[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3470-3471]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00924]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0063; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2001 PT Gemala Saranaupaya 1600 Double Axle Trailers Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2001 PT Gemala Saranaupaya 1600 double axle trailers that were not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the
United States because they have safety features that comply with, or
are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 20,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered.
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. The
docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the heading of
this document notice. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle, including a
trailer, that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
applicable FMVSS, and has no substantially similar U.S.-certified
counterpart, shall be refused admission into the United States unless
NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle has safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence
as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Wallace Environmental Testing Laboratories, Inc. (WETL), of
Houston, Texas (Registered Importer R-09-005) has petitioned NHTSA to
decide whether nonconforming 2001 PT Gemala Saranaupaya 1600 double
axle trailers are eligible for importation into the United States. WETL
believes these vehicles are capable of being modified to meet all
applicable FMVSS.
    WETL submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that 2001 PT Gemala Saranaupaya 1600 double axle trailers
are capable of being altered to comply with all standards to which they
were not originally manufactured to conform.
    The petitioner contends that the nonconforming 2001 PT Gemala
Saranaupaya 1600 double axle trailers meet or are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 106--Brake Hoses: Installation of conforming brake
hoses.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: The trailer will require the following modifications to
comply with the requirements. On the rear, 3 lamps will be installed as
close as practical to the top of the vehicle at the same height and as
close as practical to the center line with lamp centers spaced not less
than 6 inches or more than 12 inches. The two red lamps on the rear and
two amber lamps on the front must be replaced with lamps conforming to
the requirements. The brake and turn signal lamps must be replaced as
well.

    Standard No. 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than
Passenger Cars: Installation of tires conforming to the requirements of
the standard.
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other
than Passenger Cars: Installation of a tire and rim information placard
in order to meet the requirements of the standard.
    Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems: Installation of a brake system
designed specifically for the vehicle in order to meet the requirements
of FMVSS No. 121. Test reports intended to validate that the system
conforms to the requirements of the standard were submitted as part of
this petition.
    Standard No. 224 Rear Impact Protection: Installation of a rear
impact guard that conforms to the equipment requirements of FMVSS No.
223 Rear Impact Guards in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's
installation instructions.
    49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements:
Installation of a vehicle identification number (VIN) label to conform
to the requirements of this standard.
    Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-00924 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28113-28117]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12658]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86082; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Update Its Price Adjust Process To Allow for the Process To
Apply to Bulk Messages

