from a manufacturer. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Inspection Timeframes

    UAL requested clarification on how the NPRM addresses detection of
cracking in the timeframe between the inspection threshold specified in
the NPRM and Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014, and the repetitive inspections specified in the SRM. UAL
stated that the compliance time has a short threshold if the repair
records are inconclusive, which is as early as 350 flight cycles from
the effective date of the AD; therefore, the initial inspection could
be accomplished much earlier than the crack detection period.
    We agree to clarify the inspection timeframes. The 350-flight-cycle
compliance time is a second option to the compliance time specified in
Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014.
The compliance time is based on a risk assessment that takes into
consideration the fatigue crack length propagation. We have considered
the compliance time established by EASA, and the overall risk to the
fleet, including the severity of the identified unsafe condition and
the likelihood of the occurrence of the unsafe condition. No change to
the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Correct Non-Destructive Testing Manual (NTM) Task Numbers

    DAL stated that Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14,
dated July 22, 2014, references incorrect formatting of NTM task
numbers. DAL stated the formatting should be ``51-10-15-270-801-A01''
and ``51-10-16-250-801-A01,'' and not ``51-10-15-270-801-A-01'' and
``51-10-16-250-801-A-01.''
    We disagree with DAL's statement. NTM task numbers 51-10-15-270-
801-A-01 and 51-10-16-250-801-A-01 are correctly referenced in Airbus
Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, and in
the Airbus A318/319/320/321 Non-Destructive Testing Manual. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Clarification of Unsafe Condition Language

    We revised the description of the precipitating event in the
SUMMARY and paragraph (e) of this AD to correspond to the wording used
in the MCAI AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated
July 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an
inspection to detect cracking on repaired 1.2-millimeter fuselage skin
areas on fuselage sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 at external
doubler repairs. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 940 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $159,800, or $170 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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 that 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);
    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):

2016-12-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-18553. Docket No. FAA-2015-3635;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-037-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 20, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that certain structural repair manual (SRM)
inspection requirements for the fuselage skin repairs are
insufficient to detect cracks. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine Repair Areas

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD: Do an inspection to determine whether any fuselage
external skin (doubler) repairs have been accomplished on fuselage
sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 with a skin thickness of 1.2
millimeters. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable
in lieu of this inspection if the identification of applicable
repairs can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) For Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes: Except as
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraphs 4.1.1.b. and 4.1.1.c. of the
``Accomplishment Timescale'' of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission
(AOT) A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, or within 350 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For Model A318 series airplanes: Except as specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, at the Model A319 airplane
time specified in paragraphs 4.1.1.b. and 4.1.1.c. of the
``Accomplishment Timescale'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014, or within 350 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where paragraphs 4.1.1.b. and 4.1.1.c. of the
``Accomplishment Timescale'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014, specify ``FC,'' this AD specifies ``flight cycles.''
    (2) Where paragraphs 4.1.1.b. and 4.1.1.c. of the
``Accomplishment Timescale'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014, specify ``from AOT issuance,'' this AD specifies ``as of
the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Inspection for Cracking

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
it is determined that any fuselage external skin (doubler) repair
has been accomplished on fuselage section 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, or 17:
At the applicable time specified paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
AD, do an external ultrasonic inspection or an internal low
frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection for cracking of all of the
repaired 1.2-millimeter (mm) fuselage skin areas, in accordance with
the instructions specified in paragraph 4.2.2, ``Inspection
Requirements,'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014,
except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Optional Inspection for Cracking

    As an optional method of compliance to the ultrasonic inspection
or LFEC inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Do a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking in the cut-out
surrounding the fastener area, at and in front (approximately 10-15
millimeters) of the fastener row, after doubler removal and before
any new extended doubler installation, 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).

(k) Optional Repetitive Inspections

    In lieu of doing the inspection required by paragraph (i) of
this AD: Within the applicable compliance time specified in
paragraph 4.1.1, ``Accomplishment Timescale,'' of Airbus AOT
A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, after accomplishing the inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do a detailed inspection or
HFEC inspection and repeat the inspection thereafter within the
applicable compliance times specified in paragraph 4.1.1,
``Accomplishment Timescale,'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014. The inspections must be done in accordance with the
instructions of paragraph 4.2.2, ``Inspection Requirements,'' of
Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014. For Model A318 series
airplanes, use the applicable compliance times and instructions
specified in Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, that are
specified for Model A319 series airplanes.

(l) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (i), (j), or (k) of this AD: Before further flight, repair
the cracking, in accordance with the instructions of paragraph
4.2.3, ``Findings,'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014,
except where Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014, specifies
to contact Airbus for a repair design approval sheet or for further
instructions, this AD requires repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(m) FAA-Approved Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Concurrently with the accomplishment of any repair required by
paragraph (l) of this AD, revise the post-repair inspection
threshold(s) in the applicable FAA-approved maintenance program or
inspection program, as applicable, in accordance with the
instructions specified in paragraph 4.1.1, ``Accomplishment
Timescale,'' of Airbus AOT A53N007-14, dated July 22, 2014; except
for Model A318 series airplanes use the instructions specified for
Model A319 series airplanes.

(n) 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: Sanjay
Ralhan, 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.
    (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 the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0036R1, dated March 31,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3635.

(p) 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) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53N007-14, dated July
22, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on May 31, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13741 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P