[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50750-50757]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18201]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78422; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change for a New NYSE Arca
Rule 13.9 and a New NYSE Arca Equities Rule 11.9 and To Make Conforming
Changes to NYSE Arca Rule 3.2 and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2

July 27, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 14, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a new NYSE Arca Rule 13.9 and a new NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 11.9 governing the failure to meet eligibility or
qualification standards or prerequisites for access to services based
on rules of the Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange, LLC and
NYSE MKT LLC, and (2) to make conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rule 3.2
and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes a new NYSE Arca Rule 13.9 (``Rule 13.9'') and
a new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 11.9 (``Rule 11.9'') governing the
failure to meet the eligibility or qualification standards or
prerequisites for access to services based on Rules 9555 (Failure to
Meet the Eligibility or Qualification Standards or Prerequisites for
Access to Services) and 9559 (Hearing Procedures for Expedited
Proceedings Under the Rule 9550 Series) of the Exchange's affiliates
New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE
MKT'').
    The Exchange also proposes conforming changes to NYSE Arca Rule 3.2
(Options Committees) and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2 (Equity
Committees), which set forth the authority and jurisdiction of the NYSE
Arca Ethics and Business Conduct Committee (``EBCC'') and the NYSE Arca
Equities Business Conduct Committee (``BCC''), respectively.
Background
    In 2013, the NYSE adopted disciplinary rules that are, with certain
exceptions, substantially the same as the

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') Rule 8000
Series and Rule 9000 Series, and which set forth rules for conducting
investigations and enforcement actions.\4\ The NYSE disciplinary rules
were implemented on July 1, 2013.\5\ In 2016, NYSE MKT also adopted the
Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series, which rules are, with certain
exceptions, substantially the same as those of NYSE and FINRA.\6\ The
NYSE MKT disciplinary rules were implemented on April 15, 2016.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (January 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02) (``2013
Notice''), 69045 (March 5, 2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-
NYSE-2013-02) (``2013 NYSE Approval Order''), and 69963 (July 10,
2013), 78 FR 42573 (July 16, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-49).
    \5\ See NYSE Information Memorandum 13-8 (May 24, 2013).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 77241 (February 26,
2016), 81 FR 11311 (March 3, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30) (``2016 MKT
Notice'').
    \7\ See NYSE MKT Information Memorandum 16-02 (March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555 (``Rule 9555''), which NYSE Arca and
NYSE Arca Equities propose to adopt in substantially the same form as
approved by the Commission for NYSE and as published for immediate
effectiveness by NYSE MKT, govern the failure to meet the eligibility
or qualification standards, or prerequisites for access to services
offered by the Exchange.
    Under Rule 9555, if a member organization or covered person \8\
does not meet the eligibility or qualification standards set forth in
the NYSE and NYSE MKT's rules,\9\ staff may provide written notice to
such covered person or member organization stating that the failure to
become eligible or qualified will result in a suspension or
cancellation of membership or a suspension or bar from associating with
any member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under NYSE and NYSE MKT Rules, a member organization means a
registered broker or dealer (unless exempt pursuant to the Act) that
is a member of FINRA or another registered securities exchange. See
NYSE Rule 2(b)(i) & NYSE MKT Rule 2(b)(i)--Equities. A covered
person under the NYSE and NYSE MKT disciplinary rules means a
member, principal executive, approved person, registered or non-
registered employee of a member organization (and, in the case of
NYSE MKT, an ATP Holder), or other person (excluding a member
organization) subject to the jurisdiction of the NYSE and NYSE MKT,
respectively. See NYSE Rule 9120(g); NYSE MKT Rule 9120(g).
     In order to refer to the same individuals encompassed by the
definitions of member organization and covered person under the NYSE
and NYSE MKT Rules, NYSE Arca proposes to use the phrase ``OTP Firm,
OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder'' in
proposed Rule 13.9. NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(d) defines an ``Associated
Person'' as a person who is a partner, officer, director, member of
a limited liability company, trustee of a business trust, employee
of an OTP Firm or any person directly or indirectly controlling,
controlled by or under common control with an OTP Firm. Similarly,
NYSE Arca Equities would use the phrase ``ETP Holder or Associated
Person of an ETP Holder'' in proposed Rule 11.9. Under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 1.1(f), ``Associated Person'' refers to a person who
is a partner, officer, director, member of a limited liability
company, trustee of a business trust, employee of an ETP Holder or
any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or
under common control with an ETP Holder.
    \9\ See, e.g., NYSE Rules 300-324 (Admission of Members); NYSE
MKT Rules 300--Equities-324--Equities (Admission of Members); NYSE
MKT Office Rules, Section 4 (Employees and Admission of Members and
Member Organizations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under Rule 9555, if a member organization or covered
person does not meet the prerequisites for access to services offered
by the NYSE and NYSE MKT or a member organization thereof or cannot be
permitted to continue to have access to services offered by NYSE and
NYSE MKT or a member organization thereof with safety to investors,
creditors, members, or the Exchange, staff may provide written notice
to such member organization or covered person limiting or prohibiting
access to services offered by the NYSE and NYSE MKT or a member
organization thereof.
    The limitation, prohibition, suspension, cancellation, or bar
referenced in the notice becomes effective 14 days after service of the
notice unless the member organization or covered person requests a
hearing during that time, except that the effective date for a notice
of a limitation or prohibition on access to services shall be upon
service of the notice. The text of NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555 is
substantially the same as FINRA's counterpart rule, except for certain
conforming and technical changes.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 2013 NYSE Approval Order, 78 FR at 15394; 2016 MKT
Notice, 81 FR at 11333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9559 (``Rule 9559'') set forth hearing
procedures for expedited proceedings under the NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule
9550 Series, including for proceedings under Rule 9555, and is
substantially similar to FINRA's counterpart rule. Currently, NYSE Arca
and NYSE Arca Equities do not have a comparable procedural rule. As
described below, the Exchange proposes to include procedural aspects of
Rule 9559 that are applicable to expedited proceedings under Rule 9555
within the proposed rules for NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities.
Proposed Rule Change
    NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities propose to adopt a new Rule 13.9
and 11.9, respectively, that would be substantially the same as Rule
9555 and that would incorporate certain procedural requirements for
expedited hearings under Rule 9555 drawn from Rule 9559. NYSE Arca and
NYSE Arca Equities are not proposing to adopt Rule 9559 in its
entirety. Rule 9559 contains a number of provisions that do not relate
to hearing procedures under Rule 9555.
NYSE Arca Rule 13.9
    Proposed Rule 13.9 would govern when an OTP Firm, OTP Holder or
Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder does not meet the
eligibility or qualification standards set forth in the Exchange's
rules;\11\ does not meet the prerequisites for access to services
offered by the Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof; or cannot
be permitted to continue to have access to services offered by the
Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof with safety to investors,
creditors, OTP Firms, OTP Holders, or the Exchange. Like Rule 9555, the
proposed Rule would be divided into separate subsections describing the
notice; service of the notice; the contents of the notice; the
effective date of the limitation, prohibition, suspension, cancellation
or bar; requests for a hearing; failure to request a hearing; and a
request for termination of the limitation, prohibition or suspension.
Proposed Rule 13.9 would have a section describing certain procedures,
based on Rule 9559, to be followed when a party requests a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 2 (Options Trading Permits); NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 2 (Equity Trading Permits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.9(a) (Notice to OTP Firms, OTP Holders or
Associated Persons of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder of Suspension,
Cancellation, Bar, or Limitation or Prohibition on Access to Services)
would provide that if an OTP Firm, OTP Holder or Associated Person of
an OTP Firm or OTP Holder does not meet the eligibility or
qualification standards set forth in the Exchange's Rules, Exchange
staff may provide written notice to such OTP Firm, OTP Holder or
Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder stating that the failure
to become eligible or qualified will result in a suspension or
cancellation of trading privileges or a suspension or bar from
associating with an OTP Firm or OTP Holder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed rule would provide that if an OTP Firm, OTP
Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder does not
meet the prerequisites for access to services offered by the Exchange
or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof or cannot be