June 11, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 4, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'')
proposes to update its Price Adjust process to allow for the process to
apply to bulk messages. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange proposes to amend its rules to allow for the Price
Adjust process to apply to bulk messages and make corresponding changes
where applicable. The Exchange is proposing these amendments in order
to provide Users that submit bulk messages with functionality that is
currently available to them for orders.
    In December 2018, the Exchange adopted bulk messaging
functionality, in which a User may enter, modify or cancel up to an
Exchange-specified number of bids and offers in a single message. A
User may submit a bulk message through a bulk port.\5\ The System \6\
handles bulk message bids and offers in the same manner as it handles
an order, or quote if submitted by a Market Maker, unless the Rules
specify otherwise. Currently, Rule 21.1(i)(1) subjects orders to the
Price Adjust process.\7\ Pursuant to the Price Adjust process, if an
order (that is not an all-or-none (``AON'') order \8\), at the time of
entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options
exchange or the Exchange (subjecting it to the Price Adjust process),
the System ranks \9\ and displays the order at one minimum price
variation below (above) the current NBO (NBB). If a non-AON order is
subject to the Price Adjust process by locking or crossing the offer
(bid) of a AON order resting on the EDGX Options Book at or better than
the Exchange's best offer (bid), the System ranks the resting AON order
at one minimum price variation above (below) the bid (offer) of the
non-AON order. Additionally, the System ranks an AON orders that cross
a Protected Offer (Bid) of another options exchange or a sell (buy) AON
order resting on the EDGX Options Book at or better than the Exchange's
best offer (bid), at a price equal to the Protected Offer (Bid) or the
offer (bid) of the resting AON order, respectively. AON orders that
lock or cross a Protected Offer (Bid) of the Exchange are ranked by the
System at a price one minimum price variation below (above) the
Protected Offer (Bid). The Price Adjust process applies to orders
(subject to the User's instructions or the Rules) that do not execute
upon entry and go to rest in the EDGX Options Book (for example,
because an order is not marketable upon entry, is not eligible to
route, etc.). It ensures these orders rest at executable prices in
accordance with linkage rules.\10\ Current Rule 21.1(i)(4) states that
the Price Adjust process does not apply to bulk messages.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 21.1(j)(3).
    \6\ The ``System'' is the automated system for order execution
and trade reporting owned and operated by the Exchange. See Rule
21.1(a).
    \7\ The Exchange notes that market orders will not be subject to
the price adjust process given that they execute immediately at the
best price, therefore, they will not lock or cross the market.
    \8\ An AON order is either a market or a limit order to be
executed in their entirety or not at all. See Rule 21.1(d)(4).
    \9\ In the EDGX Rules, the term ``rank'' means that an order
will be prioritized and eligible for execution at its ranked price
for purposes of allocation if an execution were to occur at that
price. For an AON order ``ranked'' at a price, it would be
prioritized last at that price.
    \10\ See Chapter XXVII of the Rules. See also Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan'').
    \11\ Specifically, the individual bids (offers) submitted within
a single bulk message. Therefore, as proposed, the Price Adjust
process or a Cancel Back designation, as applicable, applies to all
bulk message bids and offers within a single message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, current Rule 21.1(j)(3)(A) provides for additional
handling provisions regarding bulk messages submitted through bulk
quoting ports. Specifically, Rule 21.1(j)(3)(A)(iv) provides that the
System will cancel or reject a Post Only bulk message bid (offer) with
a price that locks or crosses the Exchange best offer (bid) or ABO
(ABB).\12\ The Exchange notes that bulk messages that include a Post
Only instruction do not remove liquidity from the Exchange or route
away to other exchanges.\13\ Current Rule 21.1(j)(3)(A)(iv) is
consistent with how the System handles a Post Only order not subject to
the Price Adjust process that locks or crosses the opposite side
Exchange best bid or offer (``BBO'') or if displaying the order on the
EDGX Options Book would create a violation of linkage Rule 27.3 (Locked
and Crossed Markets). Additionally, current Rule 21.1(j)(3)(A)(v)
provides that the System executes a Book Only bulk message bid (offer)
that locks or crosses the ABO (ABB) against offers (bids) resting in
the EDGX Options Book at prices the same as or better than the ABO
(ABB) and then cancels the unexecuted portion of that bid (offer). Book
Only orders do not route away to other exchanges.\14\ Current Rule
21.1(j)(3)(A)(v) is consistent with how the System handles Book Only
orders not subject to the Price Adjust process.\15\ The Exchange also
notes that pursuant to Rule 21.1(j)(3)(a)(ii), a Market Maker with an
appointment in a class may designate a bulk message for that class as
Post Only or Book Only, and other Users (i.e., non-Market Makers or
Market Makers without an appointment in a class) must designate a bulk
message for that class as Post Only.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The ABBO means the best bid (offer) disseminated by other
exchanges.
    \13\ See Rule 21.1(d)(8), which defines ``Post Only Orders'' as
orders that are to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant
to Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as
appropriate, without routing away to another options exchange except
that the order will not remove liquidity from the EDGX Options Book.
A Post Only Order that is not subject to the Price Adjust process
that would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options
exchange or the Exchange will be cancelled. Users may designate bulk
messages as Post Only.
    \14\ See Rule 21.1(d)(7), which defines ``Book Only Orders'' as
orders that are to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant
to Rule 21.8 (Order Display and Book Processing) or cancelled, as
appropriate, without routing away to another options exchange. A
Book Only Order will be subject to the Price Adjust process unless a
User has entered instructions not to use such process. Users may
designate bulk messages as Book Only.
    \15\ See supra note 10.
    \16\ Pursuant to the current Rules, a bulk message must be
designated as Post Only or Book Only. Additionally, because bulk
messages must include bids and offers and may not be market orders,
all bulk messages are limit orders. See Rules 16.1(a)(4) and
21.1(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 21.1(i)(1) to subject bulk
messages to the Price Adjust process. Specifically, the proposed rule
change will subject a User's bulk messages to the Price Adjust process,
which will apply to all bulk message bids and offers within a single
message, unless a User designates a bulk message as Cancel Back (as
described below), which will also apply to all bulk message bids and
offers within a single message. As such, the Exchange also proposes to
delete subparagraph (i)(4) which disallows bulk messages from the Price
Adjust process. The Exchange notes that Users have noted the regularity
with which their bulk message bids and offers are rejected because
Price Adjust does not apply to them. As a result, some Users find this
inefficient when submitting bulk messages. The Exchange believes that
allowing bulk message bids and offers to be subject to the Price Adjust
process will provide market participants with

