PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: Office of Information Collection, Office of Environmental Information, U. S. EPA 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2020 0003 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. x Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes x No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. x Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Confidentiality Rules 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) : EPA ICR # 1665.03 9. Keywords: Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

10. Abstract: In the course of administering environmental protection statutes, EPA collects data from thousands of facilities in many sectors of the U. S. economy. In many cases, industry marks the data it submits to EPA as confidential business information ( CBI). EPA established the procedures described in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, to protect the confidentiality of information as well as the rights of the public under FOIA. In accordance with these regulations, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination ( e. g., in response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation), it notifies the affected business and provides an opportunity to comment ( i. e., to submit a substantiation). This ICR relates to the collection of information that will assist EPA in determining whether previously submitted information is entitled to confidential treatment.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1330 b. Total annual responses 1101 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0%

c. Total hours requested 6,432 d. Current OMB inventory 9703 e. Difference ( 3271)

f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 3271) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. x On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Rebecca G. Moser Phone: 202 260 6780 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Collection Services Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12444-12448]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0982; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-09-AD;
Amendment 39-16954; AD 2012-03-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all GE
CF6-80C2 model turbofan engines, including engines marked on the engine
data plate as CF6-80C2B7F1. This AD was prompted by a report of a
supplier shipping a batch of nonconforming No. 3 bearing packings that
had incorrect cooling holes and by subsequent reports of nonconforming
No. 3 bearing packings being installed on engines in service. This AD
requires a one-time inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing for an
incorrect cooling hole size and, if it is found nonconforming, removing
the packing and removing certain engine rotating life-limited parts
(LLPs), if they were operated with unacceptable rotor bore cooling flow
for a specified number of cycles. We are issuing this AD to prevent an
uncontained failure of the high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor or the
low-pressure turbine (LPT) rotor, or both, which could cause damage to
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 5, 2012. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the AD as of April 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact GE
Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:
513-552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document 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: Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2011 (76 FR
64291). That NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of the No.
3 bearing packing for an incorrect cooling hole size and, if it is
found nonconforming, removing the packing and removing certain engine
rotating LLPs, if they were operated with the wrong packing for a
specified number of cycles.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM as Written

    Commenters the Boeing Company and Federal Express support the NPRM
as written.

Request To Correct Part Number

    Commenters GE and Delta Airlines (Delta) indicated that the part
number noted in the Discussion section of the NPRM (76 FR 64291,
October 18, 2011) was incorrect and should be ``1471M25P04'' rather
than ``1292M70P04'' as listed in the NPRM.
    We agree. However, the Applicability section of the final rule is
correct. We did not change the AD.

Request To Clarify Incorrect Shipping Versus Installing Wrong Seal

    Commenter Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa) asked that we state more
clearly the difference between the issues of packings shipped in a
batch of nonconforming parts and nonconforming packings installed in
engines in service.
    We disagree. The AD sufficiently describes the difference between
nonconforming packings shipped by the supplier and those in service. We
did not change the AD.

Request To Correct Cost

    Commenter Lufthansa suggested that the cost of compliance estimate
in the NPRM covers only the cost of shipped nonconforming parts and
does not include the cost of replacing nonconforming packings that are
installed in engines in service. Lufthansa also noted that the
installed parts are covered by a different service bulletin and are not
covered by warranty.
    We disagree. Our cost estimate covers the inspection and installed
parts and is independent of any possible warranty coverage. We did not
change the AD.

Request To Update GE Service Bulletin (SB) Reference

    Commenter Lufthansa requested that we provide full instructions for
compliance for engine models CF6-80C2L1F and CF6-80C2K1F. Lufthansa
noted that neither the NPRM (76 FR 64291, October 18, 2011) nor GE SB
CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 provide enough information for these engines to
comply with the proposed rule. Lufthansa requested that we refer to
Revision 01 of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 rather than to the original
version.
    We agree. We changed the AD by updating the GE service bulletin
references in the AD to GE SB CF6-

80C2 S/B 72-1405, Revision 01, dated December 16, 2011.

Request To Revise Cost of Compliance Estimate

    Commenter Atlas Air requested that we revise the cost estimate by
including cost to replace LLPs.
    We agree. We revised the cost of compliance section in the AD to
include our estimate for the total fleet replacement cost of LLPs with
unacceptable cooling flows.