permitted to continue to have access to services offered by the
Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof with safety to investors,
creditors, member organizations, or the Exchange, Exchange staff may
provide written notice to such OTP Firm, OTP Holder or Associated
Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder limiting or prohibiting access to
services offered by the Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder
thereof.\13\ Proposed Rule 13.9(a) is substantially the same as NYSE
and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(a), except that it substitutes references to
``member organization or covered person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder
or Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.9(b) (Service of Notice) would provide that
Exchange staff shall serve the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated
Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder with the notice described in
subsection (a) and that a copy of the notice served on an Associated
Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder also shall be served on such OTP
Firm or OTP Holder. Further, the proposed Rule would provide that when
counsel for the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP
Firm or OTP Holder agrees to accept service of such notice, Exchange
staff shall \14\ serve notice on counsel. Proposed Rule 13.9(b) is
substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(b), except that
it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered person''
with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or
OTP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rule 9555 provides that Exchange staff ``may'' serve notice
on counsel or other person authorized to represent others under NYSE
or NYSE MKT Rule 9141 (Appearance and Practice; Notice of
Appearance) as specified in NYSE or NYSE MKT Rule 9134 (Methods of,
Procedures for Service). As adopted by NYSE and NYSE MKT, Rule
9134(b)(1) and (2) provides that when a natural person or entity,
respectively, is represented by counsel or a representative, papers
served on such person or entity, excluding a complaint or document
initiating a proceeding, ``shall'' be served on such counsel or
representative. The Exchange has not adopted Rule 9134 and does not
have a similar requirement. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
utilize ``shall'' in the proposed Rule rather than ``may,'' to
reflect the requirement in the NYSE and NYSE MKT rules that papers
served on a person or entity represented by counsel or
representative be served on the counsel or representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 13.9(c) (Contents of Notice) would provide that a
notice issued under Rule 13.9 shall state the specific grounds and
include the factual basis for Exchange action. Further, the Rule would
require that the notice state when the Exchange action will take effect
and explain what the respondent must do to avoid such action as well as
that the respondent may file a written request for a hearing.
    The proposed Rule would also provide that the notice also shall
inform the respondent of the applicable deadline for filing a request
for a hearing and shall state that a request for a hearing must set
forth with specificity any and all defenses to the Exchange action. In
addition, the proposed Rule would require the notice to explain that
the EBCC may approve, modify or withdraw any and all sanctions or
limitations imposed by the notice, and may impose any other fitting
sanction. Proposed Rule 13.9(c) is substantially the same as NYSE and
NYSE MKT Rule 9555(c), except that it (1) substitutes references to
``member organization or covered person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder
or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder,'' and (2)
eliminates the reference to the Office of Hearing Officers and replaces
``Hearing Officer, or, if applicable, Hearing Panel'' with ``EBCC.''
    Proposed Rule 13.9(d) (Effective Date of Limitation, Prohibition,
Suspension, Cancellation or Bar) would provide that the limitation,
prohibition, suspension, cancellation or bar referenced in a notice
issued under the proposed Rule shall become effective 14 days after
service of the notice, except that the effective date for a notice of a
limitation or prohibition on access to services offered by the Exchange
or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof with respect to services to which
the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP
Holder does not have access shall be upon service of the notice.
Proposed Rule 13.9(d) would also provide that a request for a hearing
shall stay the effectiveness of the notice, except that the
effectiveness of a notice of a limitation or prohibition on access to
services offered by the Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder thereof
with respect to services to which the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an
Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder does not have access
shall not be stayed by a request for a hearing. Proposed Rule 13.9(d)
is substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(d), except
that it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered
person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP
Firm or OTP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 13.9(e) (Request for Hearing) would provide that an
OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP
Holder served with a notice under the proposed Rule may file with EBCC
a written request for a hearing. The proposed Rule would require that a
request for a hearing shall be made within 14 days after service of the
notice and must set forth with specificity any and all defenses to the
Exchange action. Proposed Rule 13.9(e) is substantially the same as
NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(e), except that it substitutes references
to ``member organization or covered person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP
Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 13.9(f) (Failure to Request Hearing) would provide
that if an OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm
or OTP Holder does not timely request a hearing, the limitation,
prohibition, suspension, cancellation or bar specified in the notice
shall become effective 14 days after service of the notice, except that
the effective date for a notice of a limitation or prohibition on
access to services offered by the Exchange or an OTP Firm or OTP Holder
with respect to services to which the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an
Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder does not have access
shall be upon service of the notice. The proposed Rule would further
provide that notice shall constitute final Exchange action if the OTP
Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder
does not request a hearing within 14 days after service of the notice.
Proposed Rule 13.9(f) is substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT
Rule 9555(f), except that it substitutes references to ``member
organization or covered person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an
Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 13.9(g) (Request for Termination of the Limitation,
Prohibition or Suspension) would provide that an OTP Firm, OTP Holder
or an Associated Person of an OTP Firm or OTP Holder subject to a
limitation, prohibition or suspension under the proposed Rule may file
a written request for termination of the limitation, prohibition or
suspension on the ground of full compliance with the notice or
decision. Further, the proposed Rule would specify that such a request
shall be filed with the head of the Exchange department or office that
issued the notice or, if another department or office is named as the
party handling the matter on behalf of the issuing department or
office, with the head of the department or office that is so
designated. Finally, the proposed Rule would provide that the
appropriate head of the department or office may grant relief for good
cause shown. Proposed Rule 13.9(g) is substantially the same as NYSE
and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(g),