additional opportunities for execution and price improvement, as well
as additional flexibility and control over their submission of bulk
messages. The Exchange notes that the System currently will not allow a
User to submit bulk messages as AON orders. Moreover, the Exchange
notes that AON orders are not displayed on the Book,\17\ therefore,
they do not contribute to displayed liquidity, which is inconsistent
with the primary purpose of bulk message functionality to encourage
liquidity and trading through quoting behavior on the Exchange. The
Exchange also notes that an AON order's size contingency (executed in
its entirety or not at all) provides it with few opportunities for
execution, which is also inconsistent with the purpose of bulk
messages. The Exchange now proposes to explicitly state in Rule
21.1(d)(4) that a User may not designate bulk messages as AON
orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that it does not disseminate bids or
offers of AON orders to OPRA, as the prices of AON orders are not
included in the BBO for a series.
    \18\ See Rule 21.1(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to explicitly state under Rule
21.1(i)(1) that a User may enter instructions for an order (including
bulk messages) not to be subject to the Price Adjust process. The
ability for Users not to subject orders to the Price Adjust process
(and Cancel Back) currently exists for a User's orders, including Book
Only and Post Only orders,\19\ that are not otherwise subject to
limitations under the Rules. The Exchange is now proposing to make this
election explicit under the Price Adjust provision and applicable to a
User's orders and bulk messages. The proposed opt-out election is based
on the corresponding Price Adjust process under Rule 6.12 of the
Exchange's affiliated exchange, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'').\20\ In
line with this proposed change, the Exchange now proposes to codify the
existing Cancel Back instruction (proposed Rule 21.1(l)) that is
substantially similar to that of C2's Cancel Back provision under C2
Rule 6.10(c) for Users that do not wish for their orders or bulk
messages to be subject to the Price Adjust process. As proposed, a
Cancel Back order is an order (including bulk messages) a User
designates to not be subject to the Price Adjust Process pursuant to
Rule 21.1(i) that the System cancels or rejects (immediately at the
time the System receives the order or upon return to the System after
being routed away) if displaying the order on the Book would create a
violation of Rule 27.3 (Locked and Crossed Markets), or if the order
cannot otherwise be executed or displayed in the EDGX Options Book at
its limit price. As stated, a Cancel Back designation for a bulk
message applies to all bulk message bids and offers within a single
message. The System executes a Book Only--Cancel Back order against
resting orders, and cancels or rejects a Post Only--Cancel Back order,
that locks or crosses the opposite side of the BBO. The Exchange notes
that pursuant to the Book Only instruction, an order or bulk message
may not route away to another Exchange. Therefore, if an incoming Book
Only order or bulk message bid or offer designated as Cancel Back
locked or crossed an away market (i.e. the ABBO), the System would
execute it to the extent it could against contra-side interest on the
Exchange at prices the same as or better than the ABBO in accordance
with the linkage rules.\21\ The System would then cancel it to prevent
a violation of Rule 27.3 of the intermarket linkage rules. The Exchange
also notes that pursuant to the Post Only instruction, an order or bulk
message may not remove liquidity from the Book or route away to another
Exchange. Therefore, if a Post Only order or bulk message bid or offer
designated as Cancel Back locked or crossed the best contra-side
interest on the Exchange (i.e. the BBO) or the ABBO, the System would
cancel it to prevent it from executing against resting interest on the
Exchange and to prevent a violation of Rule 27.3 of the intermarket
linkage rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 21.1(d)(7)-(8).
    \20\ The Exchange notes that C2 is simultaneously proposing to
include bulk messages in its Price Adjust and Cancel Back processes.
    \21\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change described above, all bulk
message bids and offers would now be subject to the Price Adjust
process, if not otherwise designated as Cancel Back, if they lock or
cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange or the
Exchange, and rest in the EDGX Options Book pursuant to the process,
thus avoiding display of a locked or crossed market in accordance with
the linkage rules.\22\ Therefore, the Exchange now proposes to remove
Rules 21.1(j)(3)(A)(iv) and 21.1(j)(3)(A)(v) (and amend the subsequent
lettering as a result) because Post Only and Book Only bulk messages
will now be included in the Price Adjust process, the handling of which
would now be consistent with the current order handing of Post Only and
Book Only orders under the Price Adjust process.\23\ The Exchange also
notes that all bulk message bids and offers designated as Cancel Back
pursuant to proposed Rule 21.1(l), and thus designated to not be
subject to the Price Adjust process, would be handled in the same
manner as they are today pursuant to current subparagraphs
(j)(3)(A)(iv) and (j)(3)(A)(v) (which the Exchange proposes to
delete).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Given that the proposed rule change will subject bulk
messages to the Price Adjust process, and allow for a User to opt-
out of the Price Adjust process and, instead, designate their bulk
message bids and offers as Cancel Back, these provisions are no
longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that allowing bulk message bids and offers to be
subject to a repricing process is consistent with the handling of
similar order (and quote) types on other exchanges.\25\ A similar
repricing (display-price sliding) process for bulk messages currently
exists under Rule 21.1(h)(1) of the Exchange's affiliated exchange,
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''). The Exchange also notes that
other exchanges subject orders (quotes), including quotes similar to
Post Only and Book Only bulk messages, to a repricing process like the
Price Adjust process. For example, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') recently
adopted order types called the Market Maker Add Liquidity Only
quotation (``MMALO''), which like a Post Only instruction may not
remove liquidity from the Exchange, and the Market Maker Repricing
quotation (``MMRP'').\26\ Pursuant to Arca's repricing process, if
these quotes would not be able to trade upon entry (for example,
because the MMALO would take liquidity or display at a price that locks
or crosses any interest on the Exchange or the NBBO), it would be
displayed at one minimum price variation below (above) such sell (buy)
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84737 (December 6,
2018), 83 FR 63919 (December 12, 2018) (SR-NYSEArca-2018-74) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to
Amend Rules 6.62-O and 6.37A-O to Add New Order Types and Quotation
Designations). See also BZX Options Rule 21.1(h)(1).
    \26\ See Arca Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(A) and Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\27\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section