Request for a Cut-Off Date

    Commenter Presidential Flights requested that we specify a date
after which the batch of non-conforming No. 3 bearing packings with
incorrect cooling holes was supplied, and that we limit applicability
to engines that had a shop visit after this specified date. Commenter
Japan Airlines requested that the AD not apply to engines with a last
shop visit prior to November 30, 2009, if there have not been reports
of non-conforming packings for these engines. Commenter Atlas Air
commented that applicability should only apply to engines with packings
from the affected batch of nonconforming parts shipped from a supplier.
    We do not agree. The AD applies to all CF6-80C2 engines, regardless
of the date of the last shop visit, the service location, or the engine
serial number. The explanation for inspecting the entire fleet is
provided in the Discussion section of the NPRM (76 FR 64291, October
18, 2011). We did not change the AD.

Request To Limit AD by Engine Serial Number

    Commenter Atlas Air also asked that applicability be changed to
specific affected engine serial numbers. Commenter TES Aviation Group
requested clarification regarding whether the AD applied only to
engines with certain serial numbers or maintained in certain service
locations.
    We disagree. The AD applies to all CF6-80C2 engines, regardless of
engine serial number or last service location. We did not change the
AD.

Request Regarding Shop Visit

    Commenter GE requested that the applicability be changed to apply
to only those engines that have had a shop visit where the fan was
removed from the engine core and GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 was not
completed during or since that visit. GE indicated that no new
production engines are affected by the nonconformance and engines that
already complied with the GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 shop inspection
have accomplished the requirements of the proposed rule.
    We disagree. Excluding all engines that have not yet had a shop
visit where the fan was removed from the core leaves an engine
population in service that might be susceptible to installation of the
nonconforming packing. We did not change the AD.

Credit for Previous Inspection

    Commenter All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that credit be given to
engines inspected in accordance with GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 before
the effective date of this AD.
    We agree. We changed the AD to indicate that a previous inspection
meets the one-time inspection requirements of this AD.

Request To Add Additional Engine Models for Compliance

    Commenter Lufthansa requested that we include CF6-45/50, CF6-80A,
and CF6-80E1 engines, as applicable, to the AD.
    We disagree. We have not received reports of nonconforming packing
installed in any engine other than the CF6-80C2. We did not change the
AD.

Request To Mandate Compliance of Spare Parts

    An unidentified commenter requested that we mandate compliance of
spare parts.
    We do not agree. This AD affects assembled engines in service on
the effective date of the AD. Parts installed in an engine after the
effective date of this AD must be airworthy per Sec.  43.13 of Title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations. Operators may choose to perform
inspections in accordance with this AD before returning engines from
shop into service, although these inspections are not required by this
AD before specified compliance times. In order to avoid confusion, we
added a prohibition statement, paragraph (i), which does not allow re-
installation of the LLPs removed from service in accordance with this
AD.

Request To Clarify Terminating Action

    Commenter ANA requested that we clarify the terminating action to
the AD.
    We disagree. The AD mandates a one-time inspection and disposition.
Terminating action does not apply. We did not change the AD.

Request To Allow Borescope Inspection (BSI) To Determine Packing
Configuration

    Eight commenters requested that we approve a BSI to determine the
No. 3 bearing packing configuration either on-wing or in the shop and
to determine if further actions are necessary.
    We partially agree. We agree that a BSI may be used to measure
packing hole diameters to determine acceptable cooling flows. We
disagree with using a BSI to determine the part number of the packing
or the need for further actions as a BSI cannot be used to make such a
determination on all affected engines.
    We changed the AD to allow the one-time No. 3 bearing packing
inspection to occur at the next shop visit if a successful optional BSI
is performed within 500 cycles in service (CIS) from the effective date
of the AD.

Request To Modify Compliance Time

    Commenters GE and Delta requested that we change the compliance
time of the one-time inspection to be performed at the next shop visit
in which the fan is separated from the HPC. GE indicated that it has
not determined that removal from service prior to 5,500 CIS is
required. GE regards 5,500 CIS as an economic threshold not a hard life
removal threshold.
    We disagree. We do not agree with unconditional deferral to the
next shop visit as unacceptable cooling flow could affect the lives of
the LLPs. We did not change the AD.

Request To Address Fan Frames With Small Cooling Holes

    Commenter Atlas Air asked that the service information incorporated
by reference be revised to address certain fan frame part numbers with
small cooling holes. Atlas Air indicated that certain small fan frame
hole diameters may affect cooling flows, even though the packing
configuration is determined to provide acceptable flows.
    We do not agree. The cooling flow assessment addressed the worst
case configuration. Cooling flow acceptability should be determined
from the packing hole diameter, not the fan frame hole diameter. We did
not change the AD.

Request for Action for Engines That Have 5,500 CIS Since Last Shop
Visit

    Six commenters requested that a drawdown schedule be provided for
engines that have accumulated 5,500 or more CIS since the last engine
shop visit when the fan was removed from the core. Some of these
commenters reported that some of their engines were already past 5,500
CIS since the last engine shop visit in which the fan was removed from
the core.
    We agree. We changed the AD to require the inspection within 500
CIS of

the effective date of this AD for those post-5,500-cycle engines.