except that it substitutes references to ``member organization or
covered person'' with ``OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of
an OTP Firm or OTP Holder.''
    Finally, proposed Rule 13.9(h) would set forth the specific
procedures that would apply to hearings under the proposed Rule. As
noted, proposed subsection (h) is modeled on NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule
9559, which provides uniform hearing procedures for expedited
proceedings under the NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9550 Series, including
proceedings under Rule 9555. NYSE Arca does not currently have a
procedural rule comparable to Rule 9559 and therefore proposes to adopt
aspects of Rule 9559 that are applicable to hearings under Rule 9555.
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(1) would provide that a hearing shall be held
within 30 days after a Respondent subject to a notice files a written
request under proposed Rule 13.9(e). This requirement is the same as
Rule 9559(f)(3) (Time of Hearing).
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(2) would provide that the EBCC shall issue a
notice stating the date, time, and place of the hearing at least 21
days prior to the hearing. This requirement is the same as that
contained in Rule 9559(g)(3) (Notice of Hearing). Further, proposed
subsection (h)(2) would provide that not less than 14 days before the
hearing, Exchange staff shall provide to the respondent who requested
the hearing, all documents that were considered in issuing the notice.
This requirement is the same as that contained in Rule 9559(h)(1)
(Transmission of Documents) for Rule 9555 proceedings.
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(3) would provide that, not less than seven
days before the hearing, the parties shall exchange proposed exhibit
and witness lists. The proposed Rule would require exhibit and witness
lists to be served by overnight courier. These requirements are the
same as those contained in Rule 9559(h)(2) (Transmission of Documents).
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(4) would provide that the EBCC may approve,
modify or withdraw any and all sanctions, requirements, restrictions or
limitations imposed by the notice and may impose any fitting sanction.
These requirements are the same as those contained in Rule 9559(n)(1)
(Sanctions, Costs and Remands).
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5) would provide that the EBCC shall prepare
a written decision within 60 days of the date of the close of the
hearing and provide it to the Board of Directors. This is the same as
the requirement in Rule 9559(o)(3) (Timing of Decision). Proposed
subsection (h)(5) would further specify that the decision include the
following elements:
     A statement describing the investigative or other origin
of the notice issued under this Rule;\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the specific statutory or rule provision alleged to have
been violated or providing the authority for the Exchange action;\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement setting forth the findings of fact with
respect to any act or practice the respondent was alleged to have
committed or omitted or any condition specified in the notice; \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the conclusions of the EBCC regarding the alleged
violation or condition specified in the notice; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement of the EBCC in support of the disposition of
the principal issues raised in the proceeding; \19\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement describing any sanction, requirement,
restriction or limitation imposed, the reasons therefore, and the date
upon which such sanction, requirement, restriction or limitation shall
become effective.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(5)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These requirements are the same as those contained in Rule
9559(p)(1)-(6) (Contents of Decision).
    Proposed Rule 13.9(h)(6) would provide that the Board of Directors
may, on its own initiative, order review of a decision prepared by the
EBCC pursuant to Rule 13.9 within 30 days after notice of the decision
has been served on the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or an Associated Person of
an OTP Firm or OTP Holder. The proposed Rule utilizes the same language
and time period as current NYSE Arca Rule 10.8(d), which provides that
the Board of Directors may, on its own initiative, order a review of a
decision on appeal made under Rule 10.8(b) within 30 days after notice
of the decision is served on a respondent. By incorporating those Board
review requirements, proposed Rule 13.9(h)(6) parallels Rule 9559(q)'s
provision for a call for review by the NYSE and NYSE MKT Board of
Directors.
    Finally, proposed Rule 13.9(h)(7) would provide that the right to
have any action pursuant to this Rule reviewed by the SEC is governed
by Section 19 of the Exchange Act. The filing of an application for
review by the SEC shall not stay the effectiveness of final Exchange
action, unless the SEC otherwise orders. This is the same as Rule
9559(r) (Application for SEC Review).
    The Exchange is not adopting the remaining subsections of Rule 9559
in whole or in part because they are either inapplicable to Rule 9555
proceedings,\21\ are already addressed in the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca
Equities Rules,\22\ or find no analogue in the NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca
Equities Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Rule 9559 (f)(1) & (3) (Time of Hearing); (g)(1) & (2)
(Notice of Hearing); (o)(1) & (2) (Timing of Decision).
    \22\ See Rule 9559(a) (Applicability); (b) (Computation of
Time); (c) (Stays); (d) (Appointment and Authority of Hearing
Officer and/or Hearing Panel); (i) (Evidence); (j) (Additional
Information); (k) (Record of Hearing); (l) (Record of Proceeding);
(m) (Failure to Appear at a Pre-Hearing Conference or Hearing or to
Comply with a Hearing Officer Order Requiring the Production of
Information); (n) (Sanctions, Costs and Remands).
    \23\ See Rule 9559(e) (Consolidation or Severance of
Proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYSE Arca Equities Rule 11.9
    The Exchange proposes to make parallel changes to the NYSE Arca
Equities Rules. Proposed Rule 11.9 would govern when an ETP Holder or
Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not meet eligibility or
qualification standards; does not meet prerequisites for access to
services; or cannot be permitted to continue to have access to services
with safety to investors, creditors, ETP Holders, or the Exchange. Like
Rule 9555 and proposed NYSE Arca Rule 13.9, the proposed Rule would be
divided into separate subsections describing the notice; service of the
notice; the contents of the notice; the effective date of the
limitation, prohibition, suspension, cancellation or bar; requests for
a hearing; failure to request a hearing; and a request for termination
of the limitation, prohibition or suspension. Like proposed NYSE Arca
Rule 13.9, proposed Rule 11.9 would have a section describing
procedures, based on Rule 9559, that apply if a party requests a
hearing.
    Proposed Rule 11.9(a) (Notice to ETP Holder or Associated Person of
ETP Holder of Suspension, Cancellation, Bar, or Limitation or
Prohibition on Access to Services) would provide that if an ETP Holder
or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not meet the eligibility
or qualification standards set forth in the Exchange's Rules, Exchange
staff may provide written notice to such ETP Holder or Associated
Person of an ETP Holder stating that the failure to become eligible or
qualified will result in a suspension or cancellation of