6(b)(5) \28\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \29\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
subjecting bulk messages to the Price Adjust process will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because it provides Users with the flexibility to apply to bulk
messages the same functionality they may apply to their orders. The
Exchange believes that repricing individual bids and offers within a
single bulk message for Users (that do not opt-out of the Price Adjust
process), as opposed to automatically rejecting messages that lock or
cross protected quotes when posted to the EDGX Options Book, will
permit Users to use bulk messages to respond to continuously changing
market conditions in a more efficient manner, as well as provide
additional opportunity for execution and price improvement. The
proposed repricing of bulk messages prevents the display of a locked or
crossed market and is consistent with the Linkage Plan,\30\ thereby
perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system and protecting investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that by subjecting bulk message bids and
offers to the Price Adjust process instead of cancelling or rejecting
them under certain circumstances, will give Users greater flexibility
and control over the circumstances under which their orders are able to
interact with contra side-interest on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes this may increase the opportunities for execution at multiple
price points and encourage the provision of more liquidity to the
market, and therefore believes that it is reasonably designed to
facilitate the mechanism of price discovery.
    The Exchange notes that the options markets are quote driven
markets and thus dependent on liquidity providers, which are most
commonly registered market makers but also other Users, such as
professional traders, for liquidity and price discovery. The Exchange
believes that subjecting bulk messages to the Price Adjust process will
provide liquidity providers with greater flexibility with respect to
their submission of bulk messages, the primary purpose of which is to
provide liquidity to the market. The Exchange believes that the
reduction in the number of rejected bulk message bids and offers will
promote efficacy in bulk messaging and may encourage the provision of
more liquidity. This may result in more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads and contribute to price discovery. As a result, this
proposed change intends to improve overall market quality and enhance
competition on the Exchange to the benefit of all investors.
    The Exchange believes that allowing for a User to enter
instructions for an order or bulk message not to be subject to the
Price Adjust process under Rule 21.1(i)(1), and rather designate an
order or bulk message as Cancel Back under proposed Rule 21.1(l),
serves to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because this change provides
Users with additional flexibility regarding how they want the System to
handle their orders and bulk messages. The Exchange also notes that
permitting Users to elect that their orders and/or bulk messages not be
subject to the Price Adjust process, and instead treated as Cancel Back
orders, is an additional way to ensure compliance with the linkage
rules,\31\ thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
Additionally, this change is consistent with the Price Adjust and
Cancel Back processes language under Rule 6.10 and Rule 6.12 of the
Exchange's affiliated exchange, C2.\32\ The Exchange believes that
mirroring the corresponding C2 rule language will provide better
understanding for Users participating across the affiliated exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ See also supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, by amending Rule 21.1(d)(4) for AON orders to state that
such orders may not be bulk messages, a System functionality currently
in place, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market and protect
investors by providing investors with rules that accurately reflect
functionality currently unavailable for bulk messages.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act, as the proposed application of the Price Adjust
process and opt-out instructions to bulk messages, along with the
Cancel Back process to both orders and bulk messages, will be available
to all applicable Users (e.g. Market Makers may submit Book Only bulk
messages, therefore, the option to apply the Price Adjust process to
Book Only bulk messages is available to all Market Makers). While bulk
messages will by default be subject to the Price Adjust process, all
Users may opt-out of that process for bulk messages by designating
their bulk messages (and orders) as Cancel Back, thus, allowing Users
the choice to continue to have their bulk messages be handled in the
same manner they are today. The Exchange also notes that the Price
Adjust process (including opt-out instructions) are already available
to all Users for orders, including Post Only and Book Only orders, and
will apply to bulk messages in the same manner as they apply to orders.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it will
provide Users with bulk message repricing functionality and opt-out
provisions that are similar to other order and quote repricing and opt-
out provisions available on other exchanges. The Exchange believes the
proposed functionality will permit the Exchange to operate on an even
playing field relative to other exchanges that have similar
functionality.
    As discussed above, the options markets are quote driven markets
and thus dependent on various Users as liquidity providers and for
price discovery. The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to
subject bulk messages to the Price Adjust process will provide
liquidity providers with additional flexibility and control over
interactions of their individual bids and offers within a bulk message
with contra-side liquidity, as well as additional opportunity for
execution at