Request on LLP Pass/Fail Criteria

    Commenters Air Canada and TES Aviation Group requested that growth
checks, hardness checks, or calculations be allowed to determine the
disposition of LLPs affected by the unacceptable cooling flows instead
of removing the parts from service if they were operated for 5,500 CIS
or more with a No. 3 bearing packing determined to be ``UNACCEPTABLE
FLOW.''
    We do not agree. We have no technical substantiation that supports
pass/fail criteria for determining if LLPs have operated with an
unacceptable flow packing configuration. We did not change the AD.

Request on LLP Determination

    Commenter Presidential Flight requested that LLP determination be
based on CIS since first shop visit after supply of the affected batch,
not the last shop visit because, they noted, an engine may have had
multiple shop visits since the affected batch of nonconforming packings
was shipped. Commenters Air Canada, Atlas Air, and TES Aviation Group
indicated that it is impossible to determine how many cycles the LLPs
have operated with nonconforming packings, because the packings are not
serialized or tracked. In addition, the commenters noted that, if an
engine is inspected and found to have a conforming packing, there is no
guarantee that a nonconforming packing had not been used on that engine
between earlier shop visits. Also, the commenters observed that it is
impossible to estimate the effect on life of the LLPs that had operated
with a nonconforming packing and were later removed from the engine.
    We do not agree. Installation dates when nonconforming packings
might have been installed into engines in service are unknown.
Similarly, engine operation with nonconforming packing cannot be
determined other than via inspection of the currently installed
packing. We did not change the AD.

Request for Disposition of LLPs for Unacceptable Flows

    Commenters GE, American Airlines, and Delta requested that we
provide the requirement for LLP disposition in the case of the cooling
flows determined not to be ``CORRECT FLOW'' in accordance with GE SB
CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405, dated June 30, 2011.
    We agree. Unacceptable cooling flows are now addressed in Revision
01 of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405, dated December 16, 2011, and GE SB
CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1427, dated December 16, 2011. Therein, cooling flows
not affecting the LLPs in the rotors are described as ``acceptable
flow.'' We revised the AD in paragraph (h) to remove from service those
LLPs that had been operated for 5,500 CIS or more with unacceptable
flow and added paragraph (g) to define criteria for acceptable flows
determined during an optional borescope inspection.

Request To Revise Criteria for Shop Visit

    Commenters GE and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines requested that the
induction of an engine into a shop solely for a core vibration trim
balance procedure that requires separation of a major engine flange not
be considered an engine shop visit. Another commenter, Lufthansa,
requested that the induction of an engine into a shop solely for the
removal or replacement of the stage 1 fan disk or the fan forward case
also not be considered an engine shop visit.
    We partially agree. We agree that the induction of an engine into a
shop solely for core vibration balance should not be considered an
engine shop visit for the purposes of this AD, because it does not
require separation of the fan from the core. We disagree that the
induction of an engine into a shop solely for removal or replacement of
the stage 1 fan disk or fan forward case should not be considered an
engine shop visit for the purposes of this AD, because these procedures
require maintenance to the fan module.
    We changed the AD to define a shop visit as not including induction
of an engine into a shop solely for core vibration trim balance
procedures that require separation of a major engine flange.

Request To Revise Reference to Fan and Core Module

    Commenter Delta requested that we use the phrase ``fan module
removed from the core module'' instead of ``fan removed from the
core.''
    We do not agree. The current language is consistent with service
documents that we incorporate by reference in this AD. We did not
change the AD.

Explanation of Additional Changes to This AD

    We provided incorrect contact information for GE in the NPRM (76 FR
64291, October 18, 2011). We have updated the contact information.

Conclusion

    We reviewed all the data presented, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have
determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 64291, October 18, 2011) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 64291, October 18, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 688 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1
work-hour per engine to perform the borescope inspection, about 1 work-
hour per engine to perform the shop inspection, and 1 work-hour to
replace the No. 3 bearing packing, if found nonconforming. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $488 per
engine for the estimated 21 engines that will require new No. 3 bearing
packing. We estimate that one set of LLPs will need replacement, and
the total replacement cost is $1,201,200. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators to be $1,330,193.
Our estimate is exclusive of any possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on

the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-03-12 General Electric Company (GE): Amendment 39-16954; Docket
No. FAA-2011-0982; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-09-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 5, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD is applicable to all GE CF6-80C2 model turbofan engines,
including engines marked on the engine data plate as CF6-80C2B7F1.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a supplier shipping a batch
of nonconforming No. 3 bearing packings that had an incorrect size
of cooling holes and by several subsequent reports of nonconforming
No. 3 bearing packings being installed on engines in service. The
nonconformance of No. 3 bearing packings will result in incorrect
high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor and low-pressure turbine (LPT)
rotor bore cooling and, if not corrected, could result in a reduced
parts life of the life-limited rotating parts. We are issuing this
AD to prevent an uncontained failure of the HPC rotor or the LPT
rotor, or both, which could cause damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) One-Time Inspection and Disposition of the No. 3 Bearing Packing