trading privileges or a suspension or bar from associating with any ETP
Holder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed rule would provide that if an ETP Holder or
Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not meet the prerequisites for
access to services offered by the Exchange or an ETP Holder thereof or
cannot be permitted to continue to have access to services offered by
the Exchange or an ETP Holder thereof with safety to investors,
creditors, member organizations, or the Exchange, Exchange staff may
provide written notice to such ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an
ETP Holder limiting or prohibiting access to services offered by the
Exchange or an ETP Holder thereof.\25\ Proposed Rule 11.9(a) is
substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(a), except that
it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered person''
with ``ETP Holder or Associated Person of an ETP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.9(b) (Service of Notice) would provide that
Exchange staff shall serve the ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an
ETP Holder with the notice described in subsection (a) and that a copy
of the notice served on an Associated Person of an ETP Holder also
shall be served on such ETP Holder. Further, the proposed Rule would
provide that Exchange staff shall \26\ serve notice on counsel when
counsel for the ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder
agrees to accept service of such notice. Proposed Rule 11.9(b) is
substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(b), except that
it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered person''
with ``ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 11.9(c) (Contents of Notice) would provide that a
notice issued under Rule 11.9 shall state the specific grounds and
include the factual basis for Exchange action. Further, the Rule would
require that the notice state when the Exchange action will take effect
and explain what the respondent must do to avoid such action as well as
that the respondent may file a written request for a hearing.
    The proposed Rule would also provide that the notice also shall
inform the respondent of the applicable deadline for filing a request
for a hearing and shall state that a request for a hearing must set
forth with specificity any and all defenses to the Exchange action. In
addition, the proposed Rule would require the notice to explain that
the BCC may approve, modify or withdraw any and all sanctions or
limitations imposed by the notice, and may impose any other fitting
sanction. Proposed Rule 11.9(c) is substantially the same as NYSE and
NYSE MKT Rule 9555(c), except that it (1) substitutes references to
``member organization or covered person'' with ``ETP Holder or an
Associated Person of an ETP Holder,'' and (2) eliminates the reference
to the Office of Hearing Officers and replaces ``Hearing Officer, or,
if applicable, Hearing Panel'' with ``BCC.''
    Proposed Rule 11.9(d) (Effective Date of Limitation, Prohibition,
Suspension, Cancellation or Bar) would provide that the limitation,
prohibition, suspension, cancellation or bar referenced in a notice
issued under the proposed Rule shall become effective 14 days after
service of the notice, except that the effective date for a notice of a
limitation or prohibition on access to services offered by the Exchange
or an ETP Holder thereof with respect to services to which the ETP
Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not have access
shall be upon service of the notice. Proposed Rule 11.9(d) would also
provide that a request for a hearing shall stay the effectiveness of
the notice, except that the effectiveness of a notice of a limitation
or prohibition on access to services offered by the Exchange or an ETP
Holder thereof with respect to services to which the ETP Holder or an
Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not have access shall not be
stayed by a request for a hearing. Proposed Rule 11.9(d) is
substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(d), except that
it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered person''
with ``ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 11.9(e) (Request for Hearing) would provide that an
ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder served with a
notice under the proposed Rule may file with the BCC a written request
for a hearing. The proposed Rule would require that a request for a
hearing shall be made within 14 days after service of the notice and
must set forth with specificity any and all defenses to the Exchange
action. Proposed Rule 11.9(e) is substantially the same as NYSE and
NYSE MKT Rule 9555(e), except that it substitutes references to
``member organization or covered person'' with ``ETP Holder or an
Associated Person of an ETP Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 11.9(f) (Failure to Request Hearing) would provide
that if an ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not
timely request a hearing, the limitation, prohibition, suspension,
cancellation or bar specified in the notice shall become effective 14
days after service of the notice, except that the effective date for a
notice of a limitation or prohibition on access to services offered by
the Exchange or an ETP Holder with respect to services to which the ETP
Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not have access
shall be upon service of the notice. The proposed Rule would further
provide that notice shall constitute final Exchange action if the ETP
Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder does not request a
hearing within 14 days after service of the notice. Proposed Rule
11.9(f) is substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(f),
except that it substitutes references to ``member organization or
covered person'' with ``ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP
Holder.''
    Proposed Rule 11.9(g) (Request for Termination of the Limitation,
Prohibition or Suspension) would provide that an ETP Holder or an
Associated Person of an ETP Holder subject to a limitation, prohibition
or suspension under the proposed Rule may file a written request for
termination of the limitation, prohibition or suspension on the ground
of full compliance with the notice or decision. Further, the proposed
Rule would specify that such a request shall be filed with the head of
the Exchange department or office that issued the notice or, if another
department or office is named as the party handling the matter on
behalf of the issuing department or office, with the head of the
department or office that is so designated. Finally, the proposed Rule
would provide that the appropriate head of the department or office may
grant relief for good cause shown. Proposed Rule 11.9(g) is
substantially the same as NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9555(g), except that
it substitutes references to ``member organization or covered person''
with ``ETP Holder or an Associated Person of an ETP Holder.''
    Finally, proposed Rule 11.9(h) would set forth specific procedures
that would apply to hearings under the proposed Rule. As noted,
proposed subsection (h) is modeled on NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9559,
which provides uniform hearing procedures for expedited proceedings
under the NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 9550 Series, including proceedings
under Rule 9555. NYSE Arca Equities does not currently have a
procedural rule comparable to Rule 9559 and therefore proposes to adopt