multiple price points and price improvement. This may encourage the
provision of more liquidity, which may result in more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads, and contribute to price discovery.
This may improve overall market quality and enhance competition on the
Exchange, to the benefit of all investors.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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) of the Act \33\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \34\ thereunder.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-CboeEDGX-2019-034 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-CboeEDGX-2019-034. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-034 and should be
submitted on or before July 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12658 Filed 6-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 19, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16577

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Laker Airways (Bahamas) Limited			Date Filed:  November 26,
2003

Relief requested: Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Freeport, Bahamas, on the one hand, and Providence, Rhode
Island, and Buffalo, New York, on the other hand; and to serve
Providence and Buffalo as additional coterminal points on its authorized
Bahamas-U.S. services.

Date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  December 19, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 19, 2003-December 19,
2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity with
the Bahamas

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

											Attachment

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be
effect癩畤楲杮愠祮瀠牥潩桷湥琠敨栠汯敤⁲獩渠瑯
椠潣灭楬湡散眠瑩桴潣摮瑩潩獮椠灭獯摥愠潢敶
䴠牯潥敶Ⱳ琠楨⁳畡桴牯瑩⁹慣湮瑯戠潳摬漠⁲瑯
敨睲獩牴湡晳牥敲楷桴畯⁴硥汰捩瑩䐠灥牡浴湥⁴
灡牰癯污甠摮牥吠瑩敬㐠‹景琠敨唠匮潃敤മ