    (1) Perform a one-time inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing.
Use paragraphs 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(1)(b) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405,
Revision 01, dated December 16, 2011, to do your inspection. Inspect
as follows:
    (i) Before 5,500 engine cycles-in-service (CIS) since the last
engine shop visit where the fan was removed from the core, or within
500 CIS from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
or
    (ii) At the next shop visit, if the engine passes an optional
borescope inspection (BSI) within 500 CIS from the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Remove the packing from service before further flight if the
wrong packing part number (P/N) is found on the engine during the
inspection of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Optional BSI

    The optional BSI identified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD
must determine an ``ACCEPTABLE FLOW'' packing is installed. Use
paragraph 3.A, excluding subparagraphs 3.A.(4)(a)6 through
3.A.(4)(a)9 and 3.A.(4)(b)5, of the Accomplishment Instructions of
GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1427, dated December 16, 2011, to do your BSI.

(h) Disposition of Affected Rotating Parts

    Remove the following rotating parts from service, if they were
operated for 5,500 CIS or more with a packing determined to be an
``UNACCEPTABLE FLOW'' packing using paragraph 3.A.(1)(c) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405, Revision
01, dated December 16, 2011:
    (1) HPC rotor stage 10-through-14 spool, any P/N,
    (2) HPC rotor stage 11-through-14 spool, any P/N,
    (3) LPT rotor stage 3 disk, P/N 9373M53P05, and
    (4) LPT rotor stage 4 disk, P/N 9373M54P03.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install or reinstall
in any engine any rotating part that has been removed from service
in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is the
induction of an engine into the shop after the effective date of
this AD, where the separation of a major engine flange occurs;
except the following maintenance actions, or any combination, are
not considered engine shop visits:
    (1) Induction of an engine into a shop solely for removal of the
compressor top or bottom case for airfoil maintenance or variable
stator vane bushing replacement.
    (2) Induction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement of
the turbine rear frame.
    (3) Induction of an engine into a shop solely for replacement of
the accessory gearbox or transfer gearbox, or both.
    (4) Induction of an engine into a shop solely for core vibration
trim balance procedure that requires separation of a major engine
flange.

(k) Credit for Previous Action

    An inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing performed before the
effective date of this AD using GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405 satisfies
the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Tomasz Rakowski,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405, Revision 01, dated December 16,
2011, and GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1427, dated December 16, 2011,
pertain to the subject of this AD. Contact GE Aviation, M/D Rm. 285,
One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy of this service information.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information:
    (i) General Electric Company (GE) Service Bulletin (SB) CF6-80C2
S/B 72-1405, dated June 30, 2011;
    (ii) GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1405, Revision 01, dated December 16,
2011; and
    (iii) GE SB CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1427, dated December 16, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact GE
Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:
513-552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-

6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 7, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-4747 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82439-82441]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25882]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98981; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Global X Bitcoin
Trust Under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares

November 17, 2023.
    On August 4, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or
``Exchange'') 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 list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
Global X Bitcoin Trust (``Trust'') under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on August 23, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98156 (Aug. 17,
2023), 88 FR 57490 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2023-058/srcboebzx2023058.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 26, 2023, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
of the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98531, 88 FR 67829
(Oct. 2, 2023). The Commission designated November 21, 2023, as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal

    As described in more detail in the Notice,\7\ the Exchange proposes
to list and trade the Shares of the Trust under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
which governs the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The investment objective of the Trust is to reflect the performance
of the price of bitcoin less the expenses of the