aspects of Rule 9559 that are applicable to hearings under Rule 9555.
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(1) would provide that a hearing shall be held
within 30 days after a Respondent subject to a notice files a written
request under proposed Rule 11.9(e). This requirement is the same as
Rule 9559(f)(3) (Time of Hearing).
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(2) would provide that the BCC shall issue a
notice stating the date, time, and place of the hearing at least 21
days prior to the hearing. This requirement is the same as that
contained in Rule 9559(g)(3) (Notice of Hearing). Further, proposed
subsection (h)(2) would provide that not less than 14 days before the
hearing, Exchange staff shall provide to the respondent who requested
the hearing, all documents that were considered in issuing the notice.
This requirement is the same as that contained in Rule 9559(h)(1)
(Transmission of Documents) for Rule 9555 proceedings.
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(3) would provide that not less than seven
days before the hearing, the parties shall exchange proposed exhibit
and witness lists. The proposed Rule would require exhibit and witness
lists to be served by overnight courier. These requirements are the
same as those contained in Rule 9559(h) (Transmission of Documents).
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(4) would provide that the BCC may approve,
modify or withdraw any and all sanctions, requirements, restrictions or
limitations imposed by the notice and may impose any fitting sanction.
These requirements are the same as those contained in Rule 9559(n)(1)
(Sanctions, Costs and Remands).
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5) would provide that that the BCC prepare a
written decision within 60 days of the date of the close of the hearing
and provide it to the Board of Directors. This is the same as the
requirement in Rule 9559(o)(3) (Timing of Decision). Proposed
subsection (h)(5) would further specify that the decision include the
following elements:
     A statement describing the investigative or other origin
of the notice issued under this Rule; \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the specific statutory or rule provision alleged to have
been violated or providing the authority for the Exchange action; \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement setting forth the findings of fact with
respect to any act or practice the respondent was alleged to have
committed or omitted or any condition specified in the notice; \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the conclusions of the BCC regarding the alleged violation
or condition specified in the notice; \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement of the BCC in support of the disposition of
the principal issues raised in the proceeding; \31\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a statement describing any sanction, requirement,
restriction or limitation imposed, the reasons therefore, and the date
upon which such sanction, requirement, restriction or limitation shall
become effective.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(5)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These requirements are the same as those contained in Rule
9559(p)(1)-(6) (Contents of Decision).
    Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(6) would provide that the Board of Directors
may, on its own initiative, order review of a decision prepared by the
BCC pursuant to Rule 11.9 within 30 days after notice of the decision
has been served on the ETP Holder or Associated Person of an ETP
Holder. The proposed Rule utilizes the same language and time period as
current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8(d), which provides that the NYSE
Arca Board of Directors \33\ may, on its own initiative, order a review
of a decision on appeal within 30 days after notice of the decision is
served on a respondent. Proposed Rule 11.9(h)(6) parallels the
requirement in Rule 9559(q) setting forth a call for review by the NYSE
and NYSE MKT Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.8(d) refers to the ``NYSE Arca
Board of Governors.'' The reference is outdated, and means the NYSE
Arca Board of Directors. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
77898 (May 24, 2016), 81 FR 34404, 34406 (May 31, 2016) (SR-
NYSEArca-2016-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, proposed Rule 11.9(h)(7) would provide that the right to
have any action pursuant to this Rule reviewed by the SEC is governed
by Section 19 of the Exchange Act. The filing of an application for
review by the SEC shall not stay the effectiveness of final Exchange
action, unless the SEC otherwise orders. This is the same as Rule
9559(r)(Application for SEC Review).
    NYSE Arca Equities is not adopting the remaining subsections of
Rule 9559 in whole or in part because they are either inapplicable to
Rule 9555 proceedings,\34\ are already addressed in the NYSE Arca and
NYSE Arca Equities Rules,\35\ or find no analogue in the NYSE Arca and
NYSE Arca Equities Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Rule 9559 (f)(1) & (3) (Time of Hearing); (g)(1) & (2)
(Notice of Hearing); (o)(1) & (2) (Timing of Decision).
    \35\ See Rule 9559(a) (Applicability); (b) (Computation of
Time); (c) (Stays); (d) (Appointment and Authority of Hearing
Officer and/or Hearing Panel); (i) (Evidence); (j) (Additional
Information); (k) (Record of Hearing); (l) (Record of Proceeding);
(m) (Failure to Appear at a Pre-Hearing Conference or Hearing or to
Comply with a Hearing Officer Order Requiring the Production of
Information); (n) (Sanctions, Costs and Remands).
    \36\ See Rule 9559(e) (Consolidation or Severance of
Proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conforming Changes
    NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(1)(B) describes the functions and authority
of the NYSE Arca EBCC. Under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), this includes
the authority to conduct hearings and render decisions in summary
disciplinary actions and proceedings pursuant to Rule 10.5 (Hearing).
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 3.2(b)(1)(B)(ii) to add a
clause specifying that the EBCC can also conduct hearings and render
decisions in expedited proceedings pursuant to Rule 13.9.
    NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(1)(B), like NYSE Arca Rule
3.2(b)(1)(B), describes the functions and authority of the NYSE Arca
Equities BCC that, under subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) includes the
authority to conduct hearings and render decisions in summary
disciplinary actions and proceedings. The Exchange proposes to amend
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(1)(B)(ii) to specify that the NYSE Arca
Equities BCC can also conduct hearings and render decisions in
expedited proceedings pursuant to Rule 11.9.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\37\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\38\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and
to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\39\ in particular, in that it provides fair
procedures for the denial of membership to any person seeking
membership therein, the barring of any person from becoming associated
with a member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by the
Exchange of any person with respect to access to services