<


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13567-13569]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4007; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-064-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Model 234 and Model CH-47D
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
various Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters. This proposed AD would
require inspections of the pitch housing and revising the pitch housing
retirement life. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracking in
the pitch housing lugs. The proposed actions are intended to detect and
prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4007; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, the Special
Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Helicopters, The Boeing Company, 1 S. Stewart Avenue, Ridley
Park, PA 19078, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Columbia Helicopters, Inc.
(Columbia), 14452 Arndt Road NE., Aurora OR 97002, telephone (503) 678-
1222, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.colheli.com. You may review
the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring

expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments
we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt an AD for helicopters with a pitch housing part
number (P/N) 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14,
145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, or 234R2075-2 installed. These
pitch housings are installed on Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters.
The type certificate (TC) holder for Model 234 helicopters is Columbia
(type certificate previously held by Boeing Defense & Space Group), and
the type certificate holders for Model CH-47D helicopters currently
include Columbia, Billings Flying Service, Inc., and Tandem Rotor, LLC.
We are not limiting this proposed AD to the type certificate holders
listed above because we expect additional type certificate holders of
helicopters that are subject to this same unsafe condition.
    This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracking in the pitch
housing lugs. In November 2007, Boeing reported the failure of an aft
rotor pitch housing lower lug on a Model CH-47 helicopter operated by
the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force. On March 26, 2009, a Model 234
helicopter also experienced a failure because of a crack on an aft
rotor pitch housing lower lug. In both cases, the cracking was located
on the lead side of the lower vertical pin lug and had initiated in the
bore. The crack grew outward by fatigue, initiated by fretting damage.
    Those incidents prompted the FAA to issue SAIB SW-11-03, dated
October 22, 2010. The SAIB recommends that all owners and operators of
Columbia Model 234 helicopters perform repetitive ultrasonic
inspections of the lugs. At that time, there were no civil Model CH-47D
helicopters in service.
    On March 20, 2015, we received a report of lateral vibration on a
Model 234 helicopter that prompted an immediate landing. A subsequent
investigation found that a crack in an aft pitch housing upper lug
resulted in the lateral vibrations. The pitch housing had accumulated
11,733 hours time-in-service (TIS). The crack was determined to be
caused by fatigue and attributed to underestimated load conditions in
the original life limit calculations. This cracking differed from the
cracking described in the SAIB because the cracking initiated at the
outer surface of the pitch housing lug and grew inward toward the bore.
    To correct this unsafe condition, we propose to require repetitive
eddy current and ultrasonic inspections of the pitch housing. Based on
the proximity of the most recent inward-growing crack to the outward
cracks described in the SAIB, we propose to require ultrasonic
inspections of the pitch housing, as recommended in the SAIB. Boeing,
the original manufacturer of both model helicopters, developed service
information for the SAIB ultrasonic inspections, which we would require
in this proposed AD. Due to the rapid growth rate, an effective eddy
current inspection must detect an inward-growing crack of no more than
0.10 inch. This proposed AD would require, for Columbia helicopters,
the eddy current inspection method specified in Columbia's service
information. Because the other TC holders have not developed service
instructions, we propose to require the eddy current inspection
procedures for all other helicopters be submitted to the Seattle or
Denver Aircraft Certification Offices for approval.
    We are also proposing to require removing the pitch housing from
service when it accumulates a total of 8,200 hours TIS. Forward pitch
housings on Model CH-47D helicopters have no life limit and the aft
pitch housing already has a life limit of 8,200 hours TIS. For Model
234 helicopters, the forward pitch housing has a life limit of 12,547
hours TIS and the aft pitch housing has a life limit of 19,077 hours
TIS. This proposed AD would establish or reduce these life limits to
8,200 hours TIS for both forward and aft pitch housings, regardless of
the model helicopter.
    The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to detect
and prevent a crack in a pitch housing lug. This condition could result
in loss of a rotor blade and consequent loss of helicopter control.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075-62-0001, Revision 1,
dated September 27, 2011, which specifies updated life limits for the
forward and aft pitch housings and revised overhaul and ultrasonic
inspection procedures for various military Model CH-47 and 234
helicopters.
    We also reviewed Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Alert Service Bulletin
No. 234-62-A0012, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, for Model 234
helicopters; and Alert Service Bulletin No. 47D-62-A0002, Revision 0,
dated March 1, 2016, for Model CH-47D helicopters. This service
information specifies procedures for performing repetitive eddy current
inspections, visual inspections, and ultrasonic inspections and for
reducing the life limit of the pitch housing assemblies.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:
    Before further flight, removing from service any pitch housing P/N
145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15,
145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, and 234R2075-2 that has accumulated 8,200
hours total time-in-service (TIS).
    Before the pitch housing accumulates 200 hours TIS after the
effective date of this proposed AD and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 200 hours TIS, ultrasonic inspecting the pitch housing for a
crack and replacing any cracked pitch housing. Within 400 hours TIS or
before the pitch housing accumulates 4,000 hours total TIS, whichever
occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS,
eddy current inspecting the pitch housing for a crack and replacing any
cracked pitch housing.
    For Columbia helicopters, this eddy current inspection would be
performed in accordance with the Columbia service information. For all
other helicopters, this proposed AD would require that the method for
the eddy current inspection be approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or Manager, Denver ACO.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information provides different life limits for the
forward and aft pitch housings, while this proposed AD would require a
life limit of 8,200 hours TIS for all pitch housings. The service
information requires either an ultrasonic inspection or a dye penetrant
inspection as part of the overhaul procedures. The service information
specifies different compliance times for the inspections than what
would be required by this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 15 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 per work-hour.
Based on