Trust's operations.\8\ The Trust's assets will consist of bitcoin held
by the Trust's custodian on behalf of the Trust.\9\ The Trust will
value its Shares daily based on the value of bitcoin as reflected by
the CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index (XBX) (``Index'').\10\ The
administrator of the Trust will determine the net asset value (``NAV'')
of the Trust on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading,
as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m. ET.\11\ In determining the
Trust's NAV, the administrator will calculate the price of the bitcoin
held by the Trust as reflected by the Index as of 4:00 p.m. ET.\12\
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in ``in-
kind'' transactions with authorized participants in large blocks of
Shares.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id. at 57499. Global X Digital Assets (``Sponsor'') is
the sponsor of the Trust. See id. at 57490.
    \9\ See id. at 57499. The Trust generally does not intend to
hold cash or cash equivalents; however, there may be situations
where the Trust would unexpectedly hold cash or cash equivalents on
a temporary basis. See id.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id. at 57500.
    \12\ See id. at 57499-00.
    \13\ See id. at 57499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
CboeBZX-2023-058 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \14\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons
to provide comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\15\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to
submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views:
    1. What are commenters' views on whether the proposed Trust and
Shares would be susceptible to manipulation? What are commenters' views
generally on whether the Exchange's proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices? What are commenters'
views generally with respect to the liquidity and transparency of the
bitcoin markets and the bitcoin markets' susceptibility to
manipulation?
    2. Based on data and analysis provided and the academic research
cited by the Exchange,\17\ do commenters agree with the Exchange that
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (``CME''), on which CME bitcoin futures
trade, represents a regulated market of significant size related to
spot bitcoin? \18\ What are commenters' views on whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate the Shares
would also have to trade on the CME to manipulate the Shares? \19\ Do
commenters agree with the Exchange that trading in the Shares would not
be the predominant influence on prices in the CME bitcoin futures
market? \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 88 FR at 57495-98.
    \18\ See id. at 57491.
    \19\ See id. at 57498.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Exchange states that bitcoin is resistant to price
manipulation and that other means to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices ``exist to justify dispensing with the
requisite surveillance sharing agreement'' with a regulated market of
significant size related to spot bitcoin.\21\ In support, the Exchange
states, among other things, that the geographically diverse and
continuous nature of bitcoin trading make it difficult and
prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of bitcoin, and that the
fragmentation across bitcoin platforms, the relatively slow speed of
transactions, and the capital necessary to maintain a significant
presence on each trading platform make manipulation of bitcoin prices
through continuous trading activity challenging.\22\ The Exchange also
states that offering only in-kind creations and redemptions provides
``unique protections against potential attempts to manipulate the price
of the Shares'' and that the price the Sponsor uses to value the
Trust's bitcoin ``is not particularly important.'' \23\ Do commenters
agree with the Exchange's statements regarding the bitcoin market's
resistance to price manipulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. at 57497 n.49.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id. at 57498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Exchange also states that it will execute a surveillance-
sharing agreement with Coinbase, Inc. (``Coinbase'') that is intended
to supplement the Exchange's market surveillance program.\24\ According
to the Exchange, the agreement is ``expected to have the hallmarks of a
surveillance-sharing agreement between two members of the [Intermarket
Surveillance Group], which would give the Exchange supplemental access
to data regarding spot [b]itcoin trades on Coinbase where the Exchange
determines it is necessary as part of its surveillance program for the
Commodity-Based Trust Shares.'' \25\ Based on the description of the
surveillance-sharing agreement as provided by the Exchange, what are
commenters' views of such an agreement if finalized and executed? Do
commenters agree with the Exchange that such an agreement with Coinbase
would be ``helpful in detecting, investigating, and deterring fraud and
market manipulation in the Commodity-Based Trust Shares''? \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See id. The Exchange states that ``[t]his means that the
Exchange expects to receive market data for orders and trades from
Coinbase, which it will utilize in surveillance of the trading of
Commodity-Based Trust Shares.'' Id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Some sponsors of proposed spot bitcoin exchange-traded products
have also provided data regarding the correlation between certain
bitcoin spot markets and the CME bitcoin futures market.\27\ What are
commenters' views on the correlation between the bitcoin spot market
and the CME bitcoin futures

market? What are commenters' views on the extent to which that
correlation provides evidence that the CME bitcoin futures market is
``significant'' related to spot bitcoin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 to, and
Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or
Disapprove, a Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Shares of the
ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based
Trust Shares, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98112 (Aug. 11,
2023), 88 FR 55743 (Aug. 16, 2023) (including data from sponsor
21Shares US LLC that purports to show correlations of returns across
the two-year period from January 20, 2021, to February 1, 2023, of
no less than 92% among certain spot bitcoin platforms and between
the CME bitcoin futures market and such spot bitcoin platforms on an
hourly basis, and no less than 78% on a minutely basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm.
on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved
or disapproved by December 15, 2023. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
December 29, 2023.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number
    SR-CboeBZX-2023-058 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-CboeBZX-2023-058. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-058 and should
be submitted on or before December 15, 2023. Rebuttal comments should
be submitted by December 29, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25882 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P