offered by the Exchange or a member thereof, including on a non-
summary, but expedited, proceeding basis.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \40\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes will provide greater harmonization between
NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, NYSE, and NYSE MKT rules of similar
purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance for common members. As previously noted, the proposed rule
text is substantially the same as the rule text in effect for NYSE and
NYSE MKT. The proposed rule change would enhance the ability of NYSE
Arca and NYSE Arca Equities to have a direct and meaningful impact on
its regulatory program for enforcing the eligibility or qualification
standards as set forth in their respective rules by providing a
mechanism and procedure for suspending or cancelling trading privileges
or suspending or barring a person from associating with a trading
privileges holder or firm, as appropriate. As such, the proposed rule
change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed hearing procedures
in subsection (h) of proposed Rules 11.9 and 13.9 are fair. The
proposed procedural requirements are based on timeframes and
requirements in Rule 9559, which governs expedited proceedings,
including proceedings under Rule 9555, on the NYSE and NYSE MKT. The
proposed Rules would provide the same time periods as Rule 9559 for
when a hearing shall be held (30 days after a respondent subject to a
notice files a written request for hearing); for when the date, time,
and place of the hearing need to be announced (at least 21 days prior
to the hearing); for producing to the respondent all documents
considered in issuing the notice (not less than 14 days before the
hearing); and for exchanging proposed exhibit and witness lists (not
less than seven days before the hearing). In addition to these
safeguards, the proposed Rules, like Rule 9559, would empower the body
hearing the appeal to approve, modify or withdraw any and all
sanctions, requirements, restrictions or limitations imposed by the
notice and impose any fitting sanction, and would also require a
written decision within a specific timeframe (60 days) from the close
of the hearing. The Exchange believes that these incorporated
procedural requirements would, similar to Rule 9559, provide adequate
procedural protections to all parties and promote efficiency. The
Exchange also believes that not adopting aspects of Rule 9559 that are
not relevant to expedited proceedings under Rule 9555 also promotes a
fair procedure for the denial of membership to any person seeking to
become an Exchange permit holder, the barring of any person from
becoming associated with an Exchange permit holder, and the prohibition
or limitation by the Exchange of any person with respect to access to
services offered by the Exchange or a permit holder thereof.

