[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55397-55399]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23094]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75866; File No. SR-Phlx-2015-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Phlx Pricing Schedule

September 9, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 27, 2015, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Phlx Pricing Schedule
(``Pricing Schedule''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
Section I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in SPY'' by assessing all market participants other than
Customers \3\ a fee of $0.15 per contract for executions against an
order for which the Exchange broadcasts an order exposure alert in
SPY.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``professional'' (as that term is defined in Rule 1000(b)(14)). The
term ``Non-Customer'' applies to transactions for the accounts of
Specialists, Market Makers, Firms, Professionals, Broker-Dealers and
JBOs.
    \4\ Options overlying Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY'') are based on the SPDR exchange-traded fund
(``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of the S&P 500
Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Pricing Schedule by
amending Section I, entitled ``Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing
Liquidity in SPY.'' Currently, Section 1 provides that no fees will be
assessed and no rebates will be paid on transactions which execute
against an order for which the Exchange broadcast (sic) \5\ an order
exposure alert in SPY.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is correcting the word ``broadcast'' to read
``broadcasts''.
    \6\ Exchange Rule 1080(m) provides for the broadcast of certain
orders that are on the Phlx Book. The Exchange broadcasts orders on
the Phlx Book by issuing order exposure alerts to all Phlx market
participants that subscribe to certain data feeds. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68517 (December 21, 2012), 77 FR 77134
(December 31, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-136). When it adopted the current
pricing schedule provision which now is proposed to be amended, the
Exchange stated its belief that not assessing fees (or paying a
rebate) when removing orders from the order book in SPY where an
order exposure alert was issued would incentivize market
participants to remove liquidity from the Phlx Book. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 69768 (June 14, 2013), 78 FR 37250 (June
20, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to assess all market participants other
than Customers a fee of $0.15 per contract for such executions. Thus,
the fee for such executions will apply to transactions for the accounts
of Specialists,\7\ Market Makers,\8\ Firms,\9\ Professionals,\10\
Broker-Dealers \11\ and JBOs \12\ (collectively, ``Non-Customers'').
The Exchange is adopting this fee at this time because it believes that
the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to enhance its services
and that offering this service for free is no longer a required
incentive to remain competitive with other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \8\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \9\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at OCC.
    \10\ The term ``professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Rule
1000(b)(14).
    \11\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \12\ The term ``Joint Back Office'' or ``JBO'' applies to any
transaction that is identified by a member or member organization
for clearing in the Firm range at OCC and is identified with an
origin code as a JBO. A JBO will be priced the same as a Broker-
Dealer. A JBO participant is a member, member organization or non-
member organization that maintains a JBO arrangement with a clearing
broker-dealer (``JBO Broker'') subject to the requirements of
Regulation T Section 220.7 of the Federal Reserve System as further
discussed at Exchange Rule 703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act
\14\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which Phlx operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
market participants to whom the Exchange's fees and rebates are
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal is reasonable because the proposed $0.15
fee is lower than the standard fee for removing liquidity in SPY and
lower than fees assessed for similar activities at other options
exchanges. For example, the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
assesses fees ranging from $0.05 to $0.45 for executions in Equity and
ETF Options, including SPY, and offers market makers a $0.05 rebate if
they meet certain quoting obligations for executions in Hybrid Agency
Liaison (``HAL''). The Exchange's order exposure alert is similar to
HAL and the proposed rate is within the range of fees CBOE assesses for
executions in HAL. It is also reasonable not to extend the new fee to
Customer transactions because Customer orders bring valuable liquidity
to the market which benefits other market participants. Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will be assessing the same new
$0.15 fee on transactions by all market participants (except Customers)
in the same manner. As stated above, Customer liquidity benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Specialists and Market Makers. It is therefore equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to not apply the new fee to Customer
transactions.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to
impose the new $0.15 fee on executions other than Customer executions
does not misalign the fees related to Customer as compared to Non-
Customer orders. Today, Customers have lower fees because Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The new fee does not impose any undue burden on competition as all
market participants, except Customers will be assessed the same fee.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange, as described in the proposal, are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2015-75 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-75. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2015-75 and
should be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23094 Filed 9-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48906-48910]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0497; Product Identifier 2016-NM-209-AD; Amendment
39-19078; AD 2017-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of
reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that
could remain hidden to the flight crew. This

AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater
insulation resistance, and replacement of the pitot probe heater if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0497.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0497; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 30,
2017 (82 FR 24601) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a report of
reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that
could remain hidden to the flight crew. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater insulation
resistance, and replacement of the pitot probe heater if necessary. We
are issuing this AD to ensure nominal de-icing performance of the pitot
probe in order to prevent unreliable airspeed indications, which could
result in reduced control of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0248, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    An operator reported a reduction of the deicing performance of
the pitot probe over the time. Pitot probes are heated to prevent
ice accretion. De-icing performances of the Pitot probe might be
reduced if Pitot probe heater degrades over time. Investigation
results highlighted that the magnitude of de-icing performance
reduction depended on how much the [pitot probe] heater is degraded.
This degradation could remain hidden to the crew.
    Pitot probes heater degradation, if not detected and corrected,
could lead to unreliable airspeed indications, possibly resulting in
reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To ensure nominal de-icing performances of the Pitot probe,
Airbus developed an inspection process to check the pitot [probe]
heater performance, and published Service Bulletin (SB) A300-34-0185
to provide the necessary instructions to operators.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the pitot [probe] heater,
and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable one.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0497.

Comments

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

Request To Reduce the Maximum Possible Initial Compliance Time

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed its
partial support for the NPRM. ALPA requested that we change the
introductory text of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD from ``. . .
whichever occurs later . . .'' to ``. . . whichever occurs first . .
.'' ALPA is concerned that a possible duration of 30 months to comply
with the initial inspection requirement of the NPRM is too long and
could adversely affect safety. ALPA also mentioned that they preferred
that no more than 24 months pass between inspections.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to shorten the
compliance time. After considering the available information, we have
determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an
appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be
performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still
maintaining an adequate level of safety. In developing an appropriate
compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts
availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely
accomplishment of the detailed inspections. The proposed compliance
time corresponds with the compliance times specified in the MCAI.
Additionally, the affected airplanes are currently in storage. To
reduce the compliance time of the proposed AD would necessitate (under
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the
notice, reopening the period for public comment, considering additional
comments subsequently received, and eventually issuing a final rule.
That process would delay issuance of the final rule. In light of this,
and in consideration of the amount of time that has already elapsed
since issuance of the original notice, we have determined that further
delay of this AD is not appropriate. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Reduce Compliance Time for Reporting

    Airbus recommended that we reduce the compliance time for reporting
from 30 days to 10 days (after the effective date of this AD) for
inspections with findings. No further justification was provided.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the
compliance time for reporting. After considering the available
information, we have determined that the compliance time for reporting
findings, as proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in
which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within
the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of
safety. To reduce the reporting compliance time of this AD would, as
mentioned previouly, necessitate reissuing the notice, reopening the
period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently
received, and

eventually issuing a final rule. In light of this, we have determined
that the 30-day compliance time for reporting is appropriate. We have
not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision
00, dated August 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater
insulation resistance and replacement of the pitot probe heater. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspection..........  5 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $425 per            $2,125 per
                                  hour = $425 per                          inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
Reporting......................  1 work hour x $85 per                $0  $85 per inspection  $425 per
                                  hour = $85 per                           cycle.              inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement................................  3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255.          $9,015          $9,270
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-21-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-19078; Docket No. FAA-2017-0497;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-209-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 27, 2017.

(b) Effective Date

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-
203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of reduction of the de-icing
performance of the pitot probe over time that could remain hidden to
the flight crew. We are issuing this AD to ensure nominal de-icing
performance of the pitot probe in order to prevent unreliable
airspeed indications, which could result in reduced control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Pitot Probes

    For the purpose of this AD, affected pitot probes are the First
Officer's Pitot Probe 40DA, Captain's Pitot Probe 41DA, and Standby
Pitot Probe 42DA.

(h) Repetitive Inspections

    At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD,
whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the pitot probe
heater insulation resistance on each affected pitot probe, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
    (1) Within 24 months since the last detailed inspection of the
pitot probe heater insulation resistance, as specified in Airbus
A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Task 30-31-00, Insulation
Test of Pitot Heater Resistance.
    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Corrective Action

    If, during any detailed inspection as required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, any pitot probe fails the test, as specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185,
Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, before further flight, replace
the affected pitot probe with a serviceable (new or inspected as
required by this AD) pitot probe, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185,
Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Replacement of pitot probes, as
required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action
for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(j) Reporting

    At the applicable times required by paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and
negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD,
as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, to Airbus
Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World
(https://w3.airbus.com/).
    (1) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD:
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For inspections done on or after the effective date of this
AD: Within 30 days after accomplishing each inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) 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 local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (j) 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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0248, dated December 15, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0497.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:
425-227-2125; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated
August 29, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 10, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-22709 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P