these estimates, we expect the following costs:
     An eddy current inspection would require 4 work-hours for
a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, per
inspection cycle.
     An ultrasonic inspection would require 4 work-hours for a
total cost of $340 per helicopter and $5,100 for the U.S. fleet, per
inspection cycle.
     Replacing a pitch housing would require 8 work-hours and
parts would cost $13,000, for a total cost of $13,680 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this proposed AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Various Model 234 and Model CH-47D Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2015-
4007; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-64-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters,
regardless of type certificate holder, with a pitch housing assembly
(pitch housing) part number (P/N) 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12,
145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15, 145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, or
234R2075-2 installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a pitch
housing lug. This condition could result in loss of a rotor blade
and consequent loss of helicopter control.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 15, 2017.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, remove from service any pitch housing
P/N 145R2075-11, 145R2075-12, 145R2075-13, 145R2075-14, 145R2075-15,
145R2075-16, 234R2075-1, and 234R2075-2 that has accumulated 8,200
hours total time-in-service (TIS).
    (2) Before the pitch housing accumulates 200 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
200 hours TIS, ultrasonic inspect the pitch housing for a crack in
accordance with Attachment 1, paragraphs F and H through K, of
Boeing Service Bulletin 145R2075-62-0001, Revision 1, dated
September 27, 2011. If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing
before further flight.
    (3) Within 400 hours TIS or before the pitch housing has
accumulated 4,000 hours total TIS, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS:
    (i) For Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Model 234 and CH-47D
helicopters, eddy current inspect the pitch housing for a crack by
following paragraphs 3.C.(1) and 3.C.(2) of Columbia Helicopters,
Inc., Alert Service Bulletin No. 234-62-A0012, Revision 2, dated
March 1, 2016, or Alert Service Bulletin No. 47D-62-A0002, Revision
0, dated March 1, 2016, as applicable to your model helicopter. If
there is a crack, replace the pitch housing before further flight.
    (ii) For all other helicopters, eddy current inspect the pitch
housing for a crack. If there is a crack, replace the pitch housing
before further flight. The eddy current inspection must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) or Manager, Denver ACO. For a
repair method to be approved as required by this AD, the Manager's
approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) For operators of helicopters with type certificates issued
by the Denver Aircraft Certification Office, the manager of the
Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Send your proposal to: Greg Johnson, Senior Aerospace
Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, 26805 East 68th
Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) All other AMOC requests should be sent to the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Send your proposal to:
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin SW-11-03, dated
October 22, 2010 (SAIB), which is not incorporated by reference,
contains additional information about the subject of this AD. You
may view the SAIB on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
the AD Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor
Head.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 1, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-04735 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P