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

    The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive
issues, but rather it is designed to (i) provide greater harmonization
among NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, NYSE, and NYSE MKT rules of
similar purpose; and (ii) enhance the quality of the regulatory program
for enforcing eligibility or qualification standards on the Exchange,
resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance
and facilitating performance of regulatory functions.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \41\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEARCA-2016-102 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-NYSEARCA-2016-102. 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 such 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-NYSEARCA-2016-102, and should be
submitted on or before August 23, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18201 Filed 8-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8257]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-61-000]

Public Citizen, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection LLC; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on February 20, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of
the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825d and Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Public Citizen, Inc.
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection LLC
(PJM or Respondent) alleging that PJM failed to disclose millions of
dollars in electoral campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures
to its stakeholders or to FERC, in violation of Commission precedent
and potential violation of just and reasonable rates, all as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that a copy of the complaint has been
served on the Respondent.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 12, 2018.

    Dated: February 20, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03820 Filed 2-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48290]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0136; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-4]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Waco, TX, and Establishment of
Class D Airspace; Waco, TSTC-Waco Airport, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace at Waco, TX, by separating
the Class D airspace at Waco Regional Airport from the Class D airspace
at TSTC-Waco Airport. The FAA is taking this action to alleviate
multiple air traffic controllers handling the same airspace and for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport. The geographic coordinates for Waco Regional Airport are also
adjusted.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 3, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Waco, TX
(78 FR 33015) Docket No. FAA-2013-0136. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class D airspace
designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated
August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Waco, TX, by separating the
Class D airspace area for Waco Regional Airport from the Class D
airspace area for TSTC-Waco Airport, to enhance the safety and
management of IFR operations at both airports. TSTC-Waco Airport is
removed from its current designation and established under its own
designator; Waco, TSTC-Waco Airport, TX, to accommodate this separation
of controlled airspace surrounding Waco Regional Airport. This enhances
safety by not having multiple air traffic controllers responsible for
the same airspace. Geographic coordinates for Waco Regional Airport are
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace in the Waco, TX, area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Waco, TX [Amended]

Waco, Waco Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]36'44'' N., long. 97[deg]13'49'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Waco Regional Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

ASW TX D Waco, TSTC-Waco Airport, TX [New]

Waco, TSTC-Waco Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]38'16'' N., long. 97[deg]04'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of TSTC-Waco Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Waco Regional Airport Class D
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in
the Airport/Facility Directory

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 25, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-18713 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20727-20730]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07167]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1475; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00823-T;
Amendment 39-22383; AD 2023-05-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-06-
02, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes;
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and
Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
AD 2022-06-02 required new repetitive inspections of the 80 view unit
(80VU) rack lower lateral fittings, lower central support, upper
fittings, central post, and shelves attachments for discrepancies, and
corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a
determination that the compliances times must be revised to address the
unsafe condition. This AD continues to require the actions in AD 2022-
06-02 with revised compliance times, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 12, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 12,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1475; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1475.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-06-02, Amendment 39-21968 (87 FR
16094, March 22, 2022) (AD 2022-06-02). AD 2022-06-02 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A318-111, and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -
113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212,
-214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2022-06-02 required
new repetitive inspections of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings,
lower central support, upper fittings, central post, and shelves
attachments for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. The
FAA issued AD 2022-06-02 to address damage or cracking of the 80VU
fittings and supports, which could lead to possible disconnection of
the cable harnesses to one or more computers, and if occurring during a
critical phase of flight, could result in reduced control of the
airplane.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2022 (87
FR 69228). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0120R1, dated June 30,
2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0120R1) (also referred to as
the MCAI). The MCAI was prompted by reports of damaged lower lateral
fittings of the 80VU rack and a determination that the compliance times
must be revised. The MCAI states that damage or cracking of the 80VU
fittings and supports could lead to possible disconnection of the cable
harnesses to one or more computers, and if occurring during a critical
phase of flight, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1475.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all of the requirements in
AD 2022-06-02 with revised compliance times, as specified in EASA AD
2022-0120R1, dated June 30, 2022. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from United Airlines and the Air Line
Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Both supported the NPRM
without change.
    The FAA received an additional comment from American Airlines
(AAL). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to that comment.

Request for Using a Borescope in Place of an Endoscope During the
Inspections of the 80VU Components

    AAL stated that EASA AD 2022-0120R1 requires the use of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-25-1BKJ, Revision 4, which changes all references
from ``borescope'' to ``endoscope'' in the required for compliance (RC)
inspection steps. AAL requested the AD include a statement that a
``borescope'' can be used in place of an ``endoscope'' during the
inspections of the 80VU components

as they are identical for purposes of this inspection. AAL stated it
considers an endoscope and a borescope to be identical for the purposes
of this inspection.
    The FAA agrees with the change requested by AAL. The service
instructions should allow for using a borescope in place of an
endoscope during the inspections of the 80VU components. The FAA has
added paragraph (h)(6) to this AD to include this information.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0120R1 specifies procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections of the 80VU rack lower lateral fittings, lower
central support, upper fittings, central post, and shelves attachments
for discrepancies (referred to as damaged, or parts not found in good
condition in the service information) (including broken fittings,
missing bolts, an electronics rack FIN 80VU that is in contact with
structure, any bush that has migrated, burred material, and cracks),
and corrective action if necessary. Corrective actions include
modification, repair, and replacement. EASA AD 2022-0120R1 also
describes procedures for reporting inspection results to Airbus.
    This material 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

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,528 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                Labor cost       Parts cost       Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2022- Up to 8 work-                 $0  Up to $680...........  Up to $1,039,040.
 06-02.                         hours x $85 per
                                hour = Up to
                                $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$129,880, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost               Parts cost               Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair............................  122 work-hours x $85   $4,150....................  $14,520.
                                     per hour = $10,370.
Replacement.......................  Up to 189 work-hours   Up to $6,928..............  Up to $22,993.
                                     x $85 per hour = Up
                                     to $16,065.
Modification......................  189 work-hours x $85   $7,407....................  $23,472.
                                     per hour = $16,065.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-06-02, Amendment 39-21968
(87 FR 16094, March 22, 2022); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-05-14 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22383; Docket No. FAA-2022-1475;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00823-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 12, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2022-06-02, Amendment 39-21968 (87 FR 16094,
March 22, 2022) (AD 2022-06-02).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD.
    (1) Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of damaged lower lateral
fittings of the 80VU rack and a determination that the compliance
times must be revised. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage
or cracking of the 80VU fittings and supports, which could lead to
possible disconnection of the cable harnesses to one or more
computers, and if occurring during a critical phase of flight, could
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0120R1, dated June 30, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0120R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0120R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0120R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0120R1 refers to the effective date of
EASA AD 2021-0172, this AD requires using April 26, 2022 (the
effective date of AD 2022-06-02).
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2022-0120R1 specifies ``any
discrepancy,'' for this AD ``any discrepancy'' includes broken
fittings, missing bolts, an electronics rack FIN 80VU that is in
contact with structure, any bush that has migrated, burred material,
and cracks.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0120R1 specifies to ``replace the damaged parts with new parts,''
this AD allows replacing damaged parts with new or serviceable
parts.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0120R1.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0120R1 specifies to use a ``endoscope'' during the inspections of
the 80VU components, this AD allows using a borescope during the
inspections of the 80VU components. An endoscope and a borescope are
identical for the purposes of this inspection.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and
corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if those
actions were accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD
using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BKJ, Revision 02, dated April
9, 2020, with corrections referenced in the Airbus Technical
Adaptation 80827186/024/2020, Issue 1, dated September 18, 2020.

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Additional Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD that is
not incorporated by reference, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness
Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex,
France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
airbus.com">[email protected]airbus.com; website airbus.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

(l) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0120R1,
dated June 30, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0120R1, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 9, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07167 Filed 4